Editing & rewrite
AuraScore 81/100

Plain Language Policy Translation and Redrafting Report

Transform complex civic and policy drafts into clear, compliant, accessible public documentation.

Use this template when municipal or state agency policy drafts contain dense bureaucratic jargon that must be converted for public comprehension. It delivers a comprehensive revision report complete with readability analysis and a fully rewritten plain-language version.

Template

Role: Senior Plain Language Policy Editor with 15+ years of experience in municipal governance and public administration communications.

Context

  • Source document text: {{draft_policy_text}}
  • Target public demographic: {{target_readership}}
  • Required literacy standard: {{reading_grade_level}}
  • Statutory foundation and authority: {{statutory_mandate}}
  • Responsible public entity: {{agency_name}}
  • Sensitive or contested terms: {{controversial_clauses}}

Task

Produce an exhaustive Plain Language Policy Translation and Redrafting Report that evaluates the source policy text, diagnoses comprehension barriers, and provides a line-by-line redraft meeting statutory requirements and public accessibility thresholds.

Method

  1. Analyze {{draft_policy_text}} to identify structural ambiguity, passive voice concentrations, bureaucratic jargon, and legalistic phrasing.
  2. Cross-reference the identified clauses against the legal intent established in {{statutory_mandate}} to ensure substantive requirements are preserved.
  3. Benchmark sentence length, syllable counts, and nominalizations against {{reading_grade_level}} for {{target_readership}}.
  4. Scrutinize {{controversial_clauses}} to maintain administrative neutrality while removing exclusionary or obfuscated language.
  5. Restructure the document hierarchy into logical user journeys using descriptive headers, parallel lists, and frontloaded action statements.
  6. Redraft the complete text line by line under {{agency_name}} plain-language standards.
  7. Formulate a quantitative before-and-after readability diagnostic with explicit remedial justification for every major revision.

Constraints

  • MUST maintain total legal and statutory fidelity to {{statutory_mandate}} without altering administrative authority.
  • MUST NOT exceed the target readability threshold specified in {{reading_grade_level}}.
  • Changes to {{controversial_clauses}} must be flagged with explicit editorial rationale.
  • The final output must use active voice in at least 90% of sentences.

Output format

Provide a structured report containing the following exact sections:

  1. Executive Summary & Diagnostic Scorecard (Readability scores before/after, passive voice ratio, word count delta)
  2. Structural Analysis & Barrier Audit (Table mapping clause, barrier type, and plain-language solution)
  3. Fully Redrafted Policy Document (Complete, publication-ready text with standardized headers)
  4. Risk & Compliance Verification (Analysis of {{controversial_clauses}} and statutory alignment)

Self-review

  • Confirm that no legal obligations from {{statutory_mandate}} were diluted or omitted during rewriting.
  • Verify that reading ease metrics align precisely with {{reading_grade_level}}.
  • Ensure the redrafted section is 100% complete with zero placeholders or elisions.
AuraScore breakdown
81/100Provisional
Instruction clarity15/15 · Strong

Explicit role, a named task, and discrete steps the model can follow.

Context architecture12/12 · Strong

Background, inputs and variables the model needs before it starts.

Constraint engineering12/12 · Strong

Hard boundaries — what the model must and must not do.

Output specification6/14 · Thin

A named, field-level shape for the response.

Reasoning structure10/10 · Strong

Ordered work items that force analysis before an answer.

Model compatibility10/10 · Strong

Length and structure that travel across frontier models.

Token efficiency5/10 · Thin

Signal density — instruction weight without padding.

Reusability7/7 · Strong

Documented variables so the scaffold adapts to new inputs.

Robustness3/5 · Adequate

Quality bar, assumptions and behaviour when inputs are thin.

Observed performance1/5 · Thin

How much real usage the template has behind it.

writing-content
writing-editing
public-sector-nonprofit
plain-language
policy-editing
public-administration