Question DAT 01

DAT-01 Which official and service-information owners should supply each essential information type, and how should updates reach the network?

Start here · Questions · Progress · People decide

Why this matters

Clear relationships with information owners make source checks, timely updates and outage arrangements dependable.

What to bring back

A source-agreement register naming each owner, its authority, permitted use, update method, checking schedule, failed-check escalation and offline information path.

What we know so far

• comprehensive rebuild plan — reviewed source; public copy can be added through the evidence process (Section 3)
• supporting research — reviewed source; public copy can be added through the evidence process (Official disaster and warning sources)
• Professional review and comparison of proposed improvements (When this work overlaps professional or public-authority responsibilities, compare the proposal and Luke's research with applicable industry/global best practice and relevant legal-engine sources. Record differences, reasonable improvements and deficiencies, with the responsible reviewer and response. Routine authorised drafting and wiki work can advance.)
• Council plan crosswalk and proposed Aura integration (Relevant question row identifies the management/recovery source section and printed/PDF page. AI-generated analysis, 21 October 2026; proposed checks and actual review/operating agreements retain separate status.)

AI-generated potential answers

For discussion and review · research checked 2026-10-20. These are AI-generated options and transfer assessments. The user's request and research method identify the source of this work. The source catalogue states what the references establish. The decision and approval record retains its own status.

Create a source agreement for every essential information type, beginning with Redland's official disaster information and the actual transport, utility and service owners. Record update rights, checking intervals, failed checks and the approved offline copy.

Existing-practice adaptation

AI-generated adaptation of an existing pattern. Prepare a feed inventory from the local council's official information directory, then confirm each publisher's actual API, licence, contact and permitted caching. Keep community observations in a separate review queue with their own provenance.

Research basis: Redland City Council: disasters and emergencies · Sunshine Coast: Disaster Hub helps Coast stay safe · Common Alerting Protocol Version 1.2.

Future concept to explore

AI-generated future concept. Give each Aura a source-aware explanation layer that can show the original message, its age and applicable area. Future automated source checks could propose corrections or escalation while issuers retain control of their warnings.

Examples and local differences

• Redland City Council: disasters and emergencies: AI transfer assessment: Use the existing local public-information structure as the starting point for agreements. Local difference to check: A public website link does not establish an API, republishing licence, refresh guarantee or partnership.

Evidence to bring back next

• Complete one real source-agreement example before implementing broad ingestion.
• Verify transport and utility information directly with the responsible publishers' current official documentation.

People and connected choices

Who reviews: Luke, as project initiator, researches candidate sources and brings the comparison forward. Each actual information owner confirms permitted use and update arrangements, while the authorised issuer retains responsibility for official instructions and reviews proposed use within its scope.

Connected questions: OPS-01, OPS-04

Work state: open. Assigned person or AI assistant: Ready to be assigned.

Research and alternatives can move ahead while connected decisions develop. Before acting on a choice, check the people, evidence and approved scope in People decide.