Here's my amendment of your amendment. I think the CRL should examine all bills, to the extent capable, and have their say on their own initiative when they see fit to.
WHEREAS the quality of legislation in Talossa is admittedly low, with many errors and infelicities of language;
AND WHEREAS there is an even worse problem, whereby provisions enter into our Organic and statute law "by accident"', in that the Cosa and Senäts majority vote for the principle of a bill, trust its author, and don't actually read it properly, or assume that someone else will read it properly and point out any problems;
AND WHEREAS every legislator simply promising to be more conscientious is not a feasible response to this;
AND WHEREAS the following provision would probably work better than the previously mooted role of "legislative janitor";
BE IT ENACTED yadda yadda yadda:
A new section shall be inserted after H.6 of El Lexhatx, as follows, and the subsequent sections renumbered accordingly:
7.1 A Legislative Advisory Committee of Talossa (in Talossan, el Comità da Redacziun Legislatïu; and hereinafter, "the CRL") shall review or revise all legislative items from the Hopper as described in H.6 above upon the request of their sponsor or sponsors; and, when so requested, they shall may recommend acceptance or rejection, or shall make suggest amendments in their best judgement.
7.2 The CRL shall conduct all its deliberations openly in the Hopper.
7.3 The CRL shall consist of the incumbent Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral.
I personally think requiring all bills that are put into hopper would be impractical in the long run, whilst activity is low, then yeah, itll be fine but one day that might now be sufficent. I think a better option might be that once a bill has been in the hopper for a long enough period to be reviewed by others, then the bill is submitted to the committee to be clarked before the next clark starts, for review, then at a time near to the clark starting, the committee submitts these bills to SoS to be clarked (so long as support for it still exists, but that can be determined by the SoS). Also i think that their needs to be strict peramiters set in law, on what can or cant be changed, based on what is need to change, but doesnt fundimentally change the bills intent, otherwise the committee could potentially be missued as a political tool rather than a legislative clean up tool.
Anyways these are just my preliminary thoughts on this.