{ "version": 1, "generatedBy": "scripts/migrate-facets.js", "concepts": [ { "id": "rural-urban-linkages", "title": "Rural-urban linkages", "chapter": "ch01-introduction", "anchor": "ch1-why-rural-urban", "anchorPath": "ch01-introduction/01-spine-why-rural-urban.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [], "blocks": [ "ch1-why-rural-urban", "ch1-linkages-tldr", "ch1-eu-typologies", "rural-or-urban-game", "ch1-anim-rural-urban-flows", "ch1-anim-rural-urban-flows-cs", "ch1-question" ], "contract": { "objective": "Food, commuters, waste, tourists and data cross the line between town and countryside every day. PoliRural+ plans for those flows, not for the line.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Linkages are flows: goods, people, information, finance, waste, social relations", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The Grant Agreement names ten key linkages, from food supply to digital connectivity", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Rural areas cover 83% of EU land; in 2021 about a quarter of EU residents lived in rural areas", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "PoliRural+ adopts the functional-area approach of EU cohesion policy", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What are rural-urban linkages, and why does PoliRural+ plan around functional areas rather than administrative units?", "recallA": "They are flows of goods, people, information, finance, waste and social relations that link rural and urban areas. Because people live and work across administrative borders, PoliRural+ follows EU cohesion policy and plans for the functional area they actually share.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "polirural-plus-project", "title": "The PoliRural+ project", "chapter": "ch01-introduction", "anchor": "ch1-polirural-plus", "anchorPath": "ch01-introduction/02-spine-polirural-plus.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [], "blocks": [ "ch1-polirural-plus" ], "contract": { "objective": "A Horizon Europe Innovation Action led by CTU Prague that takes the rural foresight of PoliRural and extends it to whole rural-urban regions.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Grant Agreement 101136910, Horizon Europe Cluster 6, Innovation Action, 1 Jan 2024 – 31 Dec 2026", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "20 beneficiaries from 13 countries, coordinated by Czech Technical University in Prague", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Predecessor PoliRural (H2020, June 2019 – Sept 2022) validated its toolbox with 12 Regional Action Plans", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "9 pilot regions, 8 of them continuing from PoliRural", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What is PoliRural+, and how does it extend its predecessor PoliRural?", "recallA": "A Horizon Europe Innovation Action (GA 101136910, 2024–2026, coordinated by CTU Prague, 20 partners in 13 countries). It takes PoliRural's foresight process and ICT toolbox, validated by 12 rural action plans, and applies it to regions that include urban and rural areas, through 9 pilots.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "seven-objectives", "title": "The seven objectives", "chapter": "ch01-introduction", "anchor": "ch1-seven-objectives", "anchorPath": "ch01-introduction/03-spine-seven-objectives.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [], "blocks": [ "ch1-seven-objectives" ], "contract": { "objective": "What the Grant Agreement commits PoliRural+ to deliver, which work packages carry each objective, and which targets are measurable.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "O1 is the backbone: a foresight-based framework for interregional cooperation (WP1–WP5)", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "O5 names the data: EOSC, EU Data Spaces, INSPIRE, Copernicus, DIAS, Eurostat, FAO", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "O6 target: more than 100 recognised best practices", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "O7 targets: 20 projects identified, 10 cooperations, 3 NEB events, 3 joint workshops", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What are the seven specific objectives of PoliRural+ and which two carry numeric targets?", "recallA": "O1 foresight framework for interregional cooperation; O2 strategies and action plans for rural business and innovation; O3 mutual access to services and social connectivity; O4 contribution to Green Deal, CAP, LTVRA and Territorial Agenda 2030; O5 use of research infrastructures and data sources; O6 mission-oriented experimentation (target: over 100 recognised best practices); O7 synergies with the New European Bauhaus (targets: 20 projects, 10 cooperations, 3 NEB events, 3 joint workshops).", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "eu-rural-policy-context", "title": "The EU policy context of PoliRural+", "chapter": "ch01-introduction", "anchor": "ch1-eu-context", "anchorPath": "ch01-introduction/04-spine-eu-context.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [], "blocks": [ "ch1-eu-context" ], "contract": { "objective": "Territorial cohesion, the Rural Pact, the 2040 rural vision and the New European Bauhaus: what each asks of a Regional Action Plan.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Territorial cohesion became the third dimension of EU cohesion with the Treaty of Lisbon", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The Rural Pact, launched by the Commission in 2021, links stakeholders at EU, national and local level", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "LTVRA 2040: rural areas that are strong, connected, resilient and prosperous", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "D3.1: each RAP must serve the LTVRA and the New European Bauhaus", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "Which EU frameworks must every PoliRural+ Regional Action Plan contribute to, according to D3.1?", "recallA": "Every RAP must align with EU, national and regional policy, contribute to the Long-Term Vision for Rural Areas (strong, connected, resilient, prosperous by 2040) and to the New European Bauhaus, and address an issue that needs urban-rural policy cooperation.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "rural-urban-fragmentation", "title": "Rural-urban fragmentation", "chapter": "ch02-rural-urban", "anchor": "ch2-challenge", "anchorPath": "ch02-rural-urban/01-spine-the-challenge.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [], "blocks": [ "ch2-challenge" ], "contract": { "objective": "Borders drawn for tax collection, policy silos and project-by-project funding keep a shared territory from acting as one. Here is the evidence PoliRural+ starts from.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Administrative divisions were built for control and revenue; people now live in functional areas", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Eurofound: the rural-urban income gap grew by about 19% in a decade; rural service gaps are increasing", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Rural residents report lower trust in government and more often feel ignored", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Pilot barriers (D2.3): fragmented governance, short-term funding, stakeholder fatigue", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What does rural-urban fragmentation mean in PoliRural+, and which barriers did the pilots report most often?", "recallA": "Administrative divisions designed for top-down control no longer match the functional areas where people live and work, which causes inequality, poor coordination and complex public services. Across the nine RAPs, the recurring barriers were fragmented governance, fragmented and short-term funding, and stakeholder fatigue.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "foresight-framework", "title": "The foresight framework", "chapter": "ch02-rural-urban", "anchor": "ch2-framework", "anchorPath": "ch02-rural-urban/02-spine-framework.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [], "blocks": [ "ch2-framework" ], "contract": { "objective": "PoliRural+ plans with foresight: read the drivers of change, agree where the region wants to land, then get the people who hold the budgets to commit.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Foresight is a structured way of thinking about the future; the target is financed action, not a report", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Two parallel tracks: bottom-up with beneficiaries, top-down with implementing actors", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Drivers of change are listed under STEEPV and narrowed to 2–5 priority trends", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "D3.1 warns against 'toolheads': the method is a social process learnt by doing", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "How does the PoliRural+ foresight framework (D3.1) turn a discussion about the future into an action plan?", "recallA": "It runs a bottom-up process with beneficiaries and a top-down process with implementing actors in parallel. It moves from divergent exploration of drivers of change (STEEPV, ranked to 2–5 priority trends) to a convergent agreement on a vision, an action plan and a financed roadmap.