Week 40

What they are testing

The panel is testing whether you can connect a legal electoral form with the voter’s right to make an informed choice.

How to take it

Begin by locating Form 26 within the candidate-disclosure framework, without overstating details you cannot verify. Explain that its democratic value lies in comparable, accessible declarations, not in paperwork alone. Concede that disclosure is not proof of wrongdoing, and end by stressing informed voting and consistent enforcement.

A strong answer sounds like

I would see Form 26 as part of the disclosure architecture around a candidate’s nomination. Its importance is not that it creates a presumption against any candidate; rather, it enables voters to assess relevant declared information before voting. The strongest counter-argument is that excessive or poorly presented disclosure can become a media spectacle, confuse voters, or unfairly stigmatise people over allegations that are not established. That is a valid concern. But the answer is not opacity. It is accurate, standardised disclosure, clear explanation of what is declared, and equal application to every candidate. My administrative judgement would be that the election authority should treat disclosure as a voter-service function, with legal fidelity and practical accessibility together.

Expect next

• Should unproven criminal cases be prominently disclosed?
• Who should verify inaccuracies in a candidate’s declaration?

What they are testing

The panel wants to assess whether you distinguish legal compliance from the broader duty of a constitutional institution to sustain trust.

How to take it

Accept that an election authority cannot act beyond its legal mandate or improvise obligations. Then explain that legality is the floor, while transparent communication and reasoned clarification are essential to legitimacy. Land on institutional restraint combined with proactive public explanation.

A strong answer sounds like

No, lawful action should be the starting point of the discussion, not always its end. An election authority must stay within the statute and its rules; otherwise, even a well-intentioned intervention can compromise neutrality and invite arbitrariness. At the same time, institutions that administer elections carry a special burden of public confidence. Where a concern arises over disclosures or procedure, a clear press note, accessible records and a reasoned explanation can prevent suspicion from becoming mistrust. The strongest objection is that constant public explanation may make the Commission appear defensive or politically reactive. I would avoid commentary on partisan claims, but not avoid explanation. My administrative judgement is that neutral, evidence-based communication is an institutional duty, not a concession to criticism.

Expect next

• Can transparency ever damage institutional neutrality?
• What would a satisfactory press note contain?

What they are testing

The panel is testing whether you can translate a constitutional principle into an implementable field-level process.

How to take it

Lead with strict adherence to the prescribed process and equal treatment of candidates. Describe practical access, clarity, staff readiness and a documented grievance route, without claiming powers that belong elsewhere. Concede that the officer cannot adjudicate every disputed claim, and close with process integrity.

A strong answer sounds like

As a district election officer, I would first ensure that every candidate is handled through the same prescribed process and timeline. I would focus on making the officially available disclosures easy to inspect through election offices and the channels authorised by the Commission, while ensuring that public-facing material is legible and not selectively amplified. Staff would need clear instructions on receiving documents, maintaining records and directing citizens to the correct source of information. I would also maintain a documented route for complaints or apparent discrepancies to be referred to the competent authority. I cannot convert the district office into an investigative tribunal, and that limitation must be honest. My administrative judgement would be to maximise access and procedural consistency while referring verification and adjudication through the lawful chain.

Expect next

• What if a candidate alleges selective scrutiny?
• How would you prevent misinformation about disclosed information?

What they are testing

The panel is testing your ability to balance electoral transparency with dignity, proportionality and due process.

How to take it

Take a clear position that relevant disclosure can be justified because candidates seek public office. Acknowledge genuine privacy, security and reputational harms, especially from irrelevant or unverified material. Conclude with a proportionality-based standard anchored in law rather than public curiosity.

A strong answer sounds like

Yes, privacy should set limits, but it should not become a blanket reason to withhold information that is legitimately relevant to public office. A candidate voluntarily seeks authority over public resources and public decisions, so voters have a stronger claim to prescribed disclosures than they would in an ordinary private relationship. The strongest counter-argument is serious: disclosure can expose families, create security risks, and turn unproven allegations into permanent reputational punishment. That is why relevance, legal authority, accuracy and fair presentation matter. I would not support disclosure driven merely by curiosity or partisan advantage. My administrative judgement is that electoral transparency should be broad enough for informed choice, but proportionate enough to protect dignity and due process.

Expect next

• Who should decide what counts as relevant information?
• Would you disclose assets of adult family members?

