Question SW 03

SW-03 How will an approved update reliably replace an older notice, including when a kiosk is offline or an update stops halfway?

Start here · Questions · Progress · People decide

Why this matters

A ferry cancellation or safety update needs a clear source, current status and complete replacement of earlier advice.

What to bring back

Prepare a versioned contents list showing the publisher's digital signature, approval scope, start time, expiry and items replaced. Demonstrate interrupted downloads, cancellation, repeated old messages, conflicting updates, an uncertain device clock and recovery. The screen should show a complete identified edition throughout.

What we know so far

• app.js (lines332-348)
• site-data.js (eventAutomation and notice definitions)
• Web3_Sensorium_for_Science_Debate.pdf (pp.9,30)
• 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.)

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.

Publish complete identified notice editions, carrying their issuer, approval, validity and replacement history. Check the whole new edition before switching the screen. Explain when the last confirmed information is old, and retain cancellations so an older copy cannot quietly reappear.

CAP-compatible notices and checked editions

AI-generated adaptation of an existing pattern. Use CAP update, cancellation and validity meanings for warning information, alongside a signed local contents list. Trial interrupted transfers and explicit stale-information displays before selecting the publishing tools.

Research basis: Common Alerting Protocol Version 1.2 · Mender Artifacts: compatible, signed and resumable software editions.

Neighbouring hubs compare their latest editions

AI-generated future concept. Let authorised hubs exchange compact edition summaries and identify a missing cancellation. A newer claim would trigger verification against the recognised issuer; agreement among devices would provide evidence of distribution rather than publishing authority.

Research basis: Common Alerting Protocol Version 1.2 · RFC 9171: Bundle Protocol Version 7.

Examples and local differences

• Common Alerting Protocol Version 1.2: AI transfer assessment: CAP distinguishes a fresh alert, an update and cancellation of identified messages. Local difference to check: A kiosk still needs trusted issuer settings, complete-screen updates and behaviour for uncertain time and disconnected operation.

Evidence to bring back next

• Cancel a notice while one kiosk is offline; return an older signed edition and confirm the cancellation remains effective.
• Interrupt each download stage and test a clock that is incorrect or cannot be checked.

People and connected choices

Who reviews: Proposed publishing authority and security lead (unconfirmed)

Connected questions: DAT-01, SW-01

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.