Panel · Use case · Public Affairs
Coalition Position Statements.
LiveConsensus DelphiRate candidate statements for a coalition position across public affairs, patient advocacy, compliance and access policy, under a consensus rule fixed first.
Coalition Position Statements is a ready-made use case for Public Affairs. It ships under the Consensus Delphi template.
For public affairs leads building a joint position with associations and patient groups. You get each seat's rating with a reason, the statements that reached agreement under the rule, the compliance seat's view on independence and the residual disagreement.
Add it to your library to reuse from New → From template. Edit the saved copy in your library on the service form.
The decision
Which statements should a coalition of the company, an industry association and patient organizations agree to put forward on a legislative proposal?
Who rates
Each seat rates every candidate statement alone, with a reason, before it sees the others.
| Seat | What it rates from | Why it is at the table |
|---|---|---|
| Global Public Affairs Lead | Whether each statement can be put to policy makers and defended. | Public affairs practice. |
| Patient Advocacy Relations | Whether each statement serves patients and would be accepted by patient organizations. | Public statements of patient organizations. |
| Global Commercial Compliance Officer | Whether each statement, and the way it would be put, respects registration, disclosure and independence.1,2 | The registration and disclosure rules. |
| Global Access Policy Lead | Whether each statement fits the access policy the proposal touches. | The proposal and its assessment. |
What the run does
The rule is fixed first. The report states the consensus rule, for example the share of seats rating a statement as acceptable, before any rating.
Independence is rated, not assumed. The compliance seat rates whether a joint statement could be read as the company speaking through patient organizations, and the report records the rating.1,2
Residual disagreement is the value. Where seats split on an ask, the split is reported as a crux and not resolved.
Recommended length
Standard
Four disciplines each rate every statement. Standard depth gives one round with seat counts and the residual disagreement.
You can pick another length on the form. The other two stay available.
Assumptions the run makes
The run states the assumptions behind its statements and its rule, and says what each gap limits. Examples for this set:
- The coalition members have agreed to consider a joint statement.
- The candidate statements are in the form the coalition would use.
- Disclosure rules apply to every member in the same way.
Standards, guidance and sources
Frame
The decision practice behind the memo itself is on the template page.
What gets flagged
Any statement that reached consensus with fewer seats than the rule requires, any statement the compliance seat rated unsafe to put forward, and any statement drawn from the company’s own materials alone. Any term or position given without the document that states it and that document’s date.
What arrives
- The statements and the consensus rule
- Verdict and status
- Independent first pass, by seat
- Agreement by statement
- Movement after feedback
- Residual disagreement and cruxes
- What a real Delphi would add
- The consensus statement and its limits
What it will not do
The agreement is a simulation by AI specialists and not a Delphi with real experts. The consensus rule is fixed before any result, and agreement is not correctness.
It does not include association or patient participants and does not set any coalition’s position.
It is a simulation by AI specialists and not a Delphi with real experts. A small panel of three to five seats is below every panel size found in the literature, and the report says so.
It does not treat agreement as truth. Consensus is not correctness.
It does not change the rule after seeing the result.
References
- [1] European Union. Transparency Register: interest representatives who contact the EU institutions. Read. The page says the register covers interest representatives who have direct contact with the EU institutions, that registration has been de facto mandatory since 2021, and that only registered stakeholders can access the institutions’ premises to meet Members, Commissioners and officials.
- [2] OECD. Recommendation of the Council on Principles for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying. Adopted 18 February 2010 (OECD/LEGAL/0379). As summarized from search results: ten principles under four objectives (equal access, transparency, a culture of integrity, and implementation, compliance and review). The text was not read in full.
Links checked 12 October 2026
These are the sources the template drew on. None of their authors or issuers has reviewed it.
About the Panel service
Each panelist answers in their own voice, then the discussion is drawn together. You get the question and who was in the room, every position in full, what they agreed on, where they split, and what follows. Disagreements are written down rather than smoothed into a consensus nobody actually holds, because the split is usually the part you needed.
To edit a saved template, open New → Panel → From template, or the library rail on the service form.