U članku su prezentirani rezultati istraživanja o strukturi komentara sudionika e-savjetovanja o arhivskim propisima i planskim dokumentima u Hrvatskoj. Podatci su prikupljeni metodom kvantitativne analize sadržaja pojedinačnih izvješća o provedenim savjetovanjima od 2017. do 2020. godine dostupnih na portalu e-Savjetovanja i popratnih dokumenata. Nakon uvoda i opisa metodologije istraživanja, prezentirani su rezultati istraživanja te se o njima raspravlja. U obliku tabličnih i grafičkih prikaza prezentirani su podatci o statusu komentara (prihvaćeno, djelomično prihvaćeno, neprihvaćeno, primljeno na znanje, neodgovoreno) po pojedinom e-savjetovanju, te prema dvjema skupinama sudionika: stručna arhivska zajednica i stala zainteresirana javnost (prema broju i u postotku). Prihvaćeni i djelomično prihvaćeni komentari analizirani su i sadržajno te pritom razvrstani u dvije osnovne kategorije: tehnički i stručni komentari. S jedne strane, rezultati takve analize mogu se tumačiti kao pokazatelj stupnja kompetentnosti sudionika e-savjetovanja. S druge strane, može ih se smatrati važnim čimbenikom u objašnjavanju ishoda e-savjetovanja, tj. sklonosti zakonodavca da (ne)uvaži zaprimljene prijedloge. The Bulletin d’ archives from 2021 published the results of a survey on participants in public consultations (e-counsellings) on regulations and planning documents on public archival service in Croatia. The subject was suited for a complete elaboration, since in the period from 2017 to 2020 the competent Ministry of Culture (renamed in July 2020 into Ministry of Culture and Media) had carried out counsellings via the central internet portal on eight legal acts (two laws, five ordinances and one planning document). Apart from the new ordi-nance on registers and other official archival documentation that has yet to be regulated, this constitutes a comprehensive normative and planning framework of the public archival service. Inter alia, the results of that research indicated a rather low level of interest of the general public, as well as the professional archi-val community for the normative infrastructure of the public archival service. The lower turnout was put into context of influences of the e-counsellings that had so far taken place, regarding the formation of the final proposals of legal acts in terms of the level of acceptance of the sent suggestions (comments). Analysis of this segment, i.e. the status with which the comments were marked after the e-counsellings (accepted, partially accepted, not accepted, duly noted, unan-swered) are presented in this paper. This seeks to encourage scientific interest in further research on this topic, especially within the ALM community (archives, libraries, museums). The results of the research show that the Ministry of Culture and Media, as the competent state administration institution, fully or partially accepted 79 or 19.1 % of the total of 412 sent comments. This percentage is slightly lower than the average percentage of accepted and partially accepted comments on e-counsellings at the state level (24 %). Analysis of the structure of comments by two groups of participants (professional archival community, gen-eral public) showed an equal share of accepted and partially accepted comments in the total number of comments submitted by each group (18.8 % of comments of the professional archival community and 20 % of comments of the general public). Accepted and partially accepted comments were also analysed according to their content and classified into two basic categories: technical and profes-sional comments. The share of unaccepted comments turned out to be very high (201 comments or 48.8 %). Nevertheless, as a kind of incentive for participation on future e-counsellings, it should be noted that two thirds of the accepted com-ments are related to professional comments. Although modest in terms of num-ber or percentage (53 comments or 13 % of the total of 412 comments sent to the analysed e-counsellings), this data still reflects the valuable contribution of participants in shaping the normative infrastructure of the archival service, i.e. respect for their competence by the legislator.