Question WRK 04

WRK-04 How will a human decision stay connected to the exact proposal and the responsibilities of its reviewer?

Start here · Questions · Progress · People decide

Why this matters

A decision about a design brief moves different work forward from an electrical sign-off or a site agreement.

What to bring back

A review record checked against the person’s GitHub comment, proposal fingerprint, role, date and scope; examples for approval, changes and a revised proposal.

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.

Record a person's decision against the exact proposal, evidence, role and scope they reviewed. Preserve conditions, reasons, disagreement and validity, and seek a new decision when a material bound part changes.

Existing-practice adaptation

AI-generated adaptation of an existing pattern. Use a named review comment and its proposal fingerprint, with separate scopes for design direction, site access and professional assessment. Keep the attributable source record and review chronology so an earlier approval cannot silently override a later change request.

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

Future concept to explore

AI-generated future concept. A person's Aura could compare the packet with their stated priorities and explain changes before they decide. Future signed personal delegations could allow narrowly bounded routine actions, with revocation and a clear record of what was done.

Examples and local differences

• Australia's AI Ethics Principles: AI transfer assessment: Make review meaningful through traceable responsibility and the ability to question outcomes. Local difference to check: A GitHub identity alone does not establish professional qualification, statutory authority or the scope of a delegation.

Evidence to bring back next

• Test changed proposals, expired conditions and competing review chronology.
• Confirm actual authority for the proposed next action and preserve professional comparisons and reasonable disagreement.

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.