Question DAT 06

DAT-06 How should local reports, media, event changes and accessible versions move from contribution to reviewed publication?

Start here · Questions · Progress · People decide

Why this matters

A clear contribution path lets more people inform their community while readers can see what was observed, checked, translated or approved.

What to bring back

A publishing workflow and example content set showing source type, permission, accessible formats, human review, cultural conditions, revisions, withdrawals and reports awaiting confirmation.

What we know so far

• comprehensive rebuild plan — reviewed source; public copy can be added through the evidence process (Sections 2-3 and 8)
• supporting research — reviewed source; public copy can be added through the evidence process (Noticeboard, events, media and cultural-source reviews)
• 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.

Offer a contribution-to-publication path with source type, permission, accessible versions, named review and withdrawal. Keep unconfirmed reports clearly labelled, preserve an original alongside any AI adaptation and let contributors see the response to their input.

Existing-practice adaptation

AI-generated adaptation of an existing pattern. Trial one event change, local observation and approved learning item using a common editorial checklist. Ask contributors about publication permission and cultural conditions; provide text, captions and audio as appropriate, with a reviewer checking meaning.

Research basis: AIATSIS Research Ethics Framework · Privacy and the use of commercially available AI products · Managing records created using artificial intelligence.

Future concept to explore

AI-generated future concept. An Aura could draft a translation, easy-read version or XR presentation with links back to its source and human review. Cultural custodians could set audience and reuse permissions that every format and downstream assistant carries forward.

Examples and local differences

• AIATSIS Research Ethics Framework: AI transfer assessment: Build permission and accountable interpretation into the publishing process. Local difference to check: An ethics framework does not identify or replace the relevant Quandamooka custodians or grant rights to their material.

Evidence to bring back next

• Create a worked example showing permission, accessible versions, revision and withdrawal.
• Test the reporting and correction path with users and the actual content owners.

People and connected choices

Who reviews: Luke, as project initiator, prepares the publishing-workflow proposal. Actual authors, rights holders, relevant cultural custodians and authorised publishers review the proposed handling of their material and decide their own releases and conditions.

Connected questions: OPS-01, DAT-02, DAT-03

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.