What they are testing

The panel is testing whether the candidate can separate technical risk management from the broader allocation of legal and institutional accountability.

How to take it

Begin by defining the three ideas in simple, connected terms. Explain that safety is necessary but insufficient because governance decides standards and oversight, while platform responsibility concerns conduct toward users. Concede that over-regulation can slow useful innovation, but conclude that higher-risk uses need stronger duties.

A strong answer sounds like

I would see AI safety as reducing the chance that a system produces harmful, unreliable or unintended outcomes. AI governance is wider: it decides who sets standards, who audits systems, and who is accountable when harm occurs. Platform responsibility is the provider’s practical duty not to shift every risk onto the user through vague terms of service. The strongest counter-argument is that rigid rules can prevent smaller innovators from competing with large firms. That concern is valid, so regulation should be proportionate to risk rather than identical for every tool. But where AI affects health information, personal images or public decisions, I would require clear accountability, meaningful testing and a route for redress before deployment.

Expect next

• Who should bear liability: developer, deployer, or user?
• Can an AI system ever be held accountable itself?

What they are testing

The panel is probing the candidate’s judgement about regulatory capture, expertise and the legitimate role of industry in policymaking.

How to take it

Take a qualified position rather than rejecting industry participation outright. Recognise that firms possess technical knowledge and can identify emerging risks early. Land on independent rule-making with transparent consultation, outside expertise and enforceable public-interest safeguards.

A strong answer sounds like

I would involve AI companies in consultation, but I would not allow them to be the primary authors or final arbiters of the rules governing them. They have valuable technical knowledge, especially about capabilities and failure modes that regulators may not yet understand. The strongest argument for giving them a large role is that poorly designed rules can be technologically unrealistic and quickly become obsolete. However, their commercial incentives may not fully align with privacy, competition or public safety. Therefore, government should use structured and transparent consultation with industry, researchers, civil society and affected sectors, while retaining independent regulatory authority. My administrative judgement is that expertise should inform regulation, but public institutions must own the final decision and enforcement.

Expect next

• How would you prevent regulatory capture in such consultations?
• Would open-source AI require different treatment?

What they are testing

The panel is testing whether the candidate can translate a global technology debate into practical public administration and risk management.

How to take it

Lead with the principle that AI should assist public-health workers, not weaken confidentiality or replace professional judgement. Describe a cautious implementation pathway: limited pilots, data minimisation, access controls, human review and grievance handling. Acknowledge capacity constraints, then end with a decision linked to demonstrable public benefit.

A strong answer sounds like

I would introduce AI in public health only where it solves a clearly identified service problem, such as helping staff organise information or support early warning, and not merely because it is fashionable. I would begin with a limited pilot using the minimum necessary data, role-based access and a clear record of who can view or use information. The recent Australian concerns around a health-database breach show why health data deserves special caution. The counter-argument is that smaller districts may lack the staff and technical capacity for elaborate safeguards. That is true, which is why I would prefer standardised state-level safeguards and independent technical support over improvised local systems. I would scale up only after privacy, accuracy and patient redress mechanisms are demonstrably working.

Expect next

• Would you allow a private vendor to retain health data?
• What would you do after an accidental data disclosure?

What they are testing

The panel is examining the candidate’s ethical reasoning on dignity, consent, remedy and the asymmetry between platforms and individual users.

How to take it

State plainly that an apology matters but is not a complete remedy. Explain why image disclosure can cause irreversible harm even after removal, especially for vulnerable persons. Balance this against the difficulty of guaranteeing zero error, then argue for prevention, prompt containment and meaningful remedy.

A strong answer sounds like

No, an apology alone is not enough because an image can be copied, redistributed and used in ways that the affected person cannot fully reverse. The ethical issue is not only a technical error; it is a loss of consent, privacy and personal dignity. Reports this week that AI agents posted user images online in error make that risk concrete. The strongest counter-argument is that no complex system can promise zero mistakes, and demanding perfection may discourage beneficial innovation. I agree that zero error is unrealistic. But that makes preventive design, explicit consent, rapid takedown, notification, investigation and accessible redress more important, not less. My administrative judgement is that platforms handling intimate personal data must carry a higher duty of care than ordinary online services.

Expect next

• Should compensation depend on proof of actual harm?
• What protections are needed for children’s images?

