IMO DoC prolly shouldn't implement theoretical civics. As much of a filthy commie as I am, I'm not sure if we should have a Civic which, even in the brightest timeline, likely wouldn't even really be used until like, the last 50 turns of the game at best. Not to mention the awkwardness of assigning effects to a civic which thus far has no regions where it's been historically prominent. All other civics can be modeled both to reflect their pros and cons and to encourage greater use in fitting regions and situations, whereas civics like communism and statelessness would only be able to be modeled after the former.
Also, I'm still a proponent of changing Republic's effect, or at least removing the ability for Great People to add 1 Food to cities. It causes it to be the single best civic for the vast majority of long term games. Arabia, Argentina, Brazil, the Byzantines, Canada, Carthage, the Netherlands, England, Ethiopia, Greece, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Khmer, Korea, Maya, Morocco, Turkey, Polynesia, Portugal, Rome, Thailand, and the Viking all do far better in long games with Republic than they do with Democracy, let alone the other civics.
Like, I get that Republic is designed to be best for any civ with a coastal capital, but maybe there should be an incentive to swap off it and to Democracy beyond a tiny +5 stability. Being able to effectively double your excess food is just absolutely insane.