Sponsor or critique one

If you are a legislator or staff

Take it. All of it, or three sections of it, or one definition out of it. There is no attribution requirement, no licence to negotiate, and no need to tell us first. The library exists so that somebody files this language, and a bill that passes under somebody else's name is the outcome the movement wants.

What we ask, and cannot require: if a section is dropped, we would like to know which root cause went unclosed, so the coverage matrix stays honest.

If you are a citizen

The most useful critique is mechanical, not rhetorical. The questions worth asking of any section:

• Does the exemption swallow the rule?
• Is there a clock, and does missing it cost anybody anything?
• Does enforcement route back through the body being regulated?
• Who checks, and are they outside the thing being checked?
• Which root cause does this actually close — and does the coverage claim match?

File that as feedback on the specific section. It goes to the same review queue as everything else, and a decline comes back with a reason you can read.

If you are named in one

Some drafts name living people, because the source text named them. That is a proposal about a role, not a claim about you, and you have a correction channel. File it. Your submission is flagged as self-interested and it is not refused — a correction from the subject is exactly the correction the movement wants most.