Question DAT 02

DAT-02 What information should each record carry so people can understand its source, timing, current meaning and later corrections?

Start here · Questions · Progress · People decide

Why this matters

Good records keep a cancellation, a continuing warning and an uncertain update understandable even after a restart or lost connection.

What to bring back

A record guide with worked warnings, service notices and calendar occurrences, covering identity, source, times, validity, whether the device clock can be trusted, replacements, corrections and continuing instructions.

What we know so far

• comprehensive rebuild plan — reviewed source; public copy can be added through the evidence process (Sections 2-3, 5-6 and 9)
• 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.

Give each record a stable identity, source, issue and receipt times, applicable place, status and replacement links. Show information age and clock confidence plainly, and retain corrections so people can understand what changed.

Existing-practice adaptation

AI-generated adaptation of an existing pattern. Adapt CAP's warning-record ideas where the source uses them: sender, identifier, sent time, status, update and cancellation references. Add separate local receipt and checking times without inventing an expiry or changing an issuer's instructions.

Research basis: Common Alerting Protocol Version 1.2 · Managing records created using artificial intelligence.

Future concept to explore

AI-generated future concept. A personal Aura could explain a record's history and why an older edition is no longer current. XR views could show the same provenance beside a map, with the ordinary text record always accessible.

Examples and local differences

• Common Alerting Protocol Version 1.2: AI transfer assessment: Preserve message identity and explicit update relationships across delivery systems. Local difference to check: CAP is a format comparator; calendars, resource records and a particular local publisher may require different schemas.

Evidence to bring back next

• Build worked examples for an update, cancellation, uncertain clock and continuing instruction.
• Ask the actual issuer to review how stale or superseded instructions are displayed.

People and connected choices

Who reviews: Luke, as project initiator, develops the proposed record design and its supporting evidence. Actual issuers and relevant service reviewers assess applicable requirements and confirm the meaning, timing and continuing status of information they are responsible for.

Connected questions: DAT-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.