Letters to residents in plain language, with AI as first editor
Short answer
A large share of adults struggle with complicated letters, and government letters carry the most legal language of all. AI is good at rewriting: shorter, more active, in ordinary words. The risk is that the legal content shifts. So work with a fixed style instruction, have the subject specialist approve the final version, and rewrite standard templates once properly instead of every letter separately.
Why letters get stuck
A government letter has to be legally correct and understandable. In practice the legal side wins: references to articles, long sentences, conditional constructions. The result is predictable: people phone, do not respond, or respond too late, which in turn produces objections and missed deadlines.
Rewriting takes time that is rarely available. That is why standard letters stay as they are for years.
The approach that works: templates first
Do not start with individual letters, but with the templates that go out most often. Rewriting one template properly delivers more than updating a hundred individual letters.
- Pick the twenty most-sent letters per department.
- Have AI produce a plain version of each, with a fixed instruction: short sentences, active voice, one message per paragraph, no jargon without explanation.
- Have the subject specialist and a lawyer approve the new version.
- Test with a few residents or colleagues from outside the department.
- Put the approved version in the system, so it is used automatically.
Mistakes you want to prevent
| Mistake | What happens | What helps |
|---|---|---|
| Content shifts | A condition drops out or a deadline becomes unclear | Always approval by a subject specialist |
| Too friendly | A refusal reads like good news | Message at the top, keep the tone businesslike |
| Invented schemes | A letter mentions a benefit that does not exist | Only rewrite, never add. See AI hallucinations |
| Every letter separately | Much work, little structure | Rewrite templates instead of individual letters |
| Unintended new policy | Plain-language wording turns out stricter or wider | A lawyer reads along at approval |
How to set it up
Give staff the rewriting instruction as a button, not as a prompt everyone invents themselves: then the results are consistent and reviewable. Put the agreed style rules into the instruction, together with examples of well-rewritten letters from your own organisation.
With werqly this runs on a dedicated node: draft letters and personal data stay within the organisation. In werqly AI Control you record the rewriting instruction per department, so everyone uses the same style. See Rolling out an AI assistant, AI literacy and AI for local government.
Frequently asked questions
Questions on this topic
Can AI make legal letters understandable?
In form, yes: shorter, more active, less jargon. The legal content has to be approved by a subject specialist, because rewriting can shift a condition or a deadline without anyone noticing.
Should we have every letter rewritten?
No, start with the templates that go out most often. Rewriting and approving one template properly works better than editing every individual letter, and it produces consistent texts.
How do we avoid getting the tone wrong?
Put the message at the top and keep the tone businesslike. Include in the fixed instruction that a refusal must read as a refusal, and test new templates with colleagues from outside the department.
May AI also add explanation to a letter?
Only if that explanation comes from approved information. Let the model rewrite, not add: added explanation is exactly where incorrect or overly broad promises appear.
Sources
- Dutch General Administrative Law Act (reasoning of decisions, Article 3:46)
- Gebruiker Centraal — Direct Duidelijk, plain government language (Dutch)
This article is general information, not legal advice. Rules and guidance change; check the sources listed or ask your lawyer or DPO if in doubt.