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "regional-action-plan", "title": "Regional Action Plans (RAPs)", "chapter": "ch02-rural-urban", "anchor": "ch2-raps", "anchorPath": "ch02-rural-urban/03-spine-regional-action-plans.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [], "blocks": [ "ch2-raps", "ch2-monaghan-rap-worked", "rap-steps-game", "ch2-question" ], "contract": { "objective": "Preparation, foresight, follow-up: how a PoliRural+ region gets from a list of complaints to a vision, an action plan and a roadmap that someone has agreed to finance.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Phase I: choose a theme that needs urban-rural cooperation; find partners, policies and money", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Phase II: drivers' analysis, shared vision, action plan, roadmap", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Phase III: public endorsement, adoption of the roadmap by the actors, a monitoring committee", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Without an adopted roadmap, D3.1 says, 'the RAP will remain a report'", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What are the three phases of the D3.1 RAP methodology, and what three elements must the finished plan contain?", "recallA": "Phase I preparation (theme, stakeholders, local-government partners, policy gap analysis, finance sources), Phase II foresight (drivers, vision, plan), Phase III follow-up and implementation (endorsement, roadmap adoption, monitoring). The plan contains a vision, an action plan of measures with their intervention logic, and a roadmap of timing, financing and responsible institutions.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "work-packages", "title": "Work packages", "chapter": "ch02-rural-urban", "anchor": "ch2-work-packages", "anchorPath": "ch02-rural-urban/04-spine-work-packages.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [], "blocks": [ "ch2-work-packages" ], "contract": { "objective": "Analysis, methods, experiments and pilots run in a loop; management, third-party funding, communication and ethics serve all of them.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "WP2 → WP3 → WP4 → WP5, with results fed back to refine methods and tools", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "WP6 is Financial Support to Third Parties (the open calls), not communication", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "WP7 is Communication, Dissemination and Exploitation, and also hosts the NEB synergies task (T7.3)", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "WP8 Ethics works with an external, independent ethics advisor", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "Which PoliRural+ work packages form the improvement loop, and which provide infrastructure services to the whole project?", "recallA": "The loop is WP2 (analysis), WP3 (RAP methodologies), WP4 (experimentation) and WP5 (implementation and validation of RAPs), with WP7 feedback. WP1 (management) and WP6 (financial support to third parties) provide infrastructure services; WP8 (ethics) covers all work packages.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "pilot-network", "title": "The network of nine pilots", "chapter": "ch03-pilots", "anchor": "ch3-overview", "anchorPath": "ch03-pilots/01-spine-pilot-overview.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "regional-action-plan" ], "blocks": [ "ch3-overview", "which-pilot-game", "ch3-question" ], "contract": { "objective": "From a border county in Ulster to the islands of Malta and Gozo: where PoliRural+ tests its methods on real rural-urban problems.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Nine pilots in ten countries: the Czech-Bavarian pilot crosses a border; eight pilots continue from the H2020 project PoliRural", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Every pilot drafted a Regional Action Plan and published a policy brief (D7.3, annexes 1–9, 11 June 2025)", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Seven of the nine policy briefs recommend a new hub; five recommend strengthening the farm advisory system (AKIS)", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Open calls brought outside teams into the pilots in four steps: Outreach, Mobilise, Develop, Enhance", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What does each PoliRural+ pilot produce, and why does the project run nine different pilots instead of one?", "recallA": "Each pilot co-designs a Regional Action Plan with local stakeholders, summarised in a policy brief, and tests PoliRural+ tools and open-call projects on its own rural-urban challenge. Nine territories with different themes show which approaches recur and can transfer, and which stay local.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "monaghan-pilot", "title": "The County Monaghan pilot", "chapter": "ch03-pilots", "anchor": "ch3-ireland", "anchorPath": "ch03-pilots/02-spine-ireland-monaghan.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "pilot-network" ], "blocks": [ "ch3-ireland" ], "contract": { "objective": "How a rural Ulster county turned low awareness of the circular economy into a 2026–2030 action plan with two hubs.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Theme chosen with stakeholders: from green-economy jobs (2024) to a circular-economy RAP for 2026–2030", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Barriers: low awareness, fragmented finance (LEADER, SEAI, ERDF in silos), too little anaerobic digestion and composting capacity", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Policy brief: a national network of Circular Economy Innovation Hubs, starting with a flagship in Monaghan", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The pilot's Rural Circular Economy Funding Business Model is listed on the EU Innovation Radar", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What three interventions does the County Monaghan Regional Action Plan set out, and how far has each got?", "recallA": "A Regional Circular Economy Hub, circular waste-to-resource systems, and a community energy transition. The circular-economy hub is proposed; the Community Energy Engagement Hub has moved furthest, into follow-on projects such as a community hydro initiative in Inniskeen.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "slovakia-pilot", "title": "The Slovak pilot", "chapter": "ch03-pilots", "anchor": "ch3-slovakia", "anchorPath": "ch03-pilots/03-spine-slovakia.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "pilot-network" ], "blocks": [ "ch3-slovakia" ], "contract": { "objective": "The only national-scale pilot: how a 2040 vision for rural Slovakia found its way into ministries' working groups.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "The only pilot working at national scale: 2,890 municipalities, 60 % of the territory highlands", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The Vision 2040 came out of PoliRural's foresight process; the problem now is institutional silos", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Brief recommends a Cross-Sector Rural Development Council, a national DIH and Smart Village grants in 75 % of municipalities by 2030", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Reported uptake: EU Rural Pact Good Practice, National Tourism Strategy 2035, post-2027 rural policy working group", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What is the Slovak pilot trying to put into practice, and through which governance proposals?", "recallA": "The Vision for More Attractive Rural Areas in Slovakia 2040. Its RAP, 'From Dialogue to Action', proposes a Cross-Sector Rural Development Council, a national Digital Innovation Hub, a formal AKIS platform and a Smart Village roll-out, to break the silos between ministries.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "greece-pilot", "title": "The Central Greece pilot", "chapter": "ch03-pilots", "anchor": "ch3-greece", "anchorPath": "ch03-pilots/04-spine-greece-kythera.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "pilot-network" ], "blocks": [ "ch3-greece" ], "contract": { "objective": "Ageing farmers, broadband in two of three households and an advisory system short of digital skills: what the Central Greece plan does about it.