we would need to better understand the users in the whole domain: what is their role, how can they benefit from the big data driven policy making tools and methods, what skills will they need, what will be their benefits etc. We suggest to add a new cluster that addresses the citizen-driven focus

Please add support to problem setting: ability to fully understand the policy issue you are trying to tackle in its entirety and its key fundamental processes

Please add: stance definition that has to do with being able to single out a plurality of perspectives on a single topic (eg: ehealth: doctors, nurses, patients, tech companies, admin personnel from hospitals, parents of patients).

Please add: ability to differentiate complaints from critiques, where the former are just an expression of a frustration not necessary based on objective evidence (very common in social media) while the latter is strictly connected to factual evidence.

Please add: explainable AI (the possibility to fully understand the results offered by algorithms and as well as the possibility to check their consistency over time)

Please also add the need to understand the combined contribution of technological convergence: that is how may AI, Blockchain and IoT be combined to offer super-additive solutions for evidence-based policy making?

From what egferro refered to, i believe that including stakeholders of different perspectives is the most important.

Barriers to the adoption or acceptance of data-driven policy making, by various sets of stakeholders (experts, policy makers, decision makers, policy stakeholders, the public). Reasons may be technical, political or ideological (e.g. evidence-based policies run counter to the interests of stakeholders/ reluctance to accept a top-down policy developed by "elite technocrats reducing people to numbers, serving interests"). For the last 2, many solutions will be non-technical: e.g. development of counter-narratives, or rules for ensuring citizen or policy-maker agency.