CIVICVS
/
foundation
Template
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Restructure

This commit is contained in:
TheRON 2025-09-18 15:53:46 -04:00
parent 3b91f09eca
commit c213ea7ae3
1 changed files with 0 additions and 449 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

449
docs/samples/DailyBrew__Missouri_Supermajority_2026/Appendix_Conversation.md
View File

@ -1,449 +0,0 @@
HUMAN:
Since Ranked Choice Voting citizens have become very aware of creating bad laws. Increased complexity in the rules of the game has only one purpose: to hide manipulation. Analyze the first article titled " Missouri voters to decide on 2026 measure to create a first-of-its-kind citizen initiative supermajority requirement".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LLM:
Here’s a **CIVICVS-style stress test analysis** of the Ballotpedia article on Missouri’s proposed 2026 constitutional amendment requiring a congressional-district supermajority for citizen initiatives.
---
## Claim in the Record
Missouri voters will face a **first-of-its-kind supermajority requirement** for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments. Instead of a simple statewide majority, an amendment must win a majority in *each* of the state’s eight congressional districts.
---
## Record Integrity
* **Presence:** The record is intact. The article clearly states the proposal, legislative votes, and supporting/opposing arguments.
* **Transparency:** Sponsors (Rep. Ed Lewis, R) and opponents (Rep. Eric Woods, D) are named, with quotations recorded.
* **No gaps:** Ballotpedia provides historical context—eleven states already use supermajority thresholds, but none require district-level majorities.
---
## Civic Context
* **Structural Change:** This is not merely raising a percentage threshold; it fundamentally changes the *unit of consent*. A statewide “people’s majority” would no longer suffice.
* **Representation Consequence:** Because Missouri is currently 6–2 Republican in congressional districts, the requirement effectively gives a structural veto to the Republican majority, even if a statewide majority supports a measure.
* **Democratic Principle at Stake:** Missouri’s voters are being asked whether the “people” are measured **as one body statewide** or **as segmented bodies by congressional district**.
---
## Civic Consequences
* **Proponents’ framing:** “Broad consensus” is needed; majority in each district ensures geographic balance.
* **Opponents’ framing:** “Dilution of citizen power”; applying stricter rules to citizen initiatives than to legislature-originated amendments is unequal.
* **Likely impact:** The rule does not merely add difficulty; it adds **predictable partisan tilt** due to the map. This is a form of **structural manipulation cloaked as consensus-building**.
---
## Civic Analysis
The record reveals a pattern: **increased procedural complexity reduces citizen power**. Where ranked-choice voting adds ballot complexity but preserves one-person-one-vote, the Missouri supermajority measure shifts power away from majority rule entirely. The proposal’s novelty (district vetoes) is not neutral innovation but deliberate **rebalancing of power toward entrenched district majorities**.
Thus, the record demonstrates:
* Citizens are asked to ratify a change that narrows their own future capacity to amend the constitution.
* The stated justification (“broad consensus”) obscures the real function: to **foreclose outcomes the statewide majority might otherwise produce**.
---
✅ **Civic Consequence:** This ballot measure exemplifies the danger of rule complexity flagged in your stress test preface: the more intricate the rules, the easier to **hide manipulation behind procedural language**.
---
Do you want me to now **push this into a formatted Civic Analysis artifact** (with transcript + evidentiary schema), so it can be slotted into the CIVICVS framework as a worked example?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HUMAN:
First, lets create the source based on the format in the Foundational Templates:
*Source:*
Bernd Debusmann Jr. & Mike Wendling. *“How a teenage activist became such a close Trump ally.”*
**BBC News**, 13 September 2025.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c33r4kjez6no](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c33r4kjez6no)
(Local copy preserved in this repo as `Charlie Kirk_ How a teenage activist became such a close Trump ally.pdf`).
*Accessed 13 September 2025, 6:53 AM (UTC-5).*
The web address of this article is https://info.ballotpedia.org/dm?id=34D56BF65BDE86C99102C4F577E443A96E43630501AD63A4
What else you need from me?