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "The pilot covers the Region of Central Greece; Kythera and Antikythera are the territory of one open-call project, DASK", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Broadband reaches only 67 % of households, and large parts of the advisory system (AKIS) lack digital literacy", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "RAP aims at near-universal rural broadband and much wider smart-farming adoption by 2028", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Brief: five regional AKIS knowledge hubs and an annual Smart-Farming & Agritourism Academy", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "Which territory does the Greek pilot cover, and what does its Regional Action Plan prioritise?", "recallA": "The Region of Central Greece. Its RAP prioritises smart farming, agritourism, digital upskilling and a stronger AKIS, and its brief recommends five regional knowledge hubs and an annual Smart-Farming & Agritourism Academy. Kythera enters only through the DASK open-call project.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "dask-platform", "title": "DASK island farming platform", "chapter": "ch03-pilots", "anchor": "ch3-dask-platform", "anchorPath": "ch03-pilots/04a-spine-dask-platform.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "greece-pilot" ], "blocks": [ "ch3-dask-platform" ], "contract": { "objective": "Marketplace, agritourism, training and a knowledge base in one place, for farmers who found the existing tools too scattered to use.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "DASK = Digital Agricultural Skills and Knowledge, a Develop open-call project in the Greek pilot", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Built by DASKALOS APPS with the Kytherian Foundation for Culture & Development and an environmental consultant", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "One platform instead of four: marketplace, agritourism experiences, training, knowledge base", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What problem does DASK address on Kythera and Antikythera, and what does it combine?", "recallA": "Existing tools for e-commerce, training, advice and knowledge are fragmented, hard to use and not adapted to remote island farming. DASK combines a marketplace, agritourism experiences, training and a knowledge base in one farmer-friendly platform.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "apulia-pilot", "title": "The Apulia pilot", "chapter": "ch03-pilots", "anchor": "ch3-italy", "anchorPath": "ch03-pilots/05-spine-italy-apulia.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "pilot-network" ], "blocks": [ "ch3-italy" ], "contract": { "objective": "Producers know about direct selling; supply, logistics and cooperation hold them back. Apulia's plan targets 30 % more food sold through short chains by 2028.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Focus groups found strong producer awareness of short chains, but fragmented supply, weak cooperation and high logistics costs", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "RAP targets for 2028: +30 % SFSC volume, −20 % logistics emissions, +15 % SFSC-related jobs", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Brief: an Apulia SFSC Innovation Hub as a one-stop advisory centre, and a regional law on sustainable food systems", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Three open-call steps: DEMO focus groups, INCO network, Field2Fork AI Hub shopping assistant", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "Which instrument does the Apulia RAP put at the centre, and what does it aim to achieve by 2028?", "recallA": "Short food supply chains (SFSCs). By 2028 the RAP targets 30 % more agri-food volume sold through SFSCs, 20 % lower logistics-related emissions and 15 % more jobs in SFSC-related fields, backed by a proposed Apulia SFSC Innovation Hub and an upgraded AKIS.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "mallusjoki-pilot", "title": "The Mallusjoki pilot", "chapter": "ch03-pilots", "anchor": "ch3-finland", "anchorPath": "ch03-pilots/06-spine-finland-mallusjoki.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "pilot-network" ], "blocks": [ "ch3-finland" ], "contract": { "objective": "A youth association in a southern Finnish village plans to turn cultural events into a development engine that draws visitors from Lahti and Helsinki.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "The smallest territory in the network: one village in Orimattila, led by the local youth association (MYA)", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "More than 1,000 people involved and a 23-member stakeholder panel", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "RAP targets for 2028: twelve festivals a year, 10,000 visitors, a carbon-neutral main venue", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Brief: a Rural Event Innovation Hub and a partnership with Orimattila, Lahti and Helsinki", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What is the Mallusjoki pilot building, and what does its Regional Action Plan aim for by 2028?", "recallA": "A Rural Event Industry Ecosystem: culture-led events that attract urban visitors and create local work. By 2028 the RAP aims for twelve annual festivals with 10,000 visitors, 30 % more rural SMEs linked to creative tourism, and a carbon-neutral main venue, tied to renovating the Green Cultural Centre.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "avoin-map", "title": "Avoin-Map spatial tools", "chapter": "ch03-pilots", "anchor": "ch3-avoin-map", "anchorPath": "ch03-pilots/06a-spine-avoin-map.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "mallusjoki-pilot" ], "blocks": [ "ch3-avoin-map" ], "contract": { "objective": "Three map services built for one Finnish village, and how far each had got at mid-term.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "A Develop open-call project: Avoin Map Oy with Feydec Oy and Saatsi Arkkitehdit Oy", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Three services at different stages: Energy Map, Zoning Map, Activity Map and Calendar", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Laser scanning, drone imaging and baseline design work for the Green Cultural Centre", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "Which three services does Avoin-Map build for Mallusjoki, and how far had each got at mid-term?", "recallA": "An Energy Map (backend and interface design completed), a Zoning Map (a private online test version) and an Activity Map and Calendar (a first landing-page mockup). The project also fed spatial planning into the co-design of the Green Cultural Centre.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "czech-bavarian-pilot", "title": "The Czech-Bavarian pilot", "chapter": "ch03-pilots", "anchor": "ch3-czech-bavarian", "anchorPath": "ch03-pilots/07-spine-czech-bavarian.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "pilot-network" ], "blocks": [ "ch3-czech-bavarian" ], "contract": { "objective": "Bavaria takes applied research out to rural districts through Technology Campuses; the Czech side of the Šumava has nothing comparable. The pilot plans to change that.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Territory: Klatovy district (Plzeň Region) in the Šumava – Bavarian Forest landscape, linked to Deggendorf", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Brief: a cross-border innovation hub in Klatovy, inspired by Bavaria's Technology Campuses", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The hub is proposed; a Memorandum of Understanding and a Steering Committee are planned", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Open-call projects used the project's JackDaw tool; the pilot uses JackDaw, it does not develop it", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What is the Czech-Bavarian pilot trying to transfer across the border, and what is the status of the Klatovy hub?", "recallA": "Elements of the Bavarian Technology Campus model, which takes applied research beyond the university into rural districts. The Innovation Hub in Klatovy is proposed in the RAP; a Memorandum of Understanding and a cross-border Steering Committee are planned to institutionalise it.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "cuenca-pilot", "title": "The Sierra y Mancha Conquense pilot", "chapter": "ch03-pilots", "anchor": "ch3-spain", "anchorPath": "ch03-pilots/08-spine-spain-adesiman.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "pilot-network" ], "blocks": [ "ch3-spain" ], "contract": { "objective": "A Roman archaeological park, a historic pilgrim route and 56 municipalities: can heritage hold a depopulating territory together?", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Territory: the ADESIMAN area in Cuenca (Castilla-La Mancha), anchored on the Segóbriga Archaeological Park", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "ADESIMAN, formed in 1997 from two local development groups, covers 56 municipalities", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "RAP targets for 2028 include +30 % heritage-tourism receipts and population decline under 0.5 % a year", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Open calls: AI4RURAL ideathon in Tarancón; ARISE, a public platform linking heritage routes and local businesses", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "How does the Spanish pilot use cultural heritage, and what does its Regional Action Plan target by 2028?", "recallA": "It uses the Segóbriga Archaeological Park and the Camino de la Orden de Santiago as anchors for tourism, entrepreneurship and cooperation across the ADESIMAN territory. By 2028 the RAP targets 30 % growth in heritage-tourism receipts, population decline slowed to under 0.5 % a year, three smart-territory digital solutions, at least ten energy-community projects and sixteen community composters.