Panel · Use case · Public Affairs

Federal and State Divergence.

LiveDivergence Review

Map where federal agencies, Congress and the named states will disagree on a policy that affects a product class, why they split and what would settle it.

QuestionWhere federal agencies, Congress and states will disagree

DisciplinesGovernment affairs, access policy, HEOR, market access

ReaderGovernment affairs leads

Not askedA single position

DepthStandard, four seats

Federal and State Divergence is a ready-made use case for Public Affairs. It ships under the Divergence Review template.

For government affairs leads writing a position. You get each seat's answer to the same question, where the positions diverge, whether each split is evidence, assumption or value, the cruxes and what would settle it. Claims are cited or marked as gaps.

Add it to your library to reuse from New → From template. Edit the saved copy in your library on the service form.

The decision

Where will federal agencies, Congress and the states genuinely disagree on a policy that affects our product class, and why?

Who is at the table

Each seat answers the same question from its own discipline. The report maps where they diverge and does not force agreement.

Seat	What it is asked	What it works from
Global Government Affairs Director	Where Congress, the agency and the named states will split on the policy.^{1Congressional Research Service. Introduction to the Legislative Process in the U.S. Congress (R42843). First published 30 November 2012; last updated 19 November 2025.,2Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. Rulemaking (Wex): notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.}	Public positions in the legislative process and in the rulemaking record.
Global Access Policy Lead	Which parts of the policy change access, and for whom.	The bill or notice and its stated purpose.
HEOR Evidence Lead	What the evidence can and cannot show about the effect.	Published evidence.
Global Market Access Director	How payers in the named states would read the policy.	Published payer policies.

What the review does

The map is the product. A position that assumes federal and state agreement fails in the room. The report shows where Congress, the agency and the states are likely to split and which seat expects it.

Typed disagreement. A split over how much evidence is enough is about evidence. A split over a timeline is often about assumption. A split over how to weigh access against budget is about value. The report labels each and says which kind more data could settle.

The process shapes where splits show. A bill passes through committee and each chamber and may need its differences resolved between them, and a rule passes through notice and comment, so a split can appear at several points. The path of a bill is rarely predictable.^{1Congressional Research Service. Introduction to the Legislative Process in the U.S. Congress (R42843). First published 30 November 2012; last updated 19 November 2025.,2Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. Rulemaking (Wex): notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.}

Recommended length

Standard

Four disciplines will read this policy differently. Standard depth types each divergence as evidence, assumption or value.

You can pick another length on the form. The other two stay available.

Assumptions the review checks

The review states the assumptions each position relies on, and says what each gap limits. Examples for this question:

Public positions have not moved since they were published.
The text the seats read is the version before Congress or the agency.
States without a public position are marked as a gap.

Standards, guidance and sources

Frame

Congressional Research Service, Introduction to the Legislative Process in the U.S. Congress (R42843).^{1Congressional Research Service. Introduction to the Legislative Process in the U.S. Congress (R42843). First published 30 November 2012; last updated 19 November 2025.}
Notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.^{2Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. Rulemaking (Wex): notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.}

The decision practice behind the memo itself is on the template page.

What gets flagged

Any prediction about a state or committee that rests on one precedent, any point where all four seats agree, and any named state no seat addressed. Any term or position given without the document that states it and that document’s date.

What arrives

The question as put
The shape of the disagreement
Each position, in its own terms
Where they diverge
Why they diverge: evidence, assumption or value
The cruxes
What would settle it

What it will not do

It does not force a consensus, and it is a deliberation of AI specialists and not a vote of human experts. The decision stays with you.

It does not write the position paper or predict a vote or a final rule.

It does not force a consensus. A report that closes every gap would be the wrong output.

It is not a vote of human experts. Every seat is an AI specialist, and the report says so.

It does not name a winner. It says what would settle the question and leaves the decision to you.

References

[1] Congressional Research Service. Introduction to the Legislative Process in the U.S. Congress (R42843). First published 30 November 2012; last updated 19 November 2025. Read. The report describes introduction and referral, committee consideration (hearings and markups), floor scheduling and consideration in each chamber, resolving differences between the chambers, and presidential action. It says the process by which a bill becomes law is rarely predictable and can vary significantly from bill to bill.
[2] Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. Rulemaking (Wex): notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. Read. The page describes a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, written comments often submitted through the public docket on Regulations.gov, and a final rule with a statement of its basis and purpose; a substantive rule usually takes effect at least 30 days after publication, with statutory exceptions.

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.