First, those respondents deliberated online. Each person faced nine others at a virtual table — tables of 10, in 44 small groups. The Civic AI system sat in each room not as a judge, but as an enhanced chess clock with manners: showing transcripts, summarising, reminding quiet people to speak up, limiting interruptions to five seconds and so on. There was only one rule: each table must find something that leaves everyone feeling they can live with it. Consent, if not consensus, which means the most drastic proposals never rise above the table level. We only surfaced ideas that reached this rough consensus among the 10 people.