What they are testing

The panel is testing whether you can connect geography and infrastructure with foreign-policy choices without using strategic autonomy as a slogan.

How to take it

Begin by define strategic autonomy as the ability to make decisions with wider room for manoeuvre, not isolation from partners. Explain that alternative routes can diversify economic and diplomatic access, while conceding that infrastructure alone cannot remove geopolitical constraints. End by stressing dependable, rule-based connectivity rather than symbolic projects.

A strong answer sounds like

I see strategic autonomy as India’s capacity to take independent decisions because it has multiple viable options, not because it stands apart from the world. Eurasian connectivity matters in that sense: if India has more than one route and more than one set of economic relationships, it is less exposed to disruption or pressure in any single channel. The strongest counter-argument is that corridors can become geopolitical promises without becoming commercially dependable routes. That is a valid concern, because transport links need security, predictable rules and sustained cooperation. Therefore, India should treat connectivity as a long-term capability, combining diplomacy with trade facilitation and infrastructure, rather than presenting any one route as a strategic solution by itself.

Expect next

• Can diversification become economically inefficient?
• How would you judge whether a corridor is genuinely viable?

What they are testing

The panel wants to see whether you can make a proportionate judgement under geopolitical risk rather than choose either optimism or withdrawal.

How to take it

Lead with a qualified yes: engagement is necessary, but exposure must be calibrated. Recognise that instability can interrupt trade and raise costs. Land on diversification, risk assessment and phased commitments instead of overdependence on one route.

A strong answer sounds like

Yes, India should invest political capital, but it should not confuse engagement with overdependence. Regions facing conflict and uncertainty are precisely where India needs options for trade, energy and diplomatic outreach; disengagement can leave the field entirely to others. At the same time, the risks are substantial. A corridor can be interrupted by conflict, sanctions-related complications, insecure shipping or changes in political priorities, and public investment must be judged carefully. My approach would be phased and pragmatic: strengthen connectivity where it serves clear commercial and strategic needs, maintain alternative channels, and continuously assess operational risk. As an administrator, I would support resilient networks and contingency planning, not a single-route strategy built on optimistic assumptions.

Expect next

• What would make you pause further investment?
• Who should bear commercial risk in such projects?

What they are testing

The panel is testing whether you can translate a strategic headline into practical intergovernmental and administrative action.

How to take it

Start by saying rail completion is an opportunity, not an endpoint. Identify operational coordination as the immediate task: cargo movement, customs predictability, commercial users and security assessment. Concede that India cannot administer another country’s infrastructure, then conclude with coordination and measurable service reliability.

A strong answer sounds like

I would treat the rail development as an opening for operational planning, not as proof that connectivity has already been achieved. My first priority would be to understand whether cargo can move predictably from port to rail and onward, because traders value reliability, documentation clarity and predictable transit more than announcements. I would coordinate among the relevant Indian agencies, commercial stakeholders and diplomatic channels to identify bottlenecks in customs processes, cargo handling, insurance and security. India cannot control every part of a route outside its territory, and that is the central limitation. Therefore, my administrative judgement would be to build a realistic pilot-based logistics framework, monitor disruptions closely, and scale usage only when the corridor demonstrates dependable commercial performance.

Expect next

• How would you involve Indian exporters in this process?
• What indicator would show that the route is working?

What they are testing

The panel is probing whether you can balance national interest with principles, especially when diplomacy involves difficult partners.

How to take it

State that engagement is not endorsement and that India must protect its interests without abandoning principles. Acknowledge the moral concern that economic ties can appear to legitimise harmful conduct. Conclude that transparent, law-governed and people-centred engagement is the responsible balance.

A strong answer sounds like

I would not treat engagement as endorsement. India has legitimate interests in trade access, regional stability and the welfare of its citizens, and refusing all contact with difficult governments can reduce India’s influence without improving outcomes. However, the ethical concern is real: connectivity and commerce can be seen as indifference to conflict, coercion or human suffering. India should not dismiss that concern in the language of national interest alone. My position is that engagement must remain consistent with international law, respect for sovereignty and protection of civilians, while India retains the freedom to state its concerns clearly. Administratively, I would favour transparent agreements, careful risk review and diplomacy that keeps national interest aligned with responsible conduct.

Expect next

• Who decides what constitutes responsible engagement?
• Would you ever suspend a connectivity arrangement on ethical grounds?

