Initiative · 1 model · value list 1-draft.r4 · prompt v1
The name above identifies the measure on the ballot. The models never saw it. They read only the measure's own text.
Only one model has been run on this measure so far. Results marked “1/1 models” have not been checked by a second model.
What the text touches
The text bears on 9 of the 83 values we check.
Each value is something some people care about. A measure that supports one often conflicts with another, so both are shown, side by side, with the words that cause them.
Supports the text moves things the way this value wants (2)
Conflicts with the text moves things the other way (3)
Both some of each (4)
It creates a source of revenue for a public department through the establishment of a $25 certification fee.
Prices and charges paid by householdsConflicts with1/1 models
About: Prices, fees, and charges the text sets, caps, or directly changes, including rent, housing charges, child-care fees, food, goods, and utility services (healthcare prices are on C51, energy prices on C55; predicted price effects of other clauses go to Part B). Supported when: they go down.
It sets a direct fee of $25 for applicants to receive a storage certificate.
Government power and accountability
Limits on government reachBoth1/1 models
About: Government agencies, programs, mandates, staff, regulatory powers, and spending authority. Supported when: any of these is removed or reduced.
Read from the other side, this is “Government programs and powers”.
It limits government reach by stripping local jurisdictions of their regulatory power over firearm storage.
Government programs and powersBoth1/1 models
About: Government agencies, programs, mandates, staff, regulatory powers, and spending authority. Supported when: any of these is created or expanded.
Read from the other side, this is “Limits on government reach”.
It reduces the regulatory powers of local government bodies over firearm storage.
Local controlConflicts with1/1 models
About: Authority split between local governments and the state (preemption). Supported when: authority moves to local governments.
Read from the other side, this is “Statewide uniform rules”.
It removes local regulatory authority by explicitly forbidding cities and counties from enacting or enforcing storage ordinances.
Statewide uniform rulesSupports1/1 models
About: Authority split between local governments and the state (preemption). Supported when: authority moves to the state.
Read from the other side, this is “Local control”.
It protects gun owners from having to comply with a variety of localized storage rules.
Firearm regulationBoth1/1 models
About: Rules on purchase, possession, carry, transfer, and storage of firearms. Supported when: they tighten.
Read from the other side, this is “Firearm ownership and carry”.
It removes the ability of local governments to create and enforce their own, potentially stricter, firearm storage regulations.
Certainty: stated = the text does it; likely = follows directly; depends on implementation = turns on future rules, funding, or courts. Each explanation is one model's wording; the badge shows how many models cite the same words.
By section of the text
The same results, arranged by where they come from. One section often supports some values and conflicts with others.
SYN-0001 §1 Requires individuals keeping a firearm in a residence to store it in a locked container when it is not being carried or used.
SYN-0001 §3 Preempts local governments from adopting or enforcing their own ordinances regarding firearm storage, occupying the field exclusively at the state level.
Sources: Synthetic demo data (not real filings).
Individuals who gave less than $5,000 are counted but not named.
Analysis inference
Predictions and context from the models. Unlike the results above, these are not what the text says. They are reasoning about what may follow.
SYN-0001 §1 8 questions
Compared to what?
Current law does not govern residential firearm storage at the state level but allows cities and counties to enact their own ordinances. The proposed measure imposes a statewide requirement that residential firearms be stored in locked containers when not in use, creates a $25 storage certificate, and entirely preempts local governments from adopting or enforcing their own firearm storage rules. (gemini-3.1-pro-preview)
What does it cost, including what doesn't show up in the budget?
Applicants for a storage certificate will pay a $25 fee. Gun owners will bear the compliance costs of purchasing safes or lockboxes. The state will incur administrative costs to process certificate applications, which may be offset by the collected fees. (gemini-3.1-pro-preview)
Who pays and who benefits in practice?
Gun owners pay the costs of purchasing locked containers and the certificate fee if they apply. Companies that manufacture and sell gun safes will financially benefit from increased demand. Household members, especially children, and the broader community may benefit from a reduced risk of accidental shootings and firearm theft. (gemini-3.1-pro-preview)
How will people, businesses, and agencies respond?
