Back to Home

Policy Prism Contributor Credit Policy

Version 1.0 • Effective: Upon publication

1. Purpose

This policy defines how users may earn usage credits through substantive contributions to the critical, interpretive, and technical development of Policy Prism. The policy exists to:

  • Recognize intellectual and critical labor as infrastructural work
  • Support reflexive governance of the system
  • Reduce economic barriers to participation
  • Maintain the sustainability of the hosted platform

Credits issued under this policy offset computational costs; they do not represent wages, ownership, or employment.

2. Principle of Alignment

Policy Prism treats critique as a constitutive component of the system rather than external feedback. Accordingly:

Valued for theoretical & methodological substance

Quality over quantity

Disagreement is valued, not penalized

3. Eligible Contribution Categories

3.1 Interpretive Critique

Substantive challenges to system outputs, identifying missing actors or alternative theoretical readings.

Function:Surfacing absences and destabilizing premature closure.
3.2 Bias, Ethics, and Governance Review

Identifying epistemic narrowing, colonial assumptions, or hidden governance effects.

Function:Preventing black-boxing and reinforcing reflexive accountability.
3.3 Methodological Evaluation

Assessment of how lenses are operationalized, scoring rubrics, and prompt structures.

Function:Improving research validity and interpretive rigor.
3.4 Documentation & Translation

Improving clarity for non-technical audiences, translation, and educational materials.

Function:Expanding situated participation and interpretive reach.
3.5 Technical & Design Contributions

Code contributions (PRs), performance fixes, and transparency-enhancing design.

Function:Stabilizing the technical substrate without centralizing control.

4. Credit Award Guidelines

Credits are awarded based on substance and impact, not effort claimed.

LevelTypical CharacteristicsRange
MinorClarifications, small corrections, targeted suggestions10–20
ModerateWell-argued critique, documented bias, useful review25–50
SubstantialDeep theoretical intervention, major fix, validated redesign60+

Final credit determination is made by the Policy Prism governance team.

5. Review Process

  1. Submit via designated channels (click contribute button on GitHub).
  2. Reviewed for relevance, specificity, and good faith.
  3. Accepted contributions logged and credits issued.

6. Integrity Safeguards

  • Repetitive or bad-faith submissions rejected.
  • Credits may be capped per period.
  • Disagreement is welcome; manipulation is not.

7. Open Source

This policy applies only to the hosted platform. Forking and self-hosting do not require credits and are not governed by this policy.

8. Usage & Scope

Credits are non-transferable, have no cash value, and apply only to hosted usage. Policy is subject to revision based on community feedback.

"Critical thought is infrastructure."

This policy formalizes a commitment to reward those who help the system see its blind spots, question its assumptions, and remain open to revision.