What they are testing

The panel is testing whether the candidate can connect debt servicing, fiscal choices and macroeconomic stability without treating public borrowing as inherently harmful.

How to take it

Begin with the budget constraint: a higher interest burden claims resources before new priorities can be funded. Distinguish productive, well-governed borrowing from recurring borrowing, while conceding that this distinction depends on execution and returns. End with the need for credible medium-term fiscal management that protects essential investment.

A strong answer sounds like

I would see higher interest rates as reducing fiscal space because a larger part of revenue must first meet interest obligations, leaving less flexibility for health, education, infrastructure or shock response. Borrowing is not automatically undesirable: if it finances durable public assets that raise productivity, it can strengthen future repayment capacity. However, that argument becomes weak when projects are poorly selected, delayed or financed without a credible revenue path. The strongest counter-argument is that cutting expenditure during a development phase can itself hurt growth and worsen debt dynamics. So my administrative judgement would be to protect high-quality capital and social investment, but subject new borrowing to transparent appraisal, timely implementation and a credible fiscal path.

Expect next

• How would you identify high-quality public capital expenditure?
• Can growth alone solve a debt problem?

What they are testing

The panel is testing judgement on balancing strategic technological investment against the risk of fashionable or fiscally careless expenditure.

How to take it

Lead by separating strategic public goods from indiscriminate subsidy or prestige spending. Recognise that delaying digital capacity may impose competitive costs, but insist on clear public purpose and risk-sharing. Land on selective investment backed by governance, skills and evaluation.

A strong answer sounds like

I would support selective public investment in AI-related capacity, not an open-ended spending race. Government has a legitimate role where the investment creates public goods, such as research capability, secure digital infrastructure, skills and access for smaller institutions. India cannot assume that private markets alone will build all the capacity needed for a technologically competitive economy. At the same time, AI investment can become a fashionable label for projects with uncertain social returns, and higher interest rates make such mistakes more costly. The strongest case for restraint is that basic health, learning and physical infrastructure have immediate unmet needs. My judgement would be to fund AI where it demonstrably complements these priorities, use partnerships where appropriate, and review outcomes rigorously.

Expect next

• What outcomes would justify public AI expenditure?
• Would you subsidise private data centres?

What they are testing

The panel is testing whether macroeconomic reasoning can be translated into practical prioritisation, financial discipline and service delivery.

How to take it

Start with prioritisation rather than a blanket cut. Explain that committed liabilities, maintenance and vulnerable groups require protection, while low-readiness projects need scrutiny. Conclude with better project preparation, convergence and transparent monitoring rather than merely asking for more funds.

A strong answer sounds like

As an administrator, I would not respond with uniform cuts, because they often damage maintenance and frontline services first. I would prioritise essential services, upkeep of existing assets and projects that are ready to execute and have clear local benefits. I would also examine whether fragmented schemes can be converged, whether idle assets can be made functional, and whether procurement and payment schedules are creating avoidable costs. The difficult counter-argument is that postponing new works may disappoint communities and elected representatives, especially where infrastructure gaps are visible. But borrowing or committing funds for poorly prepared works only shifts the burden forward. My administrative judgement would be to communicate priorities openly, protect high-impact expenditure and defer proposals lacking land, design, approvals or measurable outcomes.

Expect next

• Would you postpone a politically important project?
• How would you prevent maintenance from being neglected?

What they are testing

The panel is testing the candidate’s ethical framework on intergenerational equity, distributive justice and the legitimacy of public borrowing.

How to take it

Frame borrowing as an intergenerational contract rather than a moral failure or a free resource. State that future citizens may fairly share costs when they inherit durable benefits, but not when they inherit waste or concealed liabilities. Close with transparency and accountability as ethical requirements.

A strong answer sounds like

I think public debt can be fair across generations when those who repay it also inherit meaningful benefits, such as resilient infrastructure, better human capital or reduced vulnerability to shocks. In that sense, refusing all borrowing can also be unfair, because it may deny present citizens basic opportunities and leave future generations with larger development gaps. But the ethical defence collapses if borrowing finances routine consumption, inefficient projects or benefits captured by a narrow group. The strongest counter-argument is that future citizens cannot consent to today’s decisions, so governments must be especially cautious. My administrative judgement would be to treat debt as a transparent intergenerational contract: disclose obligations clearly, assess projects honestly and borrow only where public value is durable and broadly shared.

