Panel · Use case · Public Affairs

Policy Issue Priorities.

LivePrioritisation Panel

Rank the policy issues on your agenda for engagement, with criteria fixed first, the stage of each issue recorded and the cut line tested for sensitivity.

ItemsThe policy issues on the agenda

SeatsPublic affairs, access policy, regulatory, brand

ReaderPublic affairs leads

Not askedAn engagement plan

DepthStandard, four seats

Policy Issue Priorities is a ready-made use case for Public Affairs. It ships under the Prioritisation Panel template.

For public affairs leads deciding where to spend effort. You get each seat's ranking, the aggregated list with a cut line, where the seats disagree and how stable the line is. The stage of each issue comes from the procedure page or is marked as a gap.

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

The decision

Of these policy issues on our agenda, which should the public affairs team engage on first?

Who ranks

Each seat ranks every issue alone, with the issues shown in a randomized order for each seat.

Seat	What it ranks from	Why it is at the table
Global Public Affairs Lead	Which issues the team can still shape, given the stage each has reached.^{1European Parliament. Legislative powers: the ordinary legislative procedure (Commission proposal, Parliament and Council readings, conciliation and informal trilogue negotiations).}	Public affairs practice and the procedure page.
Global Access Policy Lead	Which issues change patient access most.	The proposals and their assessments.
Regulatory Strategist	Which issues change what the authority requires of the product.	Published rules and guidance.
Global Brand Lead	Which issues bear on the product’s position with prescribers and patients.	Published positions and public statements.

What the run does

Criteria first. The criteria, their scale and their weights are fixed before any issue is ranked, for example effect on patient access and the stage of the procedure.

The stage sets the window. An issue at an early stage of the procedure can still be shaped; one at the final vote cannot. The report records each issue’s stage from the procedure page.^{1European Parliament. Legislative powers: the ordinary legislative procedure (Commission proposal, Parliament and Council readings, conciliation and informal trilogue negotiations).}

Sensitivity. The cut line is retested with patient impact weighted more and with the stage weighted more.

Recommended length

Standard

Four angles weigh the list differently. Standard depth gives each a seat, with disagreement, value against effort and sensitivity.

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

Assumptions the run makes

The run states the assumptions behind its criteria and its cut line, and says what each gap limits. Examples for this list:

The stage of each issue is as published.
The criteria weights reflect the decider’s priorities.
Issues that overlap are listed once.

Standards, guidance and sources

Frame

European Parliament, the ordinary legislative procedure.^{1European Parliament. Legislative powers: the ordinary legislative procedure (Commission proposal, Parliament and Council readings, conciliation and informal trilogue negotiations).}
The procedure page of each issue, which states the stage it has reached.^{1European Parliament. Legislative powers: the ordinary legislative procedure (Commission proposal, Parliament and Council readings, conciliation and informal trilogue negotiations).}

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

What gets flagged

Any issue ranked without a stage from the procedure, any pair of issues that overlap, and any issue on which seats split by more than half the list. Any term or position given without the document that states it and that document’s date.

What arrives

The question, criteria and items
The cut line and the top group
How each seat ranked
The aggregated ranking
Where the seats disagree
Value versus effort
Sensitivity of the cut line
Limits and what would change the ranking

What it will not do

The agreement is a simulation by AI specialists and not a panel of real experts. The criteria are fixed before ranking, and the cut line is a recommendation that the decider can move.

It does not plan the engagement. The Legislative Engagement Plan plans it.

It is a simulation by AI specialists and not a panel of real experts. Seats that share a base model are not independent confirmations of each other.

It does not compute a value-of-information analysis. That needs a decision model. It ranks by proxies and says so.

It does not set the weights for you. If none are supplied, the criteria are weighted equally and the report says so.

References

[1] European Parliament. Legislative powers: the ordinary legislative procedure (Commission proposal, Parliament and Council readings, conciliation and informal trilogue negotiations). Read, to about 100,000 characters. The Commission usually proposes; Parliament and Council adopt jointly; Parliament and the Council each have a first reading, there are second readings, and a conciliation committee follows if they do not agree; trilogues are informal negotiations between the institutions.

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.