LLM:
Perfect — thanks for providing the URL. To prepare a proper **CIVICVS source citation** in the same format as the Foundational Templates, I’ll need just a few details you can confirm or supply:
1. **Author(s):** Do we have a named author or is this published under “Ballotpedia Staff”?
2. **Title:** I’ll use the article’s title exactly as shown:
*“Missouri voters to decide on 2026 measure to create a first-of-its-kind citizen initiative supermajority requirement.”*
3. **Publication:** Clearly *Ballotpedia*.
4. **Date of publication:** It looks like this piece is dated **September 18, 2025**. Can you confirm if you want the publication date listed as the date of the newsletter (Sep 18, 2025) or the legislative action date (Sep 12, 2025)?
5. **Local copy reference:** Do you want me to label it something like `Ballotpedia_Missouri Supermajority 2026.pdf` in your repo?
6. **Access date/time:** The convention in your template is UTC timestamp when you accessed/downloaded it. Can you give me that, or should I record “Accessed 18 September 2025, \[time you downloaded file]”?
Once I have those, I’ll generate the final source block in the same format as your Kirk/BBC example.
Would you like me to **fill in defaults** (e.g., “Ballotpedia Staff” as author, today’s UTC access time) if some metadata is missing, or do you want to supply every field precisely?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HUMAN:
The Author is Lara Bonatesta
The Publication is Ballotpedia's "Daily Brew".
The date of pulication is September 18, 2025
Local copy reference: DailyBrew__Missouri_Supermajority_2026.pdf
Acccess time today at 11:15 AM CDT
LLM:
Great — with that info, here’s the finalized source citation in the **Foundational Template format**:
---
*Source:*
Lara Bonatesta. *“Missouri voters to decide on 2026 measure to create a first-of-its-kind citizen initiative supermajority requirement.”*
**Ballotpedia, Daily Brew**, 18 September 2025.
[https://info.ballotpedia.org/dm?id=34D56BF65BDE86C99102C4F577E443A96E43630501AD63A4](https://info.ballotpedia.org/dm?id=34D56BF65BDE86C99102C4F577E443A96E43630501AD63A4)
(Local copy preserved in this repo as `DailyBrew__Missouri_Supermajority_2026.pdf`).
*Accessed 18 September 2025, 11:15 AM (CDT).*
---
Would you like me to now **slot this citation directly into the draft Civic Analysis artifact** we just started, so the source is formally attached?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HUMAN:
proceed, and reply in chat with the draft.
LLM:
Here’s a **CIVICVS-style draft** you can drop into your workspace. I’ve kept it lean and transcript-ready.
---
# Civic Analysis (Draft): Missouri’s District-by-District Supermajority for Citizen Initiatives
## Source
Lara Bonatesta. *“Missouri voters to decide on 2026 measure to create a first-of-its-kind citizen initiative supermajority requirement.”*
**Ballotpedia, Daily Brew**, 18 September 2025.
[https://info.ballotpedia.org/dm?id=34D56BF65BDE86C99102C4F577E443A96E43630501AD63A4](https://info.ballotpedia.org/dm?id=34D56BF65BDE86C99102C4F577E443A96E43630501AD63A4)
(Local copy preserved as `DailyBrew__Missouri_Supermajority_2026.pdf`).
*Accessed 18 September 2025, 11:15 AM (CDT).*
---
## Claim in the Record
Missouri will place on the **Nov. 3, 2026** ballot a constitutional amendment that replaces a single statewide majority with a requirement that **citizen-initiated constitutional amendments win a simple majority in *each* congressional district (8 of 8)**—a *first-of-its-kind* rule in the U.S. .
---
## Record Snapshot (salient facts)
* **Novelty:** Eleven states use supermajority thresholds for some ballot measures, but **none** require approval in **each congressional district** .
* **Current map context:** Missouri has **6 Republican** and **2 Democratic** U.S. House districts; all eight were won by double digits in 2024 .
* **Legislative path:** HJR 3 passed the House **98–58** (98 R yes; 52 D + 6 R no) and the Senate **21–11** (21 R yes; 9 D + 2 R no) .
* **Stated justifications:** Proponents frame it as ensuring “broad consensus” across equally populated districts; opponents argue it **dilutes citizen power** and imposes a stricter standard on citizen initiatives than on legislature-referred measures .
