# Participation Readiness Worksheet

**Version:** 3.0.6  
**Last reviewed UTC:** 2026-06-20T00:41:09Z  
**Maturity:** Reviewed  
**Intended user:** Decision owner, community facilitator, public-interest reviewer, AI governance reviewer, or system operator deciding whether a participation process is ready to begin.

## Purpose

Use this worksheet before inviting participation. It asks whether a real decision is open, which influence level applies, who is affected, which access barriers and burdens exist, how dissent will be preserved, who must respond, and what correction, refusal, withdrawal, or exit path remains.

A readiness finding is not certification. `ready_for_bounded_participation` means only that the documented process has enough declared structure to begin within its stated limits. `no_op_do_not_invite_yet` is the appropriate result when the decision is already fixed, access cannot be supported, retaliation risk is unresolved, or no accountable response path exists.

## Editable worksheet

```json
{
  "schema_version": "3.0.6",
  "id": "[worksheet id]",
  "version": "3.0.6",
  "last_reviewed_utc": "2026-06-20T00:41:09Z",
  "artifact_maturity": "reviewed",
  "process_title": "[process title]",
  "decision_scope": "[what can actually change]",
  "decision_is_open": true,
  "open_levers": ["[objective, rule, dataset, threshold, deployment condition, remedy, or other lever]"],
  "fixed_constraints": ["[constraint disclosed before participation]"],
  "influence_level": "[information|consultation|deliberation|co_decision|delegated_or_binding]",
  "decision_owner": "[accountable owner]",
  "affected_groups": [
    {
      "group_label": "[non-identifying group label]",
      "effect_or_missing_knowledge": "[how the decision affects this group or what knowledge may be missing]",
      "access_or_outreach_plan": "[safe, bounded plan]",
      "known_gap": "[known limitation without claiming representation]"
    }
  ],
  "access_and_burden_review": {
    "disability_access": "[supports and gaps]",
    "language": "[supports and gaps]",
    "connectivity": "[supports and gaps]",
    "scheduling": "[supports and gaps]",
    "care_burdens": "[supports and gaps]",
    "technical_literacy": "[supports and gaps]",
    "compensation": "[support or disclosed limitation]",
    "privacy": "[attribution and data-minimization options]",
    "retaliation_risk": "[risk and safeguard]",
    "alternative_channels": "[lower-exposure or offline options]"
  },
  "dissent_preservation_plan": "[how disagreement will remain visible without exposing unnecessary identity]",
  "response_commitment": {
    "response_owner": "[owner]",
    "response_timing": "[published time window]",
    "disposition_format": "[ledger, decision notice, public response, or other trace]"
  },
  "correction_refusal_withdrawal_or_exit_path": "[path]",
  "readiness_findings": [
    {
      "status": "[ready|needs_work|no_op]",
      "finding": "[finding]",
      "required_action": "[repair before invitation or follow-up]"
    }
  ],
  "overall_readiness": "[ready_for_bounded_participation|needs_repair_before_invitation|no_op_do_not_invite_yet]",
  "no_op_reason": "[required when participation should not begin]",
  "source_domain": "[source domain]",
  "claim_boundary_note": "VNWO provides a static documentation pattern. It does not recruit participants, collect submissions, verify identity or representation, validate consent, certify fairness, democracy, accessibility, legal sufficiency, or implementation quality, and it does not guarantee that an institution acts on input."
}
```

## Readiness questions

1. Is there at least one consequential lever that can still change?
2. Is the influence level named honestly?
3. Is a decision owner accountable for dispositions and implementation response?
4. Are affected groups and known gaps described without claiming complete representation?
5. Are disability, language, connectivity, scheduling, care, technical-literacy, privacy, compensation, and retaliation burdens addressed?
6. Can material dissent remain visible without unnecessary identity exposure?
7. Is there a reasoned response commitment for every in-scope contribution?
8. Can people correct the record, refuse, withdraw, fork, or exit without retaliation?
9. Is no-op available if the process is not ready?

## Related files

- Human guidance: `https://vnwo.com/participation/`
- Schema: `https://vnwo.com/schemas/participation-readiness-worksheet.schema.json`
- Fictional example: `https://vnwo.com/examples/participation-readiness-community-rule-change.json`
- Access and burden record: `https://vnwo.com/downloads/participation-access-burden-record.md`
- Claim boundaries: `https://vnwo.com/claim-boundaries/`

## Source-routing note

Name the implementing organization and source domain for every imported rule, standard, or decision. Use no-op or human review when authority, evidence, participation scope, or representation claims are ambiguous.

## Claim boundary

VNWO provides a static documentation pattern. It does not recruit participants, collect submissions, verify identity or representation, validate consent, certify fairness, democracy, accessibility, legal sufficiency, or implementation quality, and it does not guarantee that an institution acts on input.