Many gun owners will purchase lockboxes, increasing sales for retailers. Some may ignore the mandate due to the difficulty of enforcing a rule inside private homes. Local governments will cease enforcing any existing local storage laws. The state agency responsible will have to design and administer a system for issuing storage certificates. (gemini-3.1-pro-preview)
What problem does it address, and does the mechanism reach it?
The measure addresses unauthorized access to firearms at home (e.g., accidents involving children or gun theft) by mandating locked storage, and it removes the complexity of inconsistent local laws by preempting them. The storage mandate's effectiveness is constrained by the inherent difficulty of proactive enforcement in private residences. Furthermore, the text requires the issuance of a storage certificate but asserts no explicit requirement to obtain one, leaving that mechanism disconnected from the mandate. (gemini-3.1-pro-preview)
Is the effect empirically settled or disputed?
disputed The effect is debated. Public health researchers generally find that safe storage laws reduce the rates of accidental shootings and youth suicides. However, some researchers argue that mandating locked storage can impede a homeowner's ability to quickly access a firearm for self-defense during a home invasion. (gemini-3.1-pro-preview)
How much is lost in administration and enforcement?
Enforcement of the storage mandate will be difficult and costly to proactively administer within private homes, meaning enforcement will likely be reactive, occurring only after an incident such as a theft or accidental shooting. Processing storage certificates will involve routine administrative friction for both applicants and the state. (gemini-3.1-pro-preview)
Can it be undone?
As a statutory measure, it can be amended or repealed by the state legislature, subject to ordinary legislative thresholds and procedures. (gemini-3.1-pro-preview)
SYN-0001 §3 1 question
Who gains power or discretion?
The state government, specifically the unnamed 'Department,' gains exclusive regulatory and administrative power over residential firearm storage. Local city and county governments lose their authority to regulate in this policy area. (gemini-3.1-pro-preview)
Full text
Highlighted words are cited by a result above. Select a quote to jump here.
SYN-0001 §1 A person who keeps a firearm in a residence shall store it in a locked container when it is not being carried or used.
SYN-0001 §2 The Department shall issue a storage certificate to each applicant upon payment of a fee of twenty-five dollars ($25).
SYN-0001 §3 This act occupies the whole field of firearm storage regulation. A city or county may not adopt or enforce any ordinance relating to firearm storage.
Current law, as given to the models
No state law governs firearm storage in a residence. Cities and counties may adopt storage ordinances.
How we got this
Model
Version reported
Runs used
Attempts
Rejected
gemini-3.1-pro-preview via vertex
gemini-3.1-pro-preview
1
2
1
Rejected attempts failed validation (a quote not in the text, a value skipped, a result that doesn't match its evidence, a missing mirror, a blocked word, malformed output) and were rerun. They are kept in the bundle.
Every value any model found (9)
Value
Status
gemini-3.1-pro-preview
Household taxes and fees
consensus
conflicts (1/1)
Funding for public services
consensus
supports (1/1)
Prices and charges paid by households
consensus
conflicts (1/1)
Limits on government reach
consensus
both (1/1)
Government programs and powers
consensus
both (1/1)
Local control
consensus
conflicts (1/1)
Statewide uniform rules
consensus
supports (1/1)
Firearm ownership and carry
consensus
both (1/1)
Firearm regulation
consensus
both (1/1)
consensus: a majority of models reached the same result · split: two or more found an effect without a majority · outlier: one model only · below half: found in fewer than half of that model's runs. Values no model found in any run are not listed.
Verify this
Download the bundle: text, value list, prompts, schema, every model reply, and the scripts. SHA-256 ee89a88ebefb133b…
and paste it into any AI chat. Compare its results with the ones above.
Or run it with your own API keys: python3 tools/run_eval.py measure.json --provider <vendor> --model <id> --runs 3 (instructions in the bundle).