Question DAT 03

DAT-03 Who should prepare, review, approve, prioritise and withdraw each kind of public information?

Start here · Questions · Progress · People decide

Why this matters

Clear responsibilities let useful information move quickly while keeping official, cultural, private and technical decisions with the right people.

What to bring back

A publishing and delegation table showing approval evidence, permitted actions, outage arrangements, recovering lost access, accountable overrides and correction or withdrawal routes.

What we know so far

• comprehensive rebuild plan — reviewed source; public copy can be added through the evidence process (Sections 3, 5-6 and 8)
• 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.

Use a publishing table that names who prepares, checks, approves, withdraws and corrects each information category. Bind every delegation to its scope and edition, with recoverable access and a visible record of accountable overrides.

Existing-practice adaptation

AI-generated adaptation of an existing pattern. Keep official warnings under their issuer's meaning and authority. Assign calendar changes, community notices and service availability to their respective owners; test lost-account recovery and withdrawal without allowing one broad role to authorise every category.

Research basis: Australia's AI Ethics Principles · Common Alerting Protocol Version 1.2 · Managing records created using artificial intelligence.

Future concept to explore

AI-generated future concept. Auras and advanced AI/SI could prepare alternate formats and identify missing sources, while a permissions service restricts publication to the exact approved content and scope. Urgent delegated actions could be pre-agreed and reviewed afterwards from their full logs.

Examples and local differences

• Australia's AI Ethics Principles: AI transfer assessment: Make accountability and contestability visible in the design of automated assistance. Local difference to check: Ethical principles guide the working model; actual statutory powers, issuer contracts and cultural permissions still determine authority.

Evidence to bring back next

• Create example delegations for a notice editor, warning relay and site operator.
• Rehearse credential loss, incorrect publication and withdrawal at an offline location.

People and connected choices

Who reviews: Luke, as project initiator, proposes publishing roles and tools for review. Actual issuing bodies, the future operator, cultural custodians and hosts agree publishing authority within their own responsibilities; their participation and roles are to be confirmed.

Connected questions: DAT-01, DAT-02

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.