* **Bundled provisions:** Adds a constitutional ban on foreign national contributions to ballot-measure campaigns, criminalizes initiative signature fraud, mandates public hearings, and requires the **full text** of measures with ballots (some elements mirror current law but would be constitutionalized) .
* **Another moving part:** The General Assembly approved **new congressional district boundaries** this month, relevant because the proposal hardwires district consent into the initiative process .
---
## Method View (what this measure *does*, civically)
**Unit of consent** is shifted from **one statewide electorate** to **eight separate district electorates**. A simple statewide majority can be **nullified** by failing to win a majority in any single district. This is not a mere threshold increase; it is a **structural veto** inserted at the district level.
---
## Civic Effects (testable, record-based)
1. **Minority Veto via Map Structure**
Given a stable 6–2 district alignment, a statewide majority could be blocked by failing to carry all eight districts—even when overall votes favor passage. The veto power **tracks district lines**, not aggregate consent .
2. **Asymmetry Between Citizens and Legislature**
Opponents note the stricter standard applies to **citizen-initiated** constitutional amendments but not to measures placed by the **legislature**, creating an institutional preference against direct democracy .
3. **Constitutionalizing Procedure**
Bundled items (foreign money ban, hearings, full text with ballots) move procedural controls from statute to **constitutional** status, raising the cost of later reform—even for benign administrative tweaks .
4. **Sensitivity to Redistricting**
Because district majorities become dispositive, **district boundaries** (and their partisan geography) gain outsized influence over the initiative process. The article notes new maps were just approved, which heightens this sensitivity .
---
## Arguments in the Record (verbatim direction, summarized)
* **Proponents:** District majorities ensure “broad consensus” across equally populated districts—fairness by geography and population parity .
* **Opponents:** It **dilutes citizen votes** and applies unequal standards to citizen vs. legislature-initiated measures—removing power from people and insulating lawmakers’ preferred route .
---
## CIVICVS Reading (civic consequence)
The complexity here is functional: by **redefining consent**, the rule makes success contingent on **map-distributed** approval rather than **statewide** approval. In practical terms, it **narrows** the future capacity of citizens to amend their constitution and **elevates** district line-drawing as a gatekeeper to constitutional change. The record supports classifying this as **structural manipulation cloaked in consensus language**—a predictable effect traceable to the current 6–2 district reality and the newly approved boundaries .
---
## Predictions (falsifiable)
* Measures that poll **>55% statewide** but are **ideologically uneven** across districts will **fail** more often than under current rules.
* Pass likelihood will correlate more tightly with **district partisan distribution** than with **statewide median voter** preferences.
* Post-2026, there will be a measurable **drop** in the number of successful **citizen-initiated constitutional amendments** relative to pre-change baselines (controlling for topic mix).
---
If you want, I can now append a **short “Record Table”** (votes, map split, bundled provisions) to this draft for quick reference, or keep it exactly as-is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HUMAN:
Keep it exactly as is.
Have you applied the CIVICUS framework, and how, where?
LLM:
Yes.
Here’s exactly how the draft applies the **CIVICVS** framework:
* **Foundational Templates → Source block:** The citation follows your template (authors, outlet/series, date, URL, local copy, access time).
* **Method (LLM Loop) → “Claim in the Record” + “Record Snapshot”:** Starts with a verifiable claim, then lists only facts from the record; evidence = *state of the record*, not narrative. Citations point to the uploaded article. 
* **Context build → “Method View”:** Identifies the governing *mechanism* (shifting the unit of consent from statewide to district-level) rather than arguing motives.
* **Civic consequence → “Civic Effects” & “CIVICVS Reading”:** Traces concrete, testable consequences (district veto, asymmetry with legislature, constitutionalizing procedure, redistricting sensitivity).
* **Adversarial audit posture → “Arguments in the Record”:** Preserves both sides’ stated positions from the source, enabling challenge rather than substituting analysis for record. 
* **Laws of Nature & Civic Clarity → “Predictions”:** Offers falsifiable expectations (map-driven pass rates, decline in successful initiatives), inviting later verification against the record.
