The French Citizens' Convention for Climate (CCC) demonstrated that external input from experts and organizers did not undermine citizens' agency in proposing climate measures. However, the co-constructive approach failed to generate significant support among the broader public, and the government's limited follow-up on the CCC's proposals led to disappointment among the citizens. These results highlight the need for stronger commitment structures to ensure policy uptake and greater public engagement in citizens' assemblies.

Some of the researchers involved in the study were granted access to the CCC proceedings and worked collaboratively to document and analyze the process. This close involvement could potentially introduce bias, although the researchers adhered to a charter to minimize interference.

This paper provides valuable insights into the dynamics of co-construction in a large-scale citizens' assembly. The mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative observations, surveys, and voting data, offers a rich understanding of the process. While some limitations exist, such as the reliance on self-reported data and the lack of a control group, the study's strengths outweigh its weaknesses. The findings are relevant for both academics and policymakers interested in deliberative democracy and climate action.