In the context of the public sector, co-design can act as a citizen’s advocacy apparatus by enabling laypeople to engage in the design of public policies and services. However, there is a need to ensure that the voices of vulnerable populations are considered when presenting the outcomes of the co-design in a plenary session. If the vulnerable participants, including minorities and those who may have contextual difficulties with expressing their ideas, are not accounted for, the co-design suffers from a democratic deficit.

The research presented here examines the ideas and nuances offered by different participants through the plenary sessions of a co-design activity. By comparing the unique perspective of each participant, the issues and key moments of plenary sessions are identified. This research offers potential mechanisms of synthesis that limit the omission of ideas from vulnerable peoples during public project development co-design activities.