Score policies against a self-correction framework.
Most policy evaluation asks: 'Is this policy good?' That's the wrong question. The right question is: 'When this policy fails — and all policies eventually fail in some way — will we be able to detect the failure and correct course?' Policies without self-correction mechanisms become entrenched even when they stop working.
Evaluates self-correction capacity — does the policy include feedback mechanisms? Sunset clauses? Measurable outcomes? Escalation paths when metrics go wrong?
Scores against a framework — not subjective opinion. A structured evaluation against specific criteria for resilience, adaptability, and accountability.
Identifies leverage points — where small changes to a policy would have the largest effect on outcomes. Not everything is equally important — the system shows where to focus.
Compares across policies — benchmark a proposed policy against existing ones. See how similar approaches have performed in other jurisdictions.
Register a policy for analysis
Name, jurisdiction, domain, and summary. Works with any policy — federal regulation, state law, agency directive, or internal procedure.
Score against 6 self-correction criteria
Each criterion (feedback mechanisms, sunset clauses, measurable outcomes, review triggers, adaptation pathways, stakeholder input) is scored 0-100. The weighted average produces a resilience score.
Identify gaps and leverage points
The system highlights which criteria are weakest and recommends where small changes would have the biggest impact — based on systems thinking research.
Compare across jurisdictions
How does your state's energy policy score vs. California's? Side-by-side comparison shows strengths and weaknesses relative to peers.
This is what Policy Analyzer actually produces. Real format, sample data.
Policy: Clean Energy Standard 2025
Jurisdiction: Colorado | Domain: Energy/Environment
Self-Correction Score: 82/100 (STRONG)
Criteria Breakdown:
Feedback mechanisms ........... 90/100 (weight: 25%)
✓ Annual emissions reporting to PUC
✓ Utility compliance dashboards (public)
✓ Independent verification by state auditor
Measurable outcomes ........... 95/100 (weight: 20%)
✓ 80% renewable by 2030 (quantified)
✓ Rate impact cap: <2% annual increase
✓ Job transition metrics tracked quarterly
Review triggers ............... 85/100 (weight: 20%)
✓ Auto-review if rates exceed cap
✓ Auto-review if grid reliability drops below 99.9%
~ No trigger for technology cost changes
Sunset / renewal .............. 70/100 (weight: 15%)
✓ 5-year legislative review required
~ No automatic sunset — requires active renewal vote
Adaptation pathways ........... 75/100 (weight: 10%)
✓ PUC can adjust timeline by ±2 years
~ No pathway for adding new energy sources mid-cycle
Stakeholder input ............. 80/100 (weight: 10%)
✓ Public comment period (90 days)
✓ Tribal consultation requirement
~ Industry input limited to formal proceedings
Leverage points (highest impact changes):
1. Add technology cost trigger → +6 points
2. Add mid-cycle energy source pathway → +4 points
3. Add automatic sunset clause → +3 points
Comparison: CO scores 82 vs national median 54Legislative research offices, regulatory agencies, policy think tanks, state innovation labs — anyone designing, evaluating, or reforming policy who wants to build in the ability to course-correct.
90 minutes. Your real data. I show you what Policy Analyzerfinds that you didn't know you were missing.
4-6 weeks on one specific problem. Fixed scope, fixed fee. You see results before you commit to anything larger.
Deploy on your infrastructure. Your data stays yours. Cancel anytime — I earn renewal through value, not lock-in.
Bring a real problem. I'll analyze it live — and tell you honestly whether this tool solves it.
Request a Demo