Entry Criteria
- Accepted problem brief from Layer 1
- Constitutional rule map and legal constraints
- Operational constraints (staffing, enforcement, systems)
Layer 2 — Policy Design Foundry
Is the policy design explicit enough to test, compare, and implement?
Gate Profile
Institution: Cross-Disciplinary Design Cells
Mandate: Converts problems into standardized policy articles with mechanisms, eligibility, enforcement, and counterpoints.
In plain terms: This is where ideas become blueprints that can be audited and compared.
Why this gate exists: It forces clarity and non-contradiction before politics turns into slogan battles.
Exit Criteria
- Complete article template with all required sections
- Counterpoint record (left, right, center) attached
- Pilot-ready specification handed to Layer 3 and 4
Primary Outputs
- Standardized policy article
- Implementation mechanism and eligibility rules
- Declared failure modes and mitigation plan
Failure Triggers and Escalation
- Missing financing or incentive logic
- Unspecified enforcement responsibilities
- Counterpoint process skipped or incomplete
Escalation rule: If design is incomplete, proposal loops to problem definition or counterpoint review before finance validation.
Bodies Operating in This Gate
Policy Design Cells
Members: Policy Architects
Lead title: Design Convener
Purpose: Transforms problems into standardized policy articles with explicit mechanisms.
Counterpoint Council
Members: Triangulation Reviewers
Lead title: Counterpoint Chair
Purpose: Forces left, right, and center critique before policy can advance.
For full selection mechanics, see Bodies and Titles.
Constitutional Rationale
Protects truth-seeking governance by requiring structured, falsifiable policy design before adoption.
Gate Navigation
Back to Deployment Gates overview