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "vidzeme-pilot", "title": "The Vidzeme pilot", "chapter": "ch03-pilots", "anchor": "ch3-latvia", "anchorPath": "ch03-pilots/09-spine-latvia-vidzeme.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "pilot-network" ], "blocks": [ "ch3-latvia" ], "contract": { "objective": "A planning region with a development programme and no reliable way to tell whether it works. Vidzeme's pilot starts with the indicators.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Latvia's largest region (30.6 % of the territory) and its least densely populated", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The gap: no framework to measure what the VPR Development Programme 2022–2027 achieves", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Requirements before platform: an Outreach study, then a two-phase indicator hackathon with almost 50 experts", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "RAP 1.0 proposes VPR PATHWATCH, an AI-driven geospatial monitoring system, by 2028", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What gap does the Vidzeme pilot address, and what does its Regional Action Plan propose to close it?", "recallA": "The Vidzeme Planning Region has no systematic way to track whether its Development Programme moves the region forward. RAP 1.0 proposes harmonised indicators and data-sharing, data skills in municipalities, and VPR PATHWATCH, an AI-driven geospatial monitoring platform, by 2028.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "malta-pilot", "title": "The Malta and Gozo pilot", "chapter": "ch03-pilots", "anchor": "ch3-malta", "anchorPath": "ch03-pilots/10-spine-malta.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "pilot-network" ], "blocks": [ "ch3-malta" ], "contract": { "objective": "Farms usually under one hectare, a workforce mostly over 45, young people leaving: why Malta's plan picks small enabling steps over big reforms.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Agricultural labour force fell 26.7 % between 2010 and 2020; only 23.7 % of farm workers are under 45", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Average farms are under one hectare, and Malta relies heavily on imported fresh food", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The RAP deliberately chooses enabling actions (training, demonstrations, informal dialogue) over structural reform", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Open calls: AgriFusion stakeholder research, the MaYA Agri-Tech Ideathon, the MALTESE Develop project", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "Why does the Malta RAP choose small enabling actions over structural reform, and what are those actions?", "recallA": "The barriers are skills, confidence, small scale and fragmented support among smallholders, so the RAP starts where farmers are. It proposes hands-on digital demonstrations, low-barrier skills training, guidance to existing funds, peer learning through local champions, and youth innovation events such as the MaYA ideathon.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "geoai", "title": "GeoAI: grounding language models in place", "chapter": "ch04-geoai", "anchor": "ch4-what-is-geoai", "anchorPath": "ch04-geoai/01-spine-what-is-geoai.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "polirural-plus-project" ], "blocks": [ "ch4-what-is-geoai" ], "contract": { "objective": "A chatbot guesses about little-known places. GeoAI makes it fetch data for the exact area on the map before it answers.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "D4.1: general LLMs struggle with lesser-known places that have little information online", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "GeoAI enriches the question with spatial data before the model writes a word", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "D4.2: the model orchestrates and explains; calculations stay in specialised services", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "D7.2: tool calls fixed weather, crop-suitability and water-body answers that a pure LLM got vague or wrong", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What does GeoAI add to a general-purpose language model, as PoliRural+ designs it?", "recallA": "It ties each question to an area on a map and enriches it with retrieved spatial data, metadata and tool results before the model answers. The model interprets and explains, while specialised services do the data access and calculations, so the answer holds for that place, scale and time.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "jackdaw", "title": "JackDaw, the PoliRural+ GeoAI agent", "chapter": "ch04-geoai", "anchor": "ch4-jackdaw-architecture", "anchorPath": "ch04-geoai/02-spine-jackdaw-architecture.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "geoai" ], "blocks": [ "ch4-jackdaw-architecture", "ch4-guide-jackdaw", "tool-steps-game", "ch4-code-camps", "ch4-sovereignty" ], "contract": { "objective": "Draw an area, ask a question: a router picks a handful of eighteen tools, and every tool receives your map area.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Area-first: the area you draw travels with every message as WKT (EPSG:4326)", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "A router picks up to five of 18 core tools per turn; the agent loops until no more tool calls are needed", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Raven fills the catalogue; MCP lets administrators and users plug in their own tool servers", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Beta status: the limits sit in metadata, connected services and evidence trails, not in the chat shell", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "How does JackDaw choose the data for a question, and what limits its answers in the Beta release?", "recallA": "A routing call classifies the user's intent and selects up to five of its eighteen core tools (plus any connected MCP tools); every tool receives the drawn map area as WKT, and a GeoRAG subgraph finds datasets in the Raven catalogue. D4.2 places the limits in metadata completeness, service reliability and keeping evidence trails transparent across many tool calls.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "data-to-decisions", "title": "From data to decisions, with provenance", "chapter": "ch04-geoai", "anchor": "ch4-data-to-decisions", "anchorPath": "ch04-geoai/03-spine-data-to-decisions.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "jackdaw" ], "blocks": [ "ch4-data-to-decisions", "ch4-comic-where-from", "ch4-comic-where-from-cs", "grounded-or-not-game", "ch4-question" ], "contract": { "objective": "Follow a potato-suitability question through JackDaw, and see what the answer must carry before a planner can use it.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "A question travels: area → routing → tools → approval → answer with tables", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "D4.2 distinguishes four provenance levels: source, ingestion, processing, usage", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Six quality statuses, from validated to superseded, should steer which data the agent prefers", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Better exposure of provenance in answers is a stated next step, not finished work", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What must a GeoAI answer carry before a planner can use it in a Regional Action Plan?", "recallA": "Visible references to the datasets behind it, with their source, update status, quality status and known limitations, so the reader can tell official statistics from pilot data, external web information, expert interpretation or experimental analysis (D4.2 §4.4).", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "jackdaw-in-practice", "title": "JackDaw in the pilots", "chapter": "ch04-geoai", "anchor": "ch4-farmer-support", "anchorPath": "ch04-geoai/04-spine-farmer-support.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "jackdaw" ], "blocks": [ "ch4-farmer-support" ], "contract": { "objective": "Crop suitability, frost and growing-degree indicators, farm and market structure for direct sales: the questions the Beta was built for, and the ones it does not answer.