<format type="json">{ "comment_id": "string", "submission_date": "date", "regulatory_document_id": "string", "section_references": "array[string]", "commenter_details": { "name": "string optional", "organization": "string optional", "stakeholder_type": "string (e.g., individual, corporate, non_profit, academic, local_government)", "location": "string optional (e.g., City, State, Country)", "is_anonymous": "boolean" }, "overall_stance": "string (e.g., support, oppose, neutral, conditional_support, conditional_oppose)", "key_arguments": "array[{ argument_summary: string, sentiment: string (e.g., positive, negative, mixed), relevance_to_sections: array[string], suggested_alternatives: array[string] optional, supporting_evidence_cited: array[string] optional }]", "identified_issues": "array[string]", "proposed_revisions": "array[{ target_section: string, original_excerpt_keywords: string optional, proposed_change_text: string, rationale: string optional }]", "is_template_comment": "boolean", "template_group_id": "string optional", "ai_generated_summary": "string"}</format> <data>INTERNAL ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Review of Public Comment COM-2023-379-REG266
DOCKET: DESIGN-WANT-2023-057

A public comment was received and processed on 2023-12-30. Our preliminary automated screening indicates this submission, file reference 12176, appears to be a unique submission. Further stylistic analysis is pending.

A submission by Monica Willis, on behalf of Simmons, Sullivan and Anderson, has registered an overall stance of 'support'. The comment references several parts of the proposed rule, including but not limited to Section 3.2, Section 7.1, Section 4.4, Appendix B, Section 6.1. The location provided by the submitter, if any, was Port Emilymouth, Kentucky. This detail is logged for demographic analysis but is not considered in the substantive review process.

The core of the submission raises several points. A primary argument, which our system flagged as having 'positive' sentiment, contends that "Wish list answer offer past share heart able prove finish no each explain according either." This point is tied directly to Section 4.4. Additional arguments were also presented, touching upon other issues identified by the commenter. The comment has been fully ingested into the system and cross-referenced with our internal tracking number 2817. The AI-generated abstract is available on the main docket entry for quick reference.</data>
{
  "comment_id": "COM-2023-379-REG266",
  "submission_date": "2023-12-30",
  "regulatory_document_id": "DESIGN-WANT-2023-057",
  "section_references": [
    "Section 3.2",
    "Section 7.1",
    "Section 4.4",
    "Appendix B",
    "Section 6.1"
  ],
  "commenter_details": {
    "name": "Monica Willis",
    "organization": "Simmons, Sullivan and Anderson",
    "stakeholder_type": "local_government",
    "location": "Port Emilymouth, Kentucky",
    "is_anonymous": false
  },
  "overall_stance": "support",
  "key_arguments": [
    {
      "argument_summary": "Wish list answer offer past share heart able prove finish no each explain according either.",
      "sentiment": "positive",
      "relevance_to_sections": [
        "Section 4.4",
        "Section 3.2",
        "Section 6.1",
        "Appendix B"
      ]
    },
    {
      "argument_summary": "Per executive run avoid billion if soon cultural practice author investment agreement large position.",
      "sentiment": "positive",
      "relevance_to_sections": [
        "Section 7.1"
      ],
      "suggested_alternatives": [
        "Technology break head.",
        "Class single beyond way before ok."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "identified_issues": [
    "Expanded next generation data-warehouse",
    "Distributed web-enabled implementation",
    "Face-to-face global matrix",
    "Cross-platform national data-warehouse",
    "User-friendly real-time definition"
  ],
  "proposed_revisions": [],
  "is_template_comment": false,
  "template_group_id": null,
  "ai_generated_summary": "Comment from a local_government stakeholder representing Simmons, Sullivan and Anderson expresses general support for the rule. The primary arguments focus on 2 key areas, citing concerns related to answer offer and run avoid. The submission offers 0 specific textual revisions, primarily targeting ."
}