* **Integrity Notes compliance:**
* \#2 (Transparency vs. Privacy): This is legitimate legislative reporting; no “garbage subject” engagement or redaction needed.
* \#4 (Evidentiary Consistency): Rigor rests uniformly on record presence/condition, explicitly stated.
* \#1 (Iteration vs. Immutability): Marked as **Draft**; sealing happens only when you instruct, in process (not the foundation).
* \#5 (Independence): Analysis is self-directed; no institutional hosting claims or symbolic purity tests.
If you want, I can run the **same structure** on your next text immediately.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HUMAN:
We are at Step 2. of the 5-step loop: Claim → LLM → Context → LLM → Civic Consequence
Something caught my eye in your draft:
"Bundled provisions: Adds a constitutional ban on foreign national contributions to ballot-measure campaigns"..
This sounds something that should already be illegal on the Federal Level. If it already this, then this is a nothing burger. Its added only to misguide the electorate, to try to hide other part of the ballot.
LLM:
Great catch to question that. Here’s the Step-2 (LLM) check on that single point:
## Is a state ban on foreign money in ballot-measure campaigns redundant?
**Short answer:** No—**federal law mainly targets candidate elections**. The FEC has treated spending on **ballot initiatives** as *issue advocacy*, not “elections” of candidates, and in 2021 it **declined to enforce** the foreign-national ban against a ballot-measure committee (MUR 7523). States have therefore been passing their **own** prohibitions; some are being litigated (e.g., Maine). ([Ballotpedia][1])
* **Where the article mentions the bundle:** foreign-national contribution ban is listed among the added constitutional provisions. 
* **Why this matters:** Because FECA’s 52 U.S.C. § 30121 has been applied to **candidate** elections, not initiative campaigns per se, a **state constitutional ban** is **not** a “nothing burger”; it would **close a gap** at the state level (subject to First Amendment challenges). ([Legal Information Institute][2])
## Precise edit to the draft (one line swap)
In the **Record Snapshot → Bundled provisions** bullet, replace the clause after “foreign national contributions” with:
> “—this would constitutionalize a state-level prohibition for **ballot-measure campaigns**, which federal law does **not** clearly cover; many states have enacted similar bans, and some are under active litigation (e.g., Maine).” ([FEC.gov][3])
Everything else in your draft can stay **exactly as is**.
[1]: https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_foreign_spending_in_ballot_measure_campaigns?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Laws governing foreign spending in ballot measure ..."
[2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121?utm_source=chatgpt.com "52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by ..."
[3]: https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7523/7523_24.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com "MUR 7523 Sandfire Resources, NL ..."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HUMAN:
Next, I suggest: "If ain't broken, don't fix". What is "broken" that require "fixing"?
LLM:
Great prompt. Here’s a Step-2 (LLM) check focused exactly on **“What is broken?”**—strictly from the article’s record.
## What the record actually says (and doesn’t)
* **Proponents’ stated “problem”:** They say initiatives should show **“broad consensus”** by winning a majority in **each** congressional district (not just statewide). That’s a *normative standard*, not evidence of a concrete failure in the current process. 
* **Structural change, not a documented fix:** The measure **changes the unit of consent** (statewide → every district). The article does **not** present data showing harmful outcomes under the current statewide-majority rule that require correction. 
* **Bundled provisions (foreign money, signature fraud, hearings, full text):**
* The article notes some of these are **already in state law** and would be **constitutionalized** with changes—so the record doesn’t show they’re “broken,” only that proponents want them locked into the constitution. 
* The piece **does not** cite Missouri-specific incidents (e.g., a recent wave of fraud, missing text on ballots, or foreign money scandals) that would constitute a diagnosed problem needing a fix. 
* **Opponents’ diagnosis:** They claim the “fix” **dilutes citizen power** and imposes a tougher standard on citizen initiatives than on legislature-referred measures—i.e., it *creates* a problem rather than solves one. 
## Bottom line (Step-2 finding)
From the record provided, there’s **no concrete evidence of a broken process** that demands repair. What’s presented is a **redefinition of consent** (district vetoes) plus **constitutionalizing existing or procedural rules**—framed as “consensus” and “integrity,” but **not tied to documented failures** in Missouri’s current initiative system. 
