# From persona feedback → the bigger picture

*How the 7 survey-persona reviews fit the workshop title — "Smart Citizenship: AI as a lever for social impact" — and what our day-to-day tooling segment should own vs. hand off.*

---

## 1. The one problem behind all seven critiques

Every persona said "partly." The single root cause: **our segment teaches AI as desk productivity, but the workshop promises AI as a *lever for social impact*.** Four of seven (Andrea, Dirk, Florian, Claudia) named this directly. The content is good; it just doesn't visibly connect "write a better CSRD paragraph" to "move social impact." We built the *how* and never tied it to the *why* on the marquee.

That's not a reason to rebuild — it's a reason to **reframe and signpost.**

---

## 2. The unifying frame: a lever needs a fulcrum and an arm

> **Title:** *AI as a lever for social impact.* A lever does nothing without a fulcrum to pivot on and an arm to push with.

For a CC manager:
- **The fulcrum = capability + trust.** Knowing which tool, using it inside DSGVO/EU AI Act, keeping accountability ("you decide and you sign"). → **This is our tooling segment.**
- **The arm = where you apply it**, in two directions:
  - **Inward lever** — AI amplifies your *own* CC function (faster reporting, sharper matchmaking, persuasion that frees budget) → more capacity for the mission.
  - **Outward lever** — your company's AI capability channeled *to* nonprofits/society (skills-based volunteering, funding responsible AI, scoping help).

**The line that ties it to the title:** *"You can't be a lever for social impact with a tool you're afraid to touch or that Legal won't approve. This segment makes you able. The rest of the day is where you point it."* That single reframe converts "generic productivity" into "the enabling layer of Smart Citizenship."

---

## 3. Where the segment sits in the arc (Understand → Contextualize → Act → Position)

| Arc stage | Slot | Persona need it serves |
|---|---|---|
| **Understand** | Speaker 1 (frame, use cases, risks) | Andrea (CSR-AI map), Elke (named programs) |
| **Contextualize** | Speaker 2 (NGO view) · Breakout 1 | Claudia (two-actor/conflicts), Dirk (volunteering) |
| **Act** | Speaker 3 (CC tools) · **our tooling segment** | Florian (tools), Bernd (worked examples) |
| **Position** | Speaker 4 (peer case) · Breakout 2 · harvest | Gabriele (AI position), Claudia (funder risk) |

**Our segment lives in ACT.** Its job is to make the room *capable of acting* — not to be the whole workshop. The personas felt gaps because they reviewed one beat as if it were the symphony. The fix is to make the segment **explicitly the enablement beat**: name what the earlier slots gave them, do the *how*, and hand off to Position.

---

## 4. Every piece of feedback — addressed and placed

No feedback dropped. Each is either **(S) our segment fixes it**, **(O) another slot owns it — we signpost**, or **(B) both**.

| # | Persona | What they want | Fit | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | **Andrea** | "AI across the CC value chain" map | B | Speaker 1 owns the full frame. **S:** add a one-glance value-chain strip (partner due-diligence → selection → impact/CSRD → comms → volunteering), each marked AI-suitable/sensitive, with **CC named as the responsible-AI owner**. Our prompts hang off it. |
| 2 | **Bernd** | A genuinely-worked, *fallible* example | S | Make the **second demo a CSRD paragraph that hallucinates a number → caught by the post-flight checklist.** Turns the guardrail into a live moment; adds the "deep dive" he's missing. |
| 3 | **Claudia** | Funder-vs-NGO classification + honest goal conflicts | B | Speaker 2 + Speaker 4 + Breakout 1 own the two-actor depth. **S (must-fix):** delete the **"zero liability"** claim (it's a brand risk); replace with honest "advisory-only *reduces*, doesn't erase — Legal signs." Add one line: "where the funder's interest and the NGO's diverge → Speaker 4 / Breakout." |
| 4 | **Dirk** | A runnable AI-*volunteering* program | O | Breakout 1 Track A + Speaker 2 own program design. **S:** stop burying §7 (MI4People, N3XTCODER, CorrelAid) at the bottom — surface it as **"the outward lever,"** the partners you'd channel AI skills to, and point to Breakout 1 to build the program. |
| 5 | **Elke** | Named programs, **sourced on the page** | B | **S (must-fix):** inline-cite the load-bearing claims (60% stat, Merck-33k, EU AI Act date) next to the claim, not deferred to `references.md`. Harvest program-list slide (Speaker 1/harvest) carries the rest. |
| 6 | **Florian** | Established **impact-measurement & matchmaking tools**, with prices | B | Speaker 3 owns the vendor depth. **S:** surface our Tier-4 CC-domain tools (Briink, Benevity, SAP Joule) on the handout, not just the master doc; name 2-3 impact-measurement platforms with a one-line "mature/immature" verdict; hand pricing depth to Speaker 3. |
| 7 | **Gabriele** | Internal AI **position** — language + peer cover | B | Speaker 4 + Breakout 2 own positioning. **S:** add a **"starter AI-position language" box** — 2 anonymized example AI-lines + "who signs it when it's above your pay grade." Rehearse the **CEO/Legal**, not only the CFO. Serves survey #7, the most under-served respondent. |

Cross-cutting tone fix (Bernd, Gabriele): soften "board-ready in two minutes"; add **one honest before/after** ("CSRD section: 3h → 40 min, human still checks the numbers"). Over-confidence makes the anxious feel behind and the skeptics trust it less.

---

## 5. Must-fix vs. upgrade vs. hand-off

**Must-fix now (credibility/accuracy — non-negotiable):**
- Kill **"zero liability"** → honest liability framing.
- Fix **EU AI Act date precision**: the Art. 4 *literacy duty applies since 2 Feb 2025*; the *penalty regime starts 2 Aug 2026*. Stop saying "enforceable this August" as if the duty itself is new.
- **Inline-source** the load-bearing claims.

**High-leverage adds (small, multi-persona):**
- The **lever reframe + "where this fits the day" signpost** (fixes the 4/7 root critique).
- **Value-chain strip** (Andrea) — doubles as the spine the prompts hang off.
- **Starter AI-position language** box (Gabriele).
- **Surface §7 as "the outward lever"** + Tier-4 CC tools on the handout (Dirk, Florian).
- One **honest before/after** metric; soften the over-confident lines.

**Upgrade (more work, optional):**
- Second demo: the **caught-hallucination CSRD example** (Bernd) — strongest single content improvement.

**Consciously hand off (don't bloat the 8 min):**
- Full CSR-AI frame → Speaker 1. Two-actor goal-conflict depth → Speaker 2/4 + Breakout 1. Volunteering-program-in-a-box → Breakout 1 Track A. Vendor-grade impact/matchmaking pricing → Speaker 3.

---

## 6. The net

The segment doesn't need to *become* the workshop. It needs to **announce that it's the fulcrum** — the capability layer that makes everyone else's "social impact" actually movable — and **point to where each broader need is met.** Do that, plus the three must-fixes and the small adds, and five of seven personas move from "partly" toward "yes," without the segment overreaching its 8 minutes or its place in the arc.
