Abstract
AI-assisted consultation can speed large-scale public engagement, but concise summaries may reflect some submissions more closely than others. This paper introduces participatory provenance, a framework for auditing how semantic coverage is distributed from submissions to summary sentences. Applied to two topics in Canada's 2025 AI Strategy consultation (5,253 records; 2,861 participants), official summaries had higher observed mean coverage than exact-length random text, although statistical significance depended on the embedding model. Low coverage concentrated in semantic regions, especially those centered on criticism of educational technology and distrust of technology and oversight, whereas few or no records crossed the operational threshold in several better-covered regions. Same-budget, cross-fitted extractive benchmarks improved mean and lower-tail coverage on held-out submissions, showing that better semantic coverage was feasible without longer summaries. Consultation summaries should be evaluated not only for coherence and factual support, but also for how coverage is distributed across the range of submitted views.