If you want, I can now move to **Step-3 (Context)**: map how district partisanship + redistricting interact with this design, and test the “consensus” rationale against likely real-world effects.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HUMAN:
I think the context here is obvious: to increase complexity, and one more: to limit the ability to undo this Amendment, if it passes. To what end is speculation, but these two should be evidenced. What you propose, to map how district partisanship + redistricting interact with this design, and test the “consensus” rationale against likely real-world effects is not the purpose of VIVICVS. What do you think?
LLM:
Agreed. In CIVICVS, **Context** = record-backed mechanics, not motive or forecasting. Here’s **Step 3 (Context)**, limited to your two points and evidenced from the source.
---
## Step 3 — Context (Record-Backed)
### A) Evidenced increase in complexity
* The proposal **replaces a single statewide majority** with the requirement that a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment **win a simple majority in *each* of Missouri’s eight congressional districts**—a first-of-its-kind design. That multiplies the success condition from **1** statewide threshold to **8** separate thresholds. 
* The measure also **bundles additional procedural provisions** and moves them into the constitution (e.g., ban on foreign-national contributions to ballot-measure campaigns, signature-fraud crime, required public hearings, full text with ballots). The article notes some are already in statute; constitutionalizing them raises procedural surface and formality. 
**Context statement:** On the face of the record, the amendment **adds new decision nodes** (per-district majorities) and **constitutionalizes multiple procedures**, thereby increasing rule complexity beyond the current single statewide-majority rule. 
---
### B) Evidenced limitation on undoing the amendment (entrenchment)
* The measure is a **constitutional amendment** that would “require initiated amendments to receive simple majority approval in each congressional district.” By its terms, any **future citizen-initiated amendment—including a repeal—would be governed by this rule**, making reversal harder than under the current statewide-majority standard. 
* The proposal also **moves several policies from statute into the constitution**, which, by design, are **harder to alter** than ordinary laws. This evidences an intent to lock in procedures at the constitutional level rather than leave them amendable by statute. 
* The article notes **new congressional district boundaries** were approved; because the rule keys voter consent to districts, any future repeal attempt would need to satisfy **whatever district map is in force**, adding another layer that a simple statewide vote would not face. 
**Context statement:** Once adopted, the rule **governs future citizen-initiated amendments**, including attempts to repeal it, and it **constitutionalizes** ancillary procedures—together evidencing **increased difficulty to undo** relative to current law. 
---
If you approve this Step-3 block, I’ll move to **Step 4 (LLM)** to stress-test the phrasing for clarity and potential counters—still strictly within the record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HUMAN:
After Nov 5 we will learn the results, and then I will be able to start another analysis. For now we have identified two valid concerns, which will be validated (or not).
At this point I am ready to move to Step 4.
LLM:
Great—moving to **Step 4 (LLM)** to stress-test and tighten the two context claims strictly against the record.
---
# Step 4 — LLM Critique & Clarification (Record-Bound)
## A) “Increased complexity” claim
**Evidence check:**
* The measure **replaces a single statewide majority** with a requirement to win a **simple majority in each of Missouri’s eight congressional districts**—described as a **first-of-its-kind** approach. That expands the success condition from **one** threshold to **eight** concurrent thresholds. 
* It **bundles** additional procedural items (foreign-national contribution ban for ballot-measure campaigns, signature-fraud crime, required hearings, full text with ballots) into the **constitution**, not just statute. The article notes some are already state law, but the amendment would constitutionalize them “with some changes.” 
**Potential counter from the record:**
Proponents argue this is about **“broad consensus”** across equally populated districts—not about obfuscation. That framing could be used to claim the design is **different in kind** (consensus) rather than “complexity for its own sake.” 
**Tightened wording (recommended):**
> The amendment **multiplies the conditions for passage** from one statewide majority to **eight district majorities**, a design **no other state uses**. It also **constitutionalizes** several procedural controls already present in statute (with changes), thereby **increasing the procedural surface** beyond current law. 
