My concern in that regard has to do with the “What We Heard” reports. As a credit to the government, they put out all the expert reports and put out all the data in raw form—the 10,000 or so responses they got. They used AI to then assess the outcomes they got.
Once you start digging into what they got, the points of emphasis in these “What We Heard” reports make them feel more like “what we want you to think we heard” reports. There are points of emphasis that I don't think reflect well what the experts were primarily concerned about, nor, frankly, the public. That's not to say they weren't highlighting important issues. I think they were, but if we're going to have confidence in these consultations, you need something more than a 30-day sprint. You need something that can ensure well-considered participation.
When you get that data, it ought to best reflect what you actually heard, as opposed to framing it in some of the more conventional policy-speak that I thought we saw in those reports.