Decision D 002

D-002 Design a kiosk family around its weather and working conditions

Start here · Questions · Progress · People decide

Review scope: The physical design brief and comparison drawings. State: ready for people to review

Choose a design approach that makes the public equipment, its power and its maintenance fit the conditions it will face. The existing artwork starts the visual conversation; this package starts the physical design.

The choices

Choice	What it brings	What to plan for
A freestanding outdoor kiosk	A visible public point can be placed where people gather and need information.	Resolve enclosure, heat, water, wind, anchoring, safe access and maintenance together.
A public interface supported by a weather-protected host	The public screen connects to computing and service equipment in an agreed protected space.	Agree access, host responsibilities, cabling, independent power and support when the host is closed.
A portable continuity kit	Crews can reach events, exercises and temporary gaps with a transportable unit.	Plan transport, safe setup, deployment conditions, storage and return.

Recommended next step

Develop coordinated designs for a sheltered arcade demonstrator, an operational outdoor public kiosk and a portable continuity kit. Compare freestanding and host-supported arrangements before choosing the outdoor build.

What this decision moves forward

• Write the exposure and service requirements for each form.
• Prepare alternative layouts, compartments, access arrangements and a measured parts-and-energy plan.

Later milestones with their own reviews

• Engineering review, prices and a build decision follow the comparison drawings.
• A real site brings its own host, cultural, installation and operating agreements.
• Measured weather, energy and communication performance supports a later field trial.

What people review

• Are operating conditions, protection through a severe event, storage and recovery conditions clearly described?
• Can a person use and maintain the equipment comfortably and safely?
• Do the drawings show water paths, heat management, power separation, access and mounting?
• Does each claimed capability have a planned measurement or review?
• Does the proposal identify overlapping professional responsibilities, applicable practice and legal sources, and the comparison of differences, improvements and deficiencies?

Questions: PHY-01, PHY-02, ENE-01, COM-01, TEST-01

Reviewers: Luke, as project initiator, reviewing planning choices within his responsibilities alongside the relevant professional review process

Open the GitHub review conversation.

Record the human decision

The fingerprint below identifies this exact proposal and its supporting files. A changed proposal gets a fresh fingerprint and review. A person may approve, request changes or reject it. How reviews work.

2655f6a5a22f6da6de4d57dfedd90659053baba68cf5d841775ae4edf5932fbf

Evidence fingerprint: d617e741818c414808c1e87ddc7e56588478ff86866ed3c21935783b057e23b3.

For approval, the named person posts this line in the linked GitHub issue after reading the proposal:

HITL APPROVE D-002 2655f6a5a22f6da6de4d57dfedd90659053baba68cf5d841775ae4edf5932fbf scope=design_brief
Conditions: none

Use CHANGE or REJECT in place of APPROVE to record that outcome. For conditional agreement, state the conditions in the Conditions field; that record awaits a fresh decision when they are met. Keep an approval comment to the displayed fields and discuss reasons in a separate comment. An optional Valid-until: field takes an ISO date/time with its timezone. AI assistants prepare the proposal and carry out authorised follow-up; the human decision belongs to the named person.