Question WRK 03

WRK-03 How will we share jobs between AI assistants and people while keeping one clear owner for each piece of work?

Start here · Questions · Progress · People decide

Why this matters

Parallel work moves faster when everyone knows their files, inputs, handovers and next reviewer.

What to bring back

A job sheet and assignment board with file boundaries, evidence expectations, connected questions, stopping points and a handover example.

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.

Assign each job a clear owner, question IDs, file boundaries, source versions and expected result. Let people and AI assistants work in parallel, with one integration owner bringing the pieces together and a handover at each boundary.

Existing-practice adaptation

AI-generated adaptation of an existing pattern. Use the task board and task-card template for a small swarm exercise. Give one assistant source research, another an equipment comparison and another verification; require sources and observed checks before their work enters a shared proposal.

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

Future concept to explore

AI-generated future concept. Extend task cards to Aura, SI and robot work with explicit permissions, resource limits, supervision, stop conditions and receipts. A coordinator could schedule dependent work while actual people retain authority over new commitments and sensitive decisions.

Examples and local differences

• Australia's AI Ethics Principles: AI transfer assessment: Make the responsible person and the scope of automated assistance identifiable. Local difference to check: Ethical principles do not establish a particular agent's competence or authority; test actual capability and permissions for each task.

Evidence to bring back next

• Run a bounded multi-agent job and inspect file collisions, missing sources and handovers.
• Check that an agent can finish preparation while leaving a dependent physical or external action awaiting its actual authority.

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.