Question and responses
Participants could choose Agree, Disagree or Pass on 20 Barayamal-supplied policy statements and could propose one concise statement at a time.
Results from a small technical pilot—not community consensus.
Barayamal is publishing the counts, setup baseline and limitations so the prototype can be assessed honestly. The evidence supports operational findings only.
Published 11 August 2026, after the planned 7 August publication date. The scheduled round ended 31 July; administrative closure was completed 1 August.
Participation and moderation
Provider-reported totals
The “above baseline” column subtracts only Barayamal’s documented setup activity. It does not identify a person or prove eligibility.
| Measure | Provider total | Above baseline |
|---|---|---|
| Participant records | 2 | +1 |
| Recorded votes | 41 | +21 |
| Statements/comments submitted | 21 | +1 |
| Moderated in | 20 | +0 |
| Moderated out | 1 | Not baseline-adjusted |
Method
How the pilot worked
Moderation
Participant suggestions remained hidden until reviewed. Twenty starter statements were accepted before opening; the one additional submission was not accepted.
Invitation method
No participant invitation was sent through the controlled Barayamal workflow. The hosted participant route was public and forwardable.
Separate registration
Registration information was not linked to Pol.is votes or statements. Named participation, identity and eligibility cannot be inferred.
Verified findings
The evidence supports four operational findings.
- The hosted conversation recorded voting activity and one additional statement while moderation remained enabled.
- The totals were one participant record and 21 votes above the administrative baseline, but those changes cannot be linked to a registered person.
- No policy-priority, consensus, disagreement or population conclusion should be drawn from this round.
- A future genuine-participant round should proceed only after its separate eligibility, invitation, revocation, privacy and deletion controls pass disposable testing.
Limitations
What the evidence cannot prove
- Participation was voluntary and self-selecting.
- This was not an election, referendum, representative survey, national consultation or First Nations mandate.
- Two participant records are too few for reliable community, demographic, policy or Pol.is opinion-group conclusions.
- The public hosted route did not guarantee First Nations-only access, one response identity per person or a link between registration and participation.
- The additional participant record and 21 additional votes must not be assumed to belong to the same person.
Barayamal response
Close the pilot, learn from it, and keep the next gate fail-closed.
Barayamal will retain only the reviewed aggregate record. Before any later round, it will assess access and trust barriers and require the proposed participant pathway to pass technical, privacy and cultural safety review. This note records no government commitment.