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Shipped sample prompts: characterise an area; check a crop's suitability", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Four short-food-supply-chain tools, including LPIS-based crop suitability for direct sales", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Used in the Greek, Finnish, Czech–Bavarian and Spanish pilots (D4.2 Table 7)", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "D7.3: data curation took months of manual work; JackDaw needed tuning for each language", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "Which farm and adviser questions does JackDaw Beta support, and what did the pilots find limits its use?", "recallA": "Area-based questions: characterising land use, industry and climate, crop suitability, agroclimatic indicators, and the short-food-supply-chain checks (farm scale, block size, LPIS-based suitability for direct sales, local demand). The pilots found the limit in the months of manual work needed to curate local, multilingual data, and in uneven digital skills; it does not decide subsidy eligibility.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "copernicus-data", "title": "Copernicus Earth observation in PoliRural+", "chapter": "ch04-geoai", "anchor": "ch4-copernicus", "anchorPath": "ch04-geoai/06-spine-copernicus-data.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "geoai" ], "blocks": [ "ch4-copernicus" ], "contract": { "objective": "Sentinel imagery reaches a JackDaw user mostly through derived layers. Direct access to imagery and time series is still being prepared.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "In the Beta, satellite information arrives through derived layers such as OLU_EU land cover", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "D4.1: Sentinel-1 radar plus Sentinel-2 optical, UnCRtainTS network, cloud-free images, then NDVI", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Planned: crop detection, land-cover detection and change mapping from EO imagery", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Prepared in D4.2: STAC/OGC discovery and Data Cubes for time series", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "How does Copernicus data reach JackDaw users in the Beta, and what is still being prepared?", "recallA": "Mostly through derived layers: none of the Beta tool areas queries Sentinel imagery directly, and land cover comes from OLU_EU statistics. D4.1 describes a cloud-removal and NDVI model on Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 and a planned classification suite; D4.2 is preparing STAC/OGC discovery of EO assets and Data Cube access to time series.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "local-geoai-kb", "title": "A local GeoAI knowledge base", "chapter": "ch04-geoai", "anchor": "ch4-local-kb-poc", "anchorPath": "ch04-geoai/08-spine-local-kb-poc.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "geoai", "data-to-decisions" ], "blocks": [ "ch4-local-kb-poc", "ch4-local-kb-poc-cs" ], "contract": { "objective": "One district, open geodata and community knowledge, readable by people in a book and by AI agents through open files and an MCP endpoint.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "The unit is a book block tied to a place and to the layers that back it", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "People: the interactive book, its author studio and the consortium gallery with editorial lift", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Agents: /kb/ pages, llms.txt, raw markdown, open data files, and an MCP endpoint at /api/mcp", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Success is a small, maintained, checkable base, not a regional oracle", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What makes the Klatovsko knowledge base grounded, and how can people and AI agents reach it?", "recallA": "Every factual claim is traceable to a named source or data layer, with date, coverage, method and limits stated. People read and co-write it as an interactive book; AI agents read static pages under /kb/, llms.txt, raw markdown and open data files, or query its MCP endpoint at /api/mcp.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "klatovsko-open-data", "title": "Open geodata for Klatovsko", "chapter": "ch04-geoai", "anchor": "ch4-klatovsko-data", "anchorPath": "ch04-geoai/09-spine-klatovsko-data.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "local-geoai-kb" ], "blocks": [ "ch4-klatovsko-data", "ch4-klatovsko-data-cs", "which-data-layer-game" ], "contract": { "objective": "Seven local questions, seven open layers, each with its scale, date and licence to check before an answer counts.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "LPIS shows registered agricultural use; the cadastre shows parcels and ownership. They are different layers", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "D4.2's Beta already uses Czech LPIS, cadastre, RÚIAN and forestry data", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "A spatial overlap shows a relationship, not harm or non-compliance", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Publicly viewable is not the same as openly licensed", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "Why does a local knowledge base combine several open layers instead of relying on one map, and what must it check when it does?", "recallA": "Each layer answers a different question at its own date and scale: imagery shows vegetation, LPIS shows registered farmland, the cadastre shows parcels and ownership, statistics describe statistical areas. Combining them requires checking boundaries, dates, definitions, licences and uncertainty.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "replicate-local-kb", "title": "Replicating the local knowledge base", "chapter": "ch04-geoai", "anchor": "ch4-replicate-region", "anchorPath": "ch04-geoai/10-spine-replicate-region.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "local-geoai-kb", "klatovsko-open-data" ], "blocks": [ "ch4-replicate-region", "ch4-replicate-region-cs" ], "contract": { "objective": "Ten local questions, the layers that answer them, and a draft shared with the consortium: a knowledge base people can check and maintain.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Start from questions people ask, not from a data catalogue", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "European layers exist for every pilot; national layers add the operational detail", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Record the D4.2 priority fields: source, provider, dates, update status, licence, access, limits, quality", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Humans decide what is published; agents draft and check", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What is the workflow for replicating the Klatovsko knowledge base in another pilot region?", "recallA": "Pick ten questions locals actually ask, define places and dates, map each to European and national layers with their provenance fields, draft evidence-linked blocks in the author studio, share them with group code polirural, and let editorial review lift the best into the book; then assign maintenance.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "which-tool-when", "title": "Which tool when", "chapter": "ch05-digital-tools", "anchor": "ch5-which-tool-when", "anchorPath": "ch05-digital-tools/00-spine-which-tool-when.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "regional-action-plan" ], "blocks": [ "ch5-which-tool-when" ], "contract": { "objective": "Collecting data, analysing it, writing a brief, engaging people, deciding, monitoring: which PoliRural+ tool helps at each step, and where its how-to guide is.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "D4.1 links six RAP steps to named tools", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Pick by the object of the question: a place, a document corpus, or people and targets", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Onboarding starts with the planning challenge, then the selection of services", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Pilots combine different bundles; no pilot uses everything", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "Which PoliRural+ tools support which steps of preparing a Regional Action Plan, and how does a pilot choose among them?", "recallA": "D4.1 maps six RAP steps to tools: data collection (Vulture, Magpie), integration and analysis (JackDaw, Magpie, rural attractiveness tools), policy briefs (the Advisor), stakeholder engagement (MAA tool, MapWhiteboard, JackDaw), decision-making (Advisor, JackDaw, MapWhiteboard) and monitoring (attractiveness tools, JackDaw). Each pilot names its planning challenge first and then selects only the Beta services it needs.