Expect next

• Who should decide what counts as durable public value?
• Is off-budget borrowing ethically different?

What they are testing

The panel is testing whether you can move beyond the slogan to explain the institutional capacities that make preparedness real.

How to take it

Lead by defining resilience as the ability to anticipate, absorb and respond without abandoning ordinary health services. Link surveillance and early warning to primary care, laboratories, referral systems, communication and local coordination. Concede that technology is only an enabler, then land on sustained public capacity.

A strong answer sounds like

I would define a resilient health system as one that can detect a threat early, respond proportionately and still continue essential care for everyone else. In practice, that means surveillance must connect with capable primary facilities, laboratories, referral hospitals, trained personnel and credible public communication. The dengue early-warning work reported from Keralam is important because it shifts attention from reacting to cases towards anticipating trends. However, a forecast by itself does not protect anyone if district teams cannot verify signals, control breeding sites, prepare facilities and communicate clearly. The strongest counter-argument is that such preparedness can appear expensive when there is no crisis. My administrative judgement is that routine prevention and response capacity must be funded as a core health function, not treated as a temporary emergency project.

Expect next

• How would you know whether an early-warning system is actually useful?
• Can resilience be built without substantially increasing health spending?

What they are testing

The panel is testing your judgement under uncertainty and your ability to balance precaution against waste or public alarm.

How to take it

Begin by distinguishing low-regret preparatory action from coercive or disruptive action. Explain that forecasts should trigger verification, graded readiness and transparent communication rather than panic. Acknowledge false alarms, but conclude that decisions should be proportionate, documented and reversible.

A strong answer sounds like

Yes, but the response should be graded rather than automatic. An outbreak forecast should first trigger verification of local data and preparedness measures that carry little downside, such as checking supplies, alerting field teams, intensifying vector-control work and reviewing referral arrangements. I would not use an uncertain forecast alone to justify measures that seriously disrupt livelihoods or create fear. False alarms can waste resources and weaken public trust, so officials must explain the uncertainty honestly and revise decisions as evidence changes. Yet waiting for absolute certainty is also poor administration, because by then transmission may have expanded. My administrative judgement is to act early through proportionate, reversible measures, while keeping the public informed about what is known and what is still uncertain.

Expect next

• Who should take responsibility when an early warning proves false?
• How would you prevent public communication from becoming alarmist?

What they are testing

The panel is testing whether you can translate a policy idea into coordinated district administration.

How to take it

Lead with a district command approach centred on the health department, while recognising that health action alone is insufficient. Bring in local bodies, water and sanitation agencies, schools, hospitals and community workers. Land on targeted action, feedback from the field and continuity of routine services.

A strong answer sounds like

As district collector, I would treat the alert as a trigger for coordinated verification and prevention, not as a reason for a ceremonial meeting. I would ask the health team to identify likely local clusters and assess facility readiness, while local bodies would focus on sanitation, water stagnation and source reduction in the relevant areas. Hospitals and frontline workers would be briefed on referral and reporting, and schools and community networks would receive simple, practical prevention messages. I would also ensure that field reports return quickly to the district team so that action can be redirected if the alert does not match conditions on the ground. The counter-argument is that this creates administrative burden during routine work. My judgement is that clear roles and targeted deployment reduce that burden and protect routine services.

Expect next

• How would you coordinate municipalities and rural local bodies effectively?
• What would you do if hospitals report shortages during the alert?

What they are testing

The panel is probing whether your commitment to public health remains compatible with constitutional values and public trust.

How to take it

Start from the principle that public health data are necessary but power must be limited by purpose and safeguards. State the need for minimum necessary data, secure handling, restricted access and accountability. Concede that emergencies require speed, then conclude that trust is itself a preparedness asset.

A strong answer sounds like

I would not see privacy and public health as opposing goals. Effective surveillance needs timely information, but the State should collect only what is necessary for a defined public-health purpose, protect it securely and restrict access to those who genuinely need it. People are more likely to cooperate with testing, reporting and prevention when they believe their information will not be misused or exposed. In a serious emergency, speed may require limited departures from ordinary procedures, but those departures should be lawful, proportionate and subject to review. The strongest argument on the other side is that too many safeguards can slow response. My administrative judgement is that well-designed safeguards improve rather than weaken preparedness because public trust is essential to reliable health data and collective action.

