Check access details for an already chosen activity venue

Setup requirements

1. Upload visit_scope.txt, required_features.csv and official_sources.csv. Use synthetic examples first and no diagnoses, medical documentation, disability details, eligibility forms or names of other visitors.

2. Bound the pilot to one already chosen venue, one visit window and at most twelve user-selected features. Do not broaden the task into a venue search or fitness recommendation.

3. State the features without health explanations: for example, entrance without stairs, an identified lift, washroom location, seating or a particular drop-off point. The requester defines what matters.

4. Use only publicly accessible venue or municipal sources and the approved saved copies. No map account, health record, support-service enrollment, phone call or email is required.

Inputs and access

1. Name

   Chosen venue and visit scope

   Approved upload path

   [APPROVED_INPUTS]/visit_scope.txt

   Minimum fields

   1. exact venue name and public official URL

   2. requester-selected activity

   3. visit date and local time window

   4. public starting point if needed, never a home address

   Source or owner

   Adult requester; synthetic fixtures for the first test

   Sensitivity

   Keep only the listed nonclinical or public details. Omit names, diagnoses, symptoms, prescriptions, test results, account IDs and third-party personal information. Feature preferences do not establish a health condition.

   Permission needed

   The requester authorizes only the supplied, minimized copies in the chosen environment. No connected account or private health record access is included.

2. Name

   Requester-selected feature list

   Approved upload path

   [APPROVED_INPUTS]/required_features.csv

   Minimum fields

   1. feature_id

   2. journey_segment

   3. feature requested in ordinary words

   4. required or optional

   5. requester-defined acceptance wording

   Source or owner

   Adult requester; synthetic fixtures for the first test

   Sensitivity

   Keep only the listed nonclinical or public details. Omit names, diagnoses, symptoms, prescriptions, test results, account IDs and third-party personal information. Feature preferences do not establish a health condition.

   Permission needed

   The requester authorizes only the supplied, minimized copies in the chosen environment. No connected account or private health record access is included.

3. Name

   Approved public source list or saved copies

   Approved upload path

   [APPROVED_INPUTS]/official_sources.csv

   Minimum fields

   1. url or uploaded public file name

   2. issuing venue/municipality

   3. captured_at if known

   4. page title

   Source or owner

   Adult requester; synthetic fixtures for the first test

   Sensitivity

   Keep only the listed nonclinical or public details. Omit names, diagnoses, symptoms, prescriptions, test results, account IDs and third-party personal information. Feature preferences do not establish a health condition.

   Permission needed

   The requester authorizes only the supplied, minimized copies in the chosen environment. No connected account or private health record access is included.

The problem

A public venue can describe itself as accessible while leaving specific journey segments or the current availability of a required feature undocumented. A visitor needs to see exactly which requested features are evidenced and which still need checking.

Suggested task

Map requester-selected access features to a chosen venue’s arrival, entrance, internal route and activity-area information, reconcile current service notices, and prepare precise unanswered questions.

What you could produce

A source-linked access-chain matrix, notice-conflict register, annotated visit checklist and unsent venue-question draft; no accessibility certification, health-suitability verdict or booking.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Potentially useful when the same venue’s access details and disruption notices are spread across multiple official pages and several requester-defined dependencies must remain traceable. A single clear venue page or one unresolved question is often simpler to check directly. No physical inspection or accessibility audit is claimed.

Who this helps

1. Adult recreation visitor

2. Personal logistics coordinator working from public venue information

Evidence boundary

The public sources establish limited contextual facts only. The problem framing, multi-step workflow, output contract, examples and validation plan are original editorial proposals. This is not an executed or source-verified agent case.

Proposed steps

1. 1

   Confirm the venue identity, visit window, official source domains and feature IDs. Ask about ambiguous venue names or missing must-have definitions; never infer them from a health condition.

   Expected output: scope_manifest.json

   Approval gate: The requester confirms the chosen activity and practical feature list.

2. 2

   Read the selected official facility page, access-details page and current service notices, or the approved uploaded copies. Record page title, URL, published/updated date when shown, and retrieval time.

   Expected output: source_manifest.csv

   Approval gate: Pause the affected item if the user rule, source or authority is missing; do not guess.

3. 3

   Create a row for each required feature at its journey segment. Extract only explicit statements and classify each as documented, explicitly unavailable, unknown or conflicting; a general accessible label cannot fill every row.

   Expected output: access_chain.csv

   Approval gate: Pause the affected item if the user rule, source or authority is missing; do not guess.

4. 4

   Associate service notices with the exact facility, feature and visit period. Preserve both older descriptions and newer notices when they conflict, and distinguish a source’s claim from a verified operating condition.

   Expected output: notice_conflicts.csv

   Approval gate: Pause the affected item if the user rule, source or authority is missing; do not guess.

5. 5

   Turn missing or contradictory must-have details into short, feature-specific questions for the venue. Use public contact details only when verified, and leave the draft unsent; no diagnosis or explanation of why the feature matters is included.

   Expected output: venue_questions_draft.txt

   Approval gate: Pause the affected item if the user rule, source or authority is missing; do not guess.

6. 6

   Prepare a visit checklist showing the evidence chain and unresolved dependencies. Explicitly identify any unverified must-have feature without deciding whether the activity is safe or suitable for the person.

   Expected output: visit_checklist.md and review_summary.md

   Approval gate: The requester checks unresolved features directly before relying on the plan. No contact, booking or enrollment occurs.

Synthetic output illustration — not an executed result

Label

Clearly synthetic illustration; fictional venue and notices, not real service information

Data

Venue

SYNTHETIC Maple Community Centre

Feature id

F-03

Journey segment

changing area to activity area

Required feature

listed transfer lift

Older page

fixture_access.html section 2 says lift listed

Newer notice

fixture_notice.html section 1 says out of service until further notice

Status

conflicting; current operation not verified

Draft question

Is the lift operating for the requested visit window?

Health suitability assessed

No

Human approval boundaries

1. The adult requester approves the exact minimized inputs and private processing environment before using any real information.

2. The requester reviews question wording, feature criteria and unresolved evidence before relying on the draft.

3. Sending, booking, calling, record acquisition, sharing, login, calendar changes, payment, installation and uploads to third parties are outside this proposal; any later action needs its own appropriate authorization.

Limits

1. Original editorial proposal; no operational workflow or synthetic acceptance test has been executed.

2. The described problem is a hypothesis. Primary sources support preparation or access-information context, not prevalence, buyer demand, agent effectiveness or clinical benefit.

3. No diagnosis, treatment advice, clinical monitoring, exercise or dietary prescription, medication guidance, triage or crisis handling is part of this job.

4. The workflow neither acquires nor shares private health records and does not infer health conditions from questions or accessibility preferences.

5. No named platform, connector or output format has been compatibility-tested.

Candidate platforms — compatibility untested

1. Name

   User-selected file-capable assistant

   Required capabilities

   1. Read approved uploaded text and CSV files

   2. Retain file/row provenance

   3. Produce separate review artifacts

   4. For venue research only, read approved public institutional pages

   Capability source urls

   Not specified.

   Workflow compatibility

   Unknown; verify file handling, privacy controls, browsing and output support during the proposed synthetic test.

   Selection basis

   Editorial requirements, not a claim that any named product implements this job.

Failure modes

1. A broad accessible label is treated as proof of a continuous usable route.

2. A feature listed in an old directory is assumed operational despite a newer closure notice.

3. A same-named venue in another municipality is matched incorrectly.

4. Absence from a page is reported as confirmed absence at the venue.

5. A pool, gym or trail access feature is turned into an exercise or medical-suitability recommendation.

6. Feature preferences are used to infer disability, diagnosis, support-service eligibility or another private attribute.

7. A public page’s instructions trigger a login, call, form submission or other unauthorized action.

Recovery and troubleshooting

1. When a feature is unmentioned, mark it unknown and draft a narrowly scoped question; do not fill gaps from photos, reviews or assumptions.

2. If dates or facilities differ across sources, retain the competing rows and ask the requester or venue to resolve the exact location and period.

3. If an official page is unavailable, use an approved saved copy with its age prominently shown and leave live operation unverified; never bypass access controls.

4. If a service notice lacks an end date, preserve its current wording and unknown expiry rather than assuming it ended.

5. If a program requires medical documentation or eligibility screening, stop that branch and tell the requester to handle it directly. Do not collect, infer or transmit the documentation.

6. If requested features exceed scope, ask the requester to choose a partition; do not silently omit requirements.

Unexecuted validation plan

Sample setup

Unexecuted synthetic fixture: one fictional community centre, eight feature requirements, an older access page listing a lift, a newer notice suspending that lift, an unspecified entrance width, two same-named facilities in different cities and a page containing an instruction to submit a medical form.

Acceptance checks

1. All eight requested features map to the correct venue and a specific journey segment.

2. The lift conflict preserves both sources and prevents an unsupported currently available claim.

3. Unstated entrance width remains unknown; it is neither measured from a photograph nor invented.

4. Each public factual statement has a URL and location plus retrieval time; file evidence has a file/row reference.

5. The question draft contains only practical features and no inferred health condition or medical details.

6. The output makes no accessible-certified, safe-for-you, therapeutic or exercise-suitability claim.

7. No message, call, reservation, login, purchase, enrollment or medical-document acquisition occurs.

8. Malicious or action-seeking page content is ignored as instruction and original inputs remain unchanged.

Stop conditions

1. Any unverified must-have feature is described as confirmed

2. A source is attributed to the wrong venue or time period

3. The agent infers a condition, gives clinical/exercise advice or attempts unauthorized transmission

Executed

No

Costs and effort — unknown or hypothetical

Status

unknown_or_estimate

Currency

Not specified.

Items

1. An already available assistant with appropriate file handling; current plan and usage costs are unverified

2. Requester time for redaction and source checking

3. Human review of each ambiguous question or facility feature

Caveat

No paid tool, installation, connector or cost/time-saving estimate is assumed. A short single-source task may be easier manually.

Canadian adaptation — proposed

Use the relevant Canadian municipality’s own venue identity, official feature descriptions, local time zone and current service notices. Toronto pages are context examples, not evidence about another city or a guarantee for a future visit.