These reforms restore judgement by design: they do not reject automation but reconfigure it so that systems augment, not displace, civic responsibility.
Conclusion: The pattern is clear and actionable: automation amplifies what we value and erases what we do not. Restoring civic judgement requires institutional design choices, not technical fixes—narrative inputs, named human sign‑off, transparent provenance, ethnographic audits and protected time and funding for discretionary work.
Pilot these measures across services, track outcomes that matter to people, and scale only when they demonstrably reduce harm and restore trust.
Accepting automation without these safeguards is a decision to trade judgement for efficiency; changing that decision is the civic work this publication seeks to document and enable.
