IDEA-001 data contribution and access — prioritized gaps
Evidence requests and unselected database-access options; no outreach or entitlement decision.
Decision served
Analysis and agent recommendation: first determine what the co-founder detector can emit as a machine-readable observation and on what terms. A local alert, analog video output, map view and reusable observation feed answer different questions. No integration, access entitlement or incentive is chosen in this phase.3
Prioritized evidence requests
These are proposed questions for the user to prioritize, not adopted product requirements.
| Priority | Gap | Evidence that would close it | Decision it informs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Exact detector model, hardware/firmware and structured output | Existing versioned manual, schema/interface specification and small authorized non-sensitive sample or synthetic example | Whether proposed contribution can be represented as records, and which fields are real |
| 1 | Meaning of each reported location/time | Documentation distinguishing receiver location from target/operator location, clock source/timezone/accuracy, missing-value rules and confidence | What a collected observation actually means |
| 1 | Rights to contribute and access data | Written description of co-founder/device-owner permissions, third-party signal/data constraints and intended allowed uses | What may be ingested, displayed, retained and redistributed; legal review remains outside this phase |
| 2 | Quality and completeness | Existing detection/false-positive evidence with test conditions, duplicate/repeated-event rules, uptime definition and loss/offline behaviour | What future data-quality assessment needs to measure |
| 2 | Retention and export | Storage location, retention period, history deletion/export behaviour, authentication and data-access scope | Whether history/API access exists and whom it covers |
| 2 | “Whole database” meaning | User decision on data classes, geographic/time limits, own vs other nodes, UI/API/download access and allowed use | Exact contributor entitlement |
| 3 | $10 contributor proposal | Currency, payment unit (person/device/qualifying active device), eligibility and verification conditions | Inputs for a separate future economics phase; no viability inferred |
| 3 | Geography and observed drone population | User priority for country/region and signal/drone classes | Which later permissions, receiver suitability and field evidence matter |
The original proposal leaves payment eligibility and database meaning unspecified; the co-founder clarification establishes user context, not technical specifications or data entitlements.12
Possible meanings of “whole database”
These are alternative interpretations of the original wording, not capabilities promised by the co-founders or decisions adopted here.1
| Interpretation | What access would mean | Question still to decide |
|---|---|---|
| Signature/reference library | Device can use a shared library for detection/classification | Is the library licensed for download/update and what entries may be exposed? |
| Shared current detections | Device displays permitted recent observations from participating nodes | What area, latency, event detail and user visibility apply? |
| Historical observation archive | Contributor can query past records | What retention, completeness, geography and query limits apply? |
| API or bulk dataset | Contributor can retrieve machine-readable records outside the device UI | Which nodes/fields, quotas, commercial-use and redistribution rights apply? |
| Combination | Different entitlements for different data classes | Which permissions and exclusions attach to each class? |
Draft co-founder information request — unsent
We are gathering evidence for the community detector-data idea. Could you share existing documentation for the relevant BlueBird/Chuika model and firmware, especially any structured output or export interface? A versioned schema and a small authorized non-sensitive example or synthetic record would help. Please identify which timestamps and locations are actually measured or decoded, whether confidence/strength and detection identifiers are present, and how missing fields are represented.
Could you also clarify storage and retention, duplicates, offline behaviour and uptime reporting; what the device owner may contribute; and what we may retain, show to other contributors or redistribute? We would like to distinguish a reference/signature library, shared current detections, historical records and API/bulk access when discussing “whole database.” Existing test reports with their conditions would be useful. If an item is not supported or not documented, please say so.
This draft has not been sent. It requests existing evidence; no sample collection, experiment, contract or external communication is authorized by it.3
Next decision
User chooses which database interpretation and technical documentation to prioritize. Later implementation, field tests, outreach and economics require separately authorized scope; completion of this review does not authorize them.3
-
Preserved original user wording, including proposed $10 monthly compensation and “whole database” access. ↩↩
-
Exact user clarification; role is user-confirmed context. ↩
-
Approved v002 defines a documentation/evidence phase and an unsent request; it excludes implementation, experiments, outreach and economics. ↩↩↩