Question WRK 05

WRK-05 How will the repository and GitHub Wiki stay in step as evidence and decisions change?

Start here · Questions · Progress · People decide

Why this matters

Readers need a dependable place to see the current questions and the history behind each choice.

What to bring back

A repeatable build, link and record checks, a wiki export, a publication record and a practical recovery method for an interrupted update.

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)

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.

Build the public wiki from versioned source records, check links and identities, then record the exact source edition and publication result. Keep recoverable backups and make an interrupted update easy for the next person to finish.

Existing-practice adaptation

AI-generated adaptation of an existing pattern. Treat the main repository as the source and the native Wiki as its reading edition. Run the current checks, export to a clean destination, compare the published content and save a publication receipt with both version identifiers.

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

Future concept to explore

AI-generated future concept. Aura-assisted publishing could show a plain-language change summary and stage updates automatically after agreed checks. Future AI/SI maintainers could detect drift and prepare repairs, with access limited to the specific authorised publishing task.

Examples and local differences

• Managing records created using artificial intelligence: AI transfer assessment: Capture a managed final record and its supporting context outside a transient AI chat. Local difference to check: National Archives guidance supplies principles; the project's publication pipeline and recovery capability need direct verification.

Evidence to bring back next

• Practise an interrupted publication and restore without losing source history.
• Check that restricted records and private workstation details cannot enter the public output.

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-02

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.