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "tool-ecosystem", "title": "The PoliRural+ tool ecosystem", "chapter": "ch05-digital-tools", "anchor": "ch5-ecosystem", "anchorPath": "ch05-digital-tools/01-spine-tool-ecosystem.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [], "blocks": [ "ch5-ecosystem", "ch5-guide-hub", "ch5-guide-raven-magpie", "ch5-external", "which-tool-game" ], "contract": { "objective": "Eleven components, each with its own maturity: what the PoliRural+ Beta platform contains, and what holds it together.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "D4.2 describes eleven components, and each has its own Beta status", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Raven's metadata decides which data and tools JackDaw can use", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Each pilot picks the services it needs in five onboarding steps", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Before the final release the priority is consolidation and a documented TRL per tool, not new features", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "Why is the PoliRural+ platform built as separate components rather than one application, and what connects them?", "recallA": "Because authorities, advisors and developers usually need selected functions, not a full stack. The components connect through APIs, standardised metadata profiles and MCP-based integration, and metadata managed by Raven is what holds them together.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "maa-tool", "title": "The Multi-Actor Approach tool", "chapter": "ch05-digital-tools", "anchor": "ch5-maatool", "anchorPath": "ch05-digital-tools/02-spine-maatool.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [], "blocks": [ "ch5-maatool", "ch5-guide-maa" ], "contract": { "objective": "300+ users, 40 work entities, about 150 stakeholders: the PoliRural+ workspace where pilots record who takes part and what they want to achieve.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "First developed by Social InnoLabs in Cities2030, now redesigned for PoliRural+ pilots", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The workspace mirrors the work packages, including WP5 and nine pilot work entities", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The Ramon AI assistant drafts stakeholders and objectives from pilot documents; users confirm them", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Still open: shared attribute vocabulary across pilots, empty social spaces, full WP5 validation in D4.3", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What does the MAA tool add to the multi-actor approach, and how far is it in use?", "recallA": "It turns the method into a traceable workflow: stakeholders, roles, objectives, inputs and communication are recorded per pilot. In the Beta, the PoliRural+ workspace holds more than 300 users, 40 work entities, about 150 stakeholder profiles and 49 objectives.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "polirural-advisor", "title": "The PoliRural+ Advisor and RAG services", "chapter": "ch05-digital-tools", "anchor": "ch5-adviser-magpie", "anchorPath": "ch05-digital-tools/03-spine-adviser-magpie.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "tool-ecosystem" ], "blocks": [ "ch5-adviser-magpie", "ch5-guide-advisor", "ch5-agent-builder", "ch5-question" ], "contract": { "objective": "A custom GPT over the PoliRural+ knowledge base, and a natural-language search over map catalogues: what they retrieve, and what testers found.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "The Advisor is a custom GPT built on retrieval-augmented generation over the project's Knowledge Space", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Textual RAG reads documents; GeoRAG adds metadata, map layers and indicators", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "8 structured walkthroughs (February 2025): access difficulty 1.0, dialogue rated useful (2.9 of 4)", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Magpie searches geospatial metadata catalogues, not funding databases; in the Beta it lives inside Raven", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What makes the PoliRural+ Advisor different from asking a general chatbot, and where did testers see its limits?", "recallA": "It retrieves from a controlled project corpus (a private RAG; GeoRAG adds spatial data) and aims to cite its sources. In February 2025 testers found it easy to open and useful, but they hit daily usage limits and at least one wrong reference, so human judgement stays in charge.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "vulture-mapwhiteboard", "title": "Vulture and MapWhiteboard", "chapter": "ch05-digital-tools", "anchor": "ch5-vulture", "anchorPath": "ch05-digital-tools/04-spine-vulture-mapwhiteboard.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "tool-ecosystem" ], "blocks": [ "ch5-vulture", "ch5-guide-vulture", "ch5-guide-mapwhiteboard" ], "contract": { "objective": "One tool works on your own inbox, the other on a map that a whole workshop edits at once. What each really does, and how mature it is.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Vulture: forward-to-ingest, private Qdrant collection, GPT-4o answers, URL crawling", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The Vidzeme Planning Region uses Vulture to track policy developments", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "MapWhiteboard: OpenLayers and HSLayers-NG with a WebSocket API; rated TRL 7 in D4.1", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Monaghan's technical pilot TP1 pairs MapWhiteboard with action-foresight and system dynamics", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "How do Vulture and MapWhiteboard differ in purpose and maturity?", "recallA": "Vulture is a personal AI sandbox: forwarded e-mails and crawled web pages go into a private collection you can question (Vidzeme uses it for policy monitoring); in the Beta it has become less central. MapWhiteboard is a shared map with live cursors and features; a simplified instance is deployed and it supports pilot discussions about boundaries, corridors and land use.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "rural-attractiveness", "title": "Rural attractiveness mapping", "chapter": "ch05-digital-tools", "anchor": "ch5-rae-poe", "anchorPath": "ch05-digital-tools/05-spine-rae-poe.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "tool-ecosystem" ], "blocks": [ "ch5-rae-poe", "ch5-guide-attractiveness" ], "contract": { "objective": "PoliRural+ maps attractiveness instead of only debating it. On the Czech-Bavarian border it now does so one square kilometre at a time.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "PoliRural's Rural Attractiveness Explorer built a composite Rural Attractiveness Index", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Each pilot defines attractiveness differently, from innovation potential to tourism", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The Beta tool for the Czech-Bavarian border works on a 1×1 km grid, led by Plan4all and Deggendorf Institute of Technology", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Segment analyses and cross-border indicator harmonisation are still in progress", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "Why does the Czech-Bavarian innovation potential tool use a 1×1 km grid, and what does it combine?", "recallA": "A regular grid shows where potential actually lies, without the bias that comes from aggregating data into municipalities or districts. The tool combines statistical indicators, the locations of universities and research institutes, transport networks and socio-economic data into an Attractiveness Index, with thematic maps and sector reports.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "short-food-supply-chains", "title": "Short food supply chains", "chapter": "ch06-food-agriculture", "anchor": "ch6-food-challenge", "anchorPath": "ch06-food-agriculture/01-spine-food-challenge.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "rural-urban-linkages" ], "blocks": [ "ch6-food-challenge", "short-or-long-chain-game", "ch6-question" ], "contract": { "objective": "In Apulia, three out of four small farm businesses surveyed already sell through short chains. The barrier is the organisation around them, not willingness.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "76% of the small Apulian farm businesses surveyed by DEMO already had experience with short-chain channels", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The barriers are organisational: fragmented supply, last-mile logistics, communication costs, missing skills", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Apulia's RAP targets for 2028: +30% volume sold through short chains, -20% logistics emissions, +15% jobs", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Short chains feature in four pilots: Apulia, the Czech-Bavarian border, Malta and Central Greece", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "According to the Apulia evidence, what holds short food supply chains back: producer willingness, or something else?", "recallA": "Not willingness: 76% of the small Apulian farm businesses DEMO surveyed already had experience with short-chain channels. The bottlenecks are organisational and infrastructural: fragmented supply, logistics and last-mile costs, high communication costs, missing skills and advice, and slow permitting and scarce finance.