Contribution to the handbook
Supporting · Assessed 2026-10-27
The self-reports add useful qualification for evaluating deliberative processes: participants reported no change in most rounds, and their account of their current view did not always match the final group opinion. This is relevant background, but the packet does not connect the reports to a governance mechanism or establish causes or lasting effects (s-habermas-machine-35e4f98e75e576c6).
Does this challenge the goal?
None identified
This asks about participants’ self-reported views, without contesting the handbook’s goal, beneficiary boundary, assumptions, or deliverable. The definition already allows inquiry into how citizen deliberation works and how its effects should be evaluated.
The self-reports describe participants’ accounts, not why views changed or whether any change lasted (s-habermas-machine-35e4f98e75e576c6).
Why this category?
- Useful background on citizens’ reported experience
- Qualifies interpretation of deliberation outcomes
The evidence is an AI interpretation of one shared source root, not independent evidence; it does not establish causes, durability, or implications for public decision-making.
This is an AI assessment of contribution to the goal, separate from whether the question has an answer.
Authority, accountability and resilience →
Tests, stop conditions and unresolved work →
Read the exploration goalNew evidence is being assessed. Any answer below is provisional; parts whose evidence changed or was withdrawn are withheld.
Report participants’ accounts of whether and how their views moved, and whether they identified with their original view or the final group opinion, as self-reports rather than inferred causes.
What we can say so far
Participants’ post-discussion reports said their views moved closer to the group opinion in about 30% of rounds, moved in another way in 4.6%, and did not change in 60.3%. Asked which perspective they currently held, they chose the final group opinion in 66.6% of rounds and their original opinion in 33.3%. These are participants’ self-reports, not explanations of why views changed.
What remains open
No material gap is recorded within this part’s current scope.
Conditions and limits
- The percentages describe reports after discussion rounds.
- The reports do not establish why participants selected the group opinion or how lasting any change was.
Evidence and related ideas
Supporting evidence, qualifications and context play different roles in this answer.
supports
Participants reported some movement In reports after discussion rounds, participants said their views moved closer to the group opinion in about 30% of rounds. They said their views moved in some other way in 4.6% of rounds, and reported no change in 60.3%. For their current perspective, they chose the final group opinion in 66.6% of rounds and their original opinion in 33.3%.
Provides the reported movement and current-perspective figures, with limits on what those self-reports establish.
AI can help humans find common ground in democratic deliberation
Read full source: AI can help humans find common ground in democratic deliberation (opens in a new tab) ↗Read source discussion: AI can help humans find common ground in democratic deliberation →