---
## B) “Harder to undo (entrenchment)” claim
**Evidence check:**
* The text applies to **“initiated amendments”** generally; thus a **future citizen-initiated repeal** of this rule would itself need **majorities in all eight districts**, making reversal **harder** than under today’s statewide-majority rule. 
* Moving multiple policies from **statute to constitution** raises the bar for later changes (by definition, constitutional changes are harder than statutory edits). The article explicitly says some items are in current law but would be added to the **state constitution**. 
**Important caveat from the record:**
An opponent notes the **stricter standard is not applied to legislature-referred measures**, implying the **General Assembly could refer** a repeal under a **different standard**. That means entrenchment is **certain for citizen-initiated repeal**, but **may be avoidable** if lawmakers themselves place a repeal on the ballot. 
**Tightened wording (recommended):**
> Because the new rule applies to **all citizen-initiated amendments**, any **citizen-initiated repeal** would face the same **eight-district** requirement, making reversal harder than today. By **constitutionalizing** several procedures, the amendment further **raises the threshold** for change. Note: per the article, **legislature-referred measures** may not be subject to this new standard, so **legislative repeal** could follow a **different path**. 
---
## Ready-to-drop “Context” blocks (final phrasing)
**Context A — Complexity (final):**
The amendment **multiplies the conditions for passage** from one statewide majority to **eight district majorities**, a design **no other state uses**. It also **constitutionalizes** several procedural controls already present in statute (with changes), thereby **increasing the procedural surface** beyond current law. 
**Context B — Harder to undo (final):**
Because the rule applies to **all citizen-initiated amendments**, any **citizen-initiated repeal** would have to secure **majorities in all eight districts**, making reversal harder than under the current statewide-majority standard. In addition, by **moving procedures into the constitution**, the amendment **raises the bar** for later revisions. **However**, the article indicates that **legislature-referred measures** are held to a **different standard**, so a **legislatively referred repeal** might not face the eight-district requirement. 
---
If you approve these, we can proceed to **Step 5 (Civic Consequence)** using only these two validated concerns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HUMAN:
Yes, lets finish up.
LLM:
## Step 5 — Civic Consequence (based on the validated concerns)
### A) Consequence of added **complexity**
* The measure **multiplies passage conditions** from one statewide majority to **eight concurrent district majorities**, a first-of-its-kind design. That shifts consent from *the people as a whole* to *eight separate electorates*, introducing new failure points even when a statewide majority exists. 
* By **constitutionalizing** multiple procedural controls already addressed in statute (foreign-national contributions to ballot-measure campaigns, signature-fraud crime, required public hearings, full text with ballots), the amendment moves administrative rules into the higher-law layer, expanding the procedural surface embedded in the constitution itself. 
**Civic consequence:** Citizen power is **narrowed** by additional decision nodes (8-of-8 test) and by locking procedural apparatus at the constitutional level rather than leaving it to ordinary law. 
---
### B) Consequence of **entrenchment** (harder to undo)
* Because the rule applies to **all citizen-initiated amendments**, any **citizen-initiated repeal** would itself have to win **majorities in all eight districts**, making reversal harder than under today’s statewide-majority standard. 
* The amendment **places procedures in the constitution**, which are inherently harder to revise than statutes, further raising the bar for later change. 
* The article notes **new congressional district boundaries** were approved this month; tying initiative success to district majorities means that **whatever map is in force** becomes a structural gatekeeper for future change. 
* An opponent flags that this **stricter standard is not applied to legislature-referred measures**, implying **legislative repeal** could travel a different (potentially easier) path than a citizen-initiated repeal—an institutional asymmetry baked into the design. 
**Civic consequence:** The amendment functions as a **constitutional ratchet** for citizen-initiated change—harder to reverse by citizens themselves, sensitive to district lines, and **asymmetric** in favor of legislative referral pathways. 
---
If you want, I can paste these consequences at the end of the draft analysis verbatim so the artifact is complete through Step 5.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HUMAN:
No, we are done.
I saved the final Report, and I'm happy with it.
LLM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HUMAN:
LLM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HUMAN:
LLM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HUMAN:
LLM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HUMAN:
LLM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>