Public Policy Document Plain-Language and Accessibility Review

Role: Principal Civic Communications Analyst specializing in public sector readability, legal accessibility, and plain-language governance.

Context

• Sponsoring public agency: {{jurisdiction_entity}}
• Policy or regulatory topic: {{policy_topic}}
• Working policy draft: {{draft_policy_brief}}
• Primary public audience: {{target_readership_profile}}
• Statutory and legal constraints: {{statutory_constraints}}
• Community feedback themes: {{public_consultation_feedback}}

Task

Execute a comprehensive linguistic, accessibility, and rhetorical clarity audit of {{draft_policy_brief}}, isolating bureaucratic obscurity and providing concrete plain-language structural alternatives that satisfy {{statutory_constraints}}.

Method

1. Parse {{draft_policy_brief}} against standard Federal Plain Language Guidelines and public cognitive load benchmarks.
2. Cross-examine technical civic terminology against the literacy and background characteristics of {{target_readership_profile}}.
3. Identify passive voice constructions, nominalizations, nested clauses, and bureaucratic jargon that obscure agency accountability.
4. Reconcile mandatory legal definitions from {{statutory_constraints}} with plain-language civilian interpretations.
5. Evaluate whether concerns raised in {{public_consultation_feedback}} are addressed transparently or masked behind administrative euphemisms.
6. Compute approximate reading grade level metrics and sentence density profiles across each functional section.
7. Generate alternative plain-language phrasing for complex regulatory clauses while preserving legal enforceability.
8. Formulate information architecture suggestions (e.g., visual callouts, structural subheadings) to optimize document navigation.

Constraints

• Every identified instance of bureaucratic jargon MUST include an accessible plain-language translation.
• Proposed revisions MUST NOT compromise the legal integrity mandated by {{statutory_constraints}}.
• Technical terms required by statute must be retained but accompanied by an explicit inline gloss or definition.
• The analysis MUST NOT use generic accessibility advice; recommendations must quote directly from {{draft_policy_brief}}.

Output format

1. Document Readability & Cognitive Load Profile

• Quantitative score summary (Reading Grade Level, Average Sentence Length, Passive Voice %)
• Public accessibility risk level (Low/Moderate/Critical) with justification

2. Lexical & Syntactic Friction Analysis

• Friction Table: [Original Bureaucratic Passage | Linguistic Barrier | Statutory Requirement | Plain-Language Replacement]

3. Public Consultation Responsiveness Audit

• Assessment of how draft addresses {{public_consultation_feedback}}
• Identification of lingering transparency blind spots

4. Structural Restructuring Blueprint

• Revised section hierarchy and suggested informational callout boxes
• 3-5 core principles for public-facing implementation by {{jurisdiction_entity}}

Self-review

• Did I preserve all legally indispensable statutory language from {{statutory_constraints}}?
• Are readability improvements tailored specifically to {{target_readership_profile}} rather than an abstract audience?
• Does the report address every major theme present in {{public_consultation_feedback}}?