If nothing was unclear or difficult, say so. Skip questions about steps you did not experience; use not applicable where appropriate.

How clear is the current decision-making process?
Where would you like a chance to contribute?
What would make published decisions easier to understand?
Which decision needs more background information?
How should members hear what happened to their suggestions?

Author notes / illustrative keys where applicable:
1. Check whether members understand who makes decisions and how input is considered. Clarify the actual process without treating questionnaire responses as a formal vote.
2. Identify a decision stage where members want an appropriate contribution route. Compare that request with the governing process before promising participation or decision authority.
3. Locate missing reasons or context in published decisions. Improve the explanation while distinguishing understandable communication from agreement with the decision's outcome itself.
4. Find a decision whose rationale cannot be understood from the published background. Add accurate relevant context while preserving legitimate limits on confidential deliberations.
5. Choose a feedback route that explains whether suggestions were accepted, deferred or declined. Acknowledge considered input without promising adoption of every member's proposal.