Might call those civics upgrades, which in its own right isnt a bad idea. Civics often change the way the game is played to support a playstyle, meaning that some civics will seem good and some won't based on how your playing. Imagine getting a peackeepers civic that add a peacekeeping cb to defensive wars policy, it would be fun for pacifists but who else would want that? Particularly not militarist. Unlocking new civics can show a growing and evolving civilization, rn there is no incentive to ever change your civics short of when you get your third.
I don't think you understand how Civics... work. Or how Tech works. You don't need a Tech to grant you a Civic to grant you a CB to grant you the ability to attack other players when you have a Defensive Wars policy. You can just... change your Policy.
You're selling this like some sort of super unique thing that's never been done before, when what you're describing is Changing Policies, a thing that can be done every 10 years. There's no benefit to this beyond feeling like the "Reform Government" button doesn't get enough use, because of some belief that every button needs to get the same amount of use? The fact that you rarely need to change Civics isn't a bug, it's a feature. If you're intending on playing a particular playstyle, CIvics help reinforce that from the start of the game. If you want to pivot your playstyle mid-game, you can, but mandating that just seems silly especially if you've selected Civics that are very core to certain playstyles.
There is no reason any benefits you want your "Advanced Civics" to grant couldn't just be Techs, beyond this pathological desire to demand people Reform their governments more than once per game, and you've done nothing to explain why that would be a good thing. There are a lot of things players don't need to change over the course of their game. Mandating players change is, in and of itself, not something with any value. It's just tedium.
.png){kind=avatar}