A transparent nonprofit engagement workspace that helps members understand dockets, draft source-linked comments from their own views, review disclosures, and submit through supported public channels.
Genesis score0.00/10
Make Comminion real.0/500
500 more votes and Comminion is authorized for build.
0%500 to authorize
Backing is the vote. When an idea crosses 500, we pull it into the build pipeline and ship it for real — the votes decide what gets built next, not an editor.
The case
A public federal docket interface, a direct civic-engagement product, and enterprise policy platforms validate the category, while no white-label nonprofit member workflow was found. Comminion must reject astroturfing: official docket, source summary, organization position, member view, draft candidate, citation, member edit, final approval, identity step, submission command, agency acknowledgement, public posting, correction, and policy outcome remain separate.
Who pays — and why
An advocacy, membership, patient, conservation, faith, consumer, professional, or cause nonprofit with counsel and a real member base participating in federal or state rulemaking. Exact organization size, docket volume, budget, tax status, coalition role, and current mobilization stack remain incomplete.
Market signalIdentity verification services were observed at $0.05–$1.50 per verification, while enterprise policy-intelligence tools were reported at $10,000–$50,000 per year. Neither prices the proposed nonprofit workflow.Observed market reference, not fixed product pricing
What it unlocks
A versioned docket record with official source, jurisdiction, agency, rule stage, deadline, questions, instructions, comment rights, public-disclosure warning, changes, and qualified interpretation
Source-linked plain-language summaries that distinguish official text, cited evidence, organization position, generated explanation, uncertainty, and legal questions
Member-authored comment candidates built from explicit prompts and views, with citations, factual checks, duplication warning, disclosure, edit history, final preview, consent, and independent submission choice
Separate identity or spam control, submission authorization, command, public-interface acknowledgement, agency receipt or posting, rejection, correction, withdrawal where allowed, public disclosure, and policy outcome
How Genesis scored it
0.00across seven criteria
8
Temporal window
A recent civic-engagement launch and active rulemaking interfaces create a strong current signal.
8
Asymmetric leverage
Docket ingestion, summaries, citations, and member workflows are reusable, while legal review and state submission differences remain material.
4
Why nobody did it
A public interface and civic product exist, but the original record did not verify the interfaces and no newly broken barrier is established.
Why it scored well
A live direct civic-engagement product, a confirmed public submission interface, and a missing white-label nonprofit workflow create a timely and reusable mobilization opportunity.
What's holding it back
The stored score is zero. The buyer is incomplete, both original interfaces were unverified at scoring time, a direct competitor is live, state dockets vary, and authenticity, lobbying, charity rules, identity, privacy, public disclosure, citation quality, mass submission, and legal review are substantial.
Signals detected3 sources crossed
SignalRegulations.gov interface review
SignalCommentari product review
SignalGenesis competitive review
Direction briefcomminion.md
comminion.md
Want this pointed at your vertical?Point Genesis at your own market and constraints — it invents adjacent, fork-ready ideas, private to you before they hit the public feed.
