Question WRK 01

WRK-01 How will people and AI assistants turn a useful question into evidence, choices and a recorded human decision?

Start here · Questions · Progress · People decide

Why this matters

A shared working method lets several teams move quickly and bring their work together.

What to bring back

A worked example following one kiosk question from assignment through evidence, alternatives, a human review and the next authorised job.

What we know so far

• User directions for a linked GitHub wiki and human decisions, 20 October 2026 — reviewed source; public copy can be added through the evidence process (Planning conversation)
• Proposed councils, teams and committees model for the Aura age (Proposed shared handbook home, organising meeting, XR/Aura/AI/SI/robot participation, delegated tasks and records; adoption and appointments are development milestones.)
• 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 one traceable path from question to sources, alternatives, proposal, review, authorised work and observed result. Keep AI recommendations visibly labelled and preserve a person's actual decision, its scope and the evidence they considered.

Existing-practice adaptation

AI-generated adaptation of an existing pattern. Walk one kiosk question through the existing wiki records and an organising meeting. Capture the proposal, meaningful AI drafts, source list, decision and actions in managed project records, with a clear route for people to correct the account.

Research basis: Managing records created using artificial intelligence · Australia's AI Ethics Principles.

Future concept to explore

AI-generated future concept. Auras could prepare pre-reads and XR walkthroughs, while specialist AI/SI agents compare alternatives in parallel. Their contributions would retain source and task identities; councils, teams and committees would decide through their agreed human membership and delegations.

Examples and local differences

• Managing records created using artificial intelligence: AI transfer assessment: Retain the records and context that explain a significant AI-assisted recommendation or decision. Local difference to check: Commonwealth recordkeeping obligations do not automatically apply to this project; the handbook needs an appropriate local retention and access schedule.

Evidence to bring back next

• Complete one worked example using fictional operational records.
• Ask participants to find the source, disagreement, decision scope and next action without a verbal explanation.

People and connected choices

Who reviews: Luke, as project initiator, reviews the project working method within the authorised planning and wiki scope; contributors help test its clarity and usefulness. Each reviewer retains responsibility for decisions within their actual role.

Connected questions: This is a starting question.

Work state: options ready. 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.