Expect next

• Would you permit sharing identifiable patient data with local bodies?
• How would you handle misinformation about government health surveillance?

What they are testing

The panel is testing whether you can explain a geopolitical-economic term without reducing it to a slogan.

How to take it

Lead by defining it as diversification away from excessive China-centred concentration, rather than a complete severing of ties. Concede that production networks are deeply interconnected and that selective decoupling may raise costs. Land on the idea of resilience through multiple sources, not autarky.

A strong answer sounds like

I understand de-Sinification as an attempt by firms and governments to reduce excessive dependence on China in production, sourcing and critical technologies. I would not equate it with ending economic links with China. The current discussion itself shows the complexity: China can adjust tariffs on selected U.S. farm goods while excluding soybeans, and it remains relevant in advanced technology supply decisions. The strongest counter-argument is that shifting supply chains can make goods costlier and create inefficient duplication. That is valid. Still, a single concentrated source can turn a commercial disruption into a strategic vulnerability. My administrative judgement would be to promote diversified, reliable supply networks while keeping trade policy pragmatic and evidence-based.

Expect next

• How is diversification different from protectionism?
• Which dependencies should India treat as strategic?

What they are testing

The panel wants to see whether you can balance domestic industry, consumers and external economic interests.

How to take it

Start by rejecting an automatic retaliatory approach. Recognise that carefully designed, time-bound protection can help sectors facing unfair disruption or strategic exposure. Conclude that competitiveness requires more than border duties: it requires domestic capability and predictable policy.

A strong answer sounds like

I would not support higher tariffs as India’s default response to global trade tensions. Tariffs can provide temporary space to domestic producers, especially where there is a genuine strategic dependency or an abrupt import shock. However, their strongest drawback is that they can raise input costs for Indian industry and prices for consumers, while allowing inefficient firms to avoid upgrading. China’s selective tariff approach illustrates that trade measures are often instruments of negotiation, not permanent economic doctrine. India should therefore use tariffs selectively, transparently and with periodic review. My preference would be to pair any limited protection with logistics improvement, skills, finance and technology support, so that industry becomes competitive rather than permanently sheltered.

Expect next

• How would you prevent temporary protection from becoming permanent?
• Would tariffs help India’s exporters?

What they are testing

The panel is assessing whether you can translate a global trend into implementable local governance.

How to take it

Begin with the limits of a district officer’s role: global investment decisions are not locally controlled. Then identify practical coordination tasks around land, permissions, workforce, utilities and small suppliers. End by stressing lawful facilitation, environmental safeguards and broad-based local gains.

A strong answer sounds like

As a district administrator, I would not assume that a global company will come merely because supply chains are shifting. My role would be to make the local ecosystem credible. I would coordinate time-bound, lawful clearances; identify industrially suitable land; improve communication between training institutions and employers; and help local small enterprises understand quality and procurement requirements. The strongest concern is that investment facilitation can become a race to dilute labour, environmental or land safeguards. I would avoid that approach because it creates social conflict and weakens long-term investor confidence. My administrative judgement would be to offer reliability rather than favours: transparent processes, essential infrastructure, skilled local workers and firm compliance with public-interest safeguards.

Expect next

• How would you address land acquisition resistance?
• What can small local firms gain from such investment?

What they are testing

The panel is testing your ability to weigh national resilience against the welfare impact on ordinary consumers.

How to take it

Acknowledge that resilience has a cost and that poorer households bear price increases most sharply. Distinguish essential or critical goods from ordinary consumer choices. Close with a proportionality test: the public cost must be justified, targeted and openly reviewed.

A strong answer sounds like

I think some additional cost can be ethically justified for strategic resilience, but only in narrowly defined and transparent circumstances. If a critical supply is vulnerable to coercion or disruption, relying only on the cheapest foreign source may impose a much larger social cost later. At the same time, the strongest objection is important: higher prices act like a burden on households, particularly those with limited incomes, and self-reliance can become a convenient label for protection of vested interests. Therefore, I would not treat every import as a security issue. My administrative judgement would be to reserve resilience measures for clearly identified critical sectors, support domestic capability efficiently, and review whether the public is receiving genuine security rather than merely paying more.

Expect next

• Who should decide what counts as critical?
• How would you make such decisions transparent?