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "field2fork-ai-hub", "title": "Field2Fork AI Hub (Apulia)", "chapter": "ch06-food-agriculture", "anchor": "ch6-field2fork", "anchorPath": "ch06-food-agriculture/02-spine-field2fork.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "short-food-supply-chains" ], "blocks": [ "ch6-field2fork", "ch6-rag-technology" ], "contract": { "objective": "Apulia went from focus groups to a hackathon to a working marketplace with an AI chat assistant. Here is what each step produced.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Built by EXO Soc. Cons. a r.l. with Distretto Agroalimentare Regionale (Italy) under the Develop call", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The 'Personal Farmer' turns natural-language dietary and ethical preferences into shopping-cart scenarios", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Pickups at local farm hubs replace home delivery: a zero-kilometre logistics model", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Tested with 170 consumers and 23 producers; D6.3 reports acceptance scores, not sales", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What did Field2Fork AI Hub build for Foggia, and what kind of evidence does D6.3 report for it?", "recallA": "A dual-track marketplace (a catalogue store plus the 'Personal Farmer' AI chat assistant) with a zero-kilometre logistics engine that assigns local farm pickup hubs. The evidence is user-acceptance testing with 170 consumers and 23 producers (e.g. usability 4.44/5, 90.3% positive consumer evaluations), not sales or income data.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "locallinks-ai", "title": "LocalLinks.AI (Czech-Bavarian border)", "chapter": "ch06-food-agriculture", "anchor": "ch6-locallinks", "anchorPath": "ch06-food-agriculture/03-spine-locallinks-ai.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "short-food-supply-chains" ], "blocks": [ "ch6-locallinks" ], "contract": { "objective": "175 producers, 220 sales outlets, 460 verified links: a short-chain network made visible, built on earlier open-call work in Klatovy.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Led by Šumavaprodukt s.r.o. with Úhlava, o. p. s. and a self-employed partner (Develop call)", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "LocalFarmsAI: AI-assisted extraction, validation and confidence scoring of supplier–customer data", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Validated records: 175 producers, 220 outlets, 460 relationships; open exports in Excel, CSV, JSON", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Built on FarmTourist (Outreach) and the DIPS ideathon (Mobilise) in Klatovy", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What problem does LocalLinks.AI address, and what did it deliver?", "recallA": "The Pilsen Region had no structured information on which local producers supply which buyers. LocalLinks.AI built the LocalFarmsAI editor and database with AI-assisted data extraction, validated records for 175 producers, 220 sales outlets and 460 supplier–customer relationships, synced them to the Atlas map and made them queryable through JackDaw.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "dask-kythera", "title": "DASK on Kythera", "chapter": "ch06-food-agriculture", "anchor": "ch6-kythera", "anchorPath": "ch06-food-agriculture/04-spine-kythera-farming.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "short-food-supply-chains" ], "blocks": [ "ch6-kythera", "ch6-digital-terroir" ], "contract": { "objective": "An island e-market, agritourism bookings and a Greek-speaking farming chatbot named after Eleonora's falcon, all behind one front door.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Develop-call project led by DASKALOS APPS with the Kytherian Foundation for Culture & Development and an environmental consultant", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "One bilingual gateway: e-market, agritourism bookings, training centre and knowledge base", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The JackDaw chatbot is localised as 'Ο Μαυροπετρίτης των Κυθήρων' (Eleonora's Falcon), with RAG and Greek voice input", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Skills come through people: co-design workshops, photography training and local Digital Champions", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What does the DASK project combine on Kythera, and how does it tackle the digital-skills gap?", "recallA": "DASK combines a bilingual e-market for local products, an agritourism booking engine, a training centre and a knowledge base with a localised JackDaw chatbot that uses retrieval-augmented generation and Greek voice input. It tackles the skills gap through co-design workshops, hands-on training such as product photography in Chora, and a peer network of local 'Digital Champions'.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "malta-agri-food", "title": "Malta's agri-food open-call path", "chapter": "ch06-food-agriculture", "anchor": "ch6-malta", "anchorPath": "ch06-food-agriculture/05-spine-malta-water.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "short-food-supply-chains" ], "blocks": [ "ch6-malta" ], "contract": { "objective": "Farms under one hectare, an ageing workforce and imported fresh food. Three open-call projects tried to put Maltese producers back in front of local buyers.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Only 23.7% of Maltese agricultural workers are under 45; average farms are under one hectare", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The Malta RAP chooses enabling actions (skills, awareness, informal collaboration) over structural reform", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Ideathon winner Go(v) Local First gives local producers preference in public food procurement", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "MALTESE: 25 trainees, nine producer stores, 61 recorded e-market sales, soil-moisture sensors linked to JackDaw", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "How did the Maltese pilot's three open-call projects build on each other, and what was the winning idea of the MaYA Agri-Tech Ideathon?", "recallA": "AgriFusion (Outreach) researched farmer and consumer needs, the MaYA Agri-Tech Ideathon (Mobilise) co-created solutions with young people, and MALTESE (Develop) trained 25 people and ran a no-account JackDaw chatbot and an e-market with 61 recorded sales. The ideathon was won by Go(v) Local First, a forecasting and matching platform that gives local producers preference in public food procurement for schools, hospitals and canteens.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "eu-rural-policy", "title": "The EU rural policy landscape", "chapter": "ch07-policy", "anchor": "ch7-policy-landscape", "anchorPath": "ch07-policy/01-spine-policy-landscape.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "rural-urban-linkages" ], "blocks": [ "ch7-policy-landscape", "ch7-cap", "ch7-which-policy-game" ], "contract": { "objective": "Cohesion Policy, the CAP, the Urban Agenda and the 2040 rural vision all reach the same village. PoliRural+ mapped 1,500 references to see how they fit.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Cohesion Policy: EUR 377.5 billion for 2021–2027, five priorities from 'smarter' to 'closer to citizens'", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "CAP 2023–2027: EUR 387 billion for 2021–2027, ten objectives including vibrant rural areas", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Long-Term Vision for Rural Areas: stronger, connected, resilient, prosperous rural areas by 2040", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "OECD: 11 rural policy principles under scale, strategy and stakeholders", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "Which main EU policy frames shape a rural-urban region, and what does the OECD say makes rural policy work?", "recallA": "Cohesion Policy (EUR 377.5 billion, five priorities, 2021–2027), the CAP (EUR 387 billion, 2021–2027), the Urban Agenda for the EU and the Long-Term Vision for Rural Areas with its Rural Action Plan and Rural Pact. The OECD Principles on Rural Policy group 11 principles under scale, strategy and stakeholders, including whole-of-government coordination and monitoring.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "long-term-rural-vision", "title": "The EU Long-Term Vision for Rural Areas", "chapter": "ch07-policy", "anchor": "ch7-ltvra", "anchorPath": "ch07-policy/07-spine-long-term-rural-vision.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "eu-rural-policy" ], "blocks": [ "ch7-ltvra" ], "contract": { "objective": "Rural areas cover 83 % of the EU and are home to 30 % of its people. In 2021 the Commission set them four aims for 2040, carried by two pillars.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Presented in 2021, built on foresight and wide consultation", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Four aims: stronger, connected, resilient, prosperous, by 2040", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Two pillars: the Rural Action Plan and the Rural Pact", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Rural proofing reviews EU policies through a rural lens", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What are the four aims of the EU Long-Term Vision for Rural Areas, and what two pillars carry it?", "recallA": "Stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas by 2040. The vision rests on the Rural Action Plan (Commission actions and flagships, rural proofing, a rural observatory) and the Rural Pact (a cooperation framework for actors at every level).", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "slovak-rural-vision", "title": "Slovakia's national rural vision", "chapter": "ch07-policy", "anchor": "ch7-slovakia-vision", "anchorPath": "ch07-policy/02-spine-slovakia-vision-2040.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "long-term-rural-vision", "slovakia-pilot" ], "blocks": [ "ch7-slovakia-vision" ], "contract": { "objective": "A national pilot plans for the whole country: three objectives, seven proposed measures, and an alignment table that ties each one to an EU policy frame.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "National pilot led by the Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra (SUA) with the Rural Youth Parliament (SRY)", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "RAP 3.0 theme: 'From Dialogue to Action' through multi-sector, multi-actor cooperation", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Proposed: Smart Village grants in 75 % of municipalities by 2030; a refundable 25 % tax credit for agri-tech and circular investments", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Each measure is mapped to an EU frame in a strategic alignment table", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What does the Slovak pilot set out to do with its national rural vision, and how does its policy brief tie the plan to EU frames?", "recallA": "It aims to turn the Vision for More Attractive Rural Areas 2040 into a cross-sector governance platform that overcomes policy silos. The RAP 3.0 brief proposes a policy mix (a Cross-Sector Rural Development Council, an AKIS platform, Smart Village grants, a tax credit, capacity building) and maps it to the Green Deal, the 2040 rural vision, Cohesion Policy, the CAP, the Digital Decade, Horizon Europe and LIFE, and the Rural Pact.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "defining-rural", "title": "Defining rural territory", "chapter": "ch07-policy", "anchor": "ch7-legal-definitions", "anchorPath": "ch07-policy/03-spine-legal-definitions.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "eu-rural-policy" ], "blocks": [ "ch7-legal-definitions" ], "contract": { "objective": "The unit you count in changes the story you tell. The JRC's functional rural areas build rural territory around real rural centres and real drive times.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Comparable rural statistics need one harmonised way to delineate cities, towns and suburbs, and rural areas", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Functional rural areas cover all territory outside functional urban areas, built around rural centres", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Thresholds: 10-minute drive to a centre, at least 25,000 inhabitants or over an hour apart, centres under 30 minutes apart merged", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "OECD: rural-urban partnerships work best on functional regions, not administrative borders", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "How are functional rural areas built, and why are they a better unit for rural policy than municipalities or NUTS-3 regions?", "recallA": "Every territory outside functional urban areas is assigned to the rural centre with the strongest pull (the largest town or village within a 10-minute drive). Small catchments are merged until each has at least 25,000 inhabitants or is more than an hour from its neighbours. The result is more even in size, gives less volatile statistics than municipalities and more detail than NUTS-3 regions.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "green-deal-rural", "title": "Rural regions in the European Green Deal", "chapter": "ch07-policy", "anchor": "ch7-green-deal", "anchorPath": "ch07-policy/04-spine-green-deal.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "eu-rural-policy" ], "blocks": [ "ch7-green-deal" ], "contract": { "objective": "The Green Deal aims for a climate-neutral EU by 2050. D2.2 turns it into concrete rural themes: local energy, local food, circular bio-economy, transport.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Green Deal: a climate-neutral EU by 2050 that leaves no one behind; rural areas have a named role", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "D2.2 rural themes: local energy, local food, circular bio-economy, sustainable transport", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The New European Bauhaus makes the Green Deal tangible: sustainability, aesthetics, inclusion", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Pilot briefs link it to circular economy (Monaghan, Slovakia) and climate-smart forestry (Vidzeme)", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "Which concrete themes does D2.2 derive from the Green Deal for PoliRural+ pilots, and which EU initiatives help deliver them?", "recallA": "Local energy systems and rural energy communities, local food systems and shorter supply chains (Farm to Fork), waste management and circular bio-economy, and sustainable transport and logistics. Nature-based solutions and the New European Bauhaus help deliver them.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "from-policy-gap-to-intervention-logic", "title": "From policy gap to intervention logic", "chapter": "ch07-policy", "anchor": "ch7-intervention-logic", "anchorPath": "ch07-policy/08-spine-policy-gap-to-intervention-logic.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "regional-action-plan", "eu-rural-policy" ], "blocks": [ "ch7-intervention-logic", "ch7-vidzeme-monitoring", "ch7-question" ], "contract": { "objective": "Most measures in most policy papers never happen. D3.1 sets out how a region builds a measure list that is complete, financed and measurable.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Start with an inventory of existing policies: build on what exists, avoid overlaps", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "A complete plan also closes gaps in finance, legislation and training", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Intervention logic: measures, then outputs, then outcomes, then impacts", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "SMART KPIs on impacts, a monitoring committee and a budget for mid-course correction", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "How does a region move from a policy gap analysis to measures it can monitor, according to D3.1?", "recallA": "Inventory the existing policies and look for gaps in finance, legislation and training. Turn each of 2 to 5 challenges into 2 to 10 measures, together with the actors who will implement them. Justify each measure with an intervention logic (measures, outputs, outcomes, impacts) and track impacts with SMART KPIs, overseen by a monitoring committee.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "rural-innovation-hubs", "title": "Rural innovation hubs", "chapter": "ch08-innovation", "anchor": "ch8-hubs", "anchorPath": "ch08-innovation/01-spine-innovation-hubs.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "rural-urban-linkages" ], "blocks": [ "ch8-hubs", "ch8-question" ], "contract": { "objective": "Four pilots name a hub as their answer. Most are still proposals; the working model they borrow from sits on the Bavarian side of the border.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "D2.2: rural innovation comes mainly from necessity and resourcefulness, and depends on absorbing outside know-how", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "D2.2 set the task: research hub models, online and physical, that fit sparsely populated areas", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Proposed hubs: Apulia SFSC hub, five Central Greece knowledge hