Question WRK 02

WRK-02 How will every question, drawing, test and decision keep a clear identity as the project grows?

Start here · Questions · Progress · People decide

Why this matters

Clear labels help the next person find the right version and avoid redoing good work.

What to bring back

A tested question and decision record, links between records, a content fingerprint for each review and a repeatable wiki build.

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)
• 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 questions, drawings, releases, sources, tests and decisions stable identifiers and version histories. Link them through a common register, with content fingerprints for review packets and readable explanations so future contributors can reconstruct the work.

Existing-practice adaptation

AI-generated adaptation of an existing pattern. Use versioned files and a decision register to preserve significant drafts, source editions and results. Keep review records outside the content they identify, and export a readable handover alongside machine-readable data with independent backup checks.

Research basis: Managing records created using artificial intelligence.

Future concept to explore

AI-generated future concept. A future Aura could follow the evidence graph from a kiosk symptom to its design decision and test history. AI/SI agents could compare editions and explain changed assumptions before proposing updates for a person's review.

Examples and local differences

• Managing records created using artificial intelligence: AI transfer assessment: Keep enough context and metadata for a record to remain findable, understandable and reliable. Local difference to check: Project IDs and fingerprints are proposed controls; lawful retention, privacy, cultural rights and deletion arrangements still require an agreed schedule.

Evidence to bring back next

• Test recovery from a fresh checkout and an offline records copy.
• Check that a changed bound file changes the review packet fingerprint and preserves the earlier edition.

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: WRK-01

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.