Public-record boundary
The source-of-record hierarchy and retention obligations must be defined by the council, not inferred from this example.
Loading…

Councils publish information through many departments and channels. The page a resident finds first may not be the instrument that governs the answer, and the correct answer may depend on application date.
A public channel asks when a permit rule changed. A current service page repeats the old threshold; the adopted instrument contains the revision. Which source applies?
Choose either source. The evidence path, not visual position, will explain what applies and why.
Conceptual walkthrough using authored example data. Not a customer record, product screenshot or legal determination.
This is the product logic the scenario activates, not a claim that the workflow is deployed at a named organisation.
Resolve the service domain, public audience, jurisdictional scope and effective date.
Bring the service page, governing instrument, amendment and relevant delegation into one candidate set.
Use authority and lineage to distinguish public explanation from the adopted source of record.
Hand off the current context and preserve the stale public page as an actionable contradiction.
The sector does not supply these answers automatically. The organisation’s accountable people and systems define them.
The source-of-record hierarchy and retention obligations must be defined by the council, not inferred from this example.
Public and internal workflows require distinct eligible source domains and requester identities.
CORE supplies context to a chosen channel; it is not presented as a citizen-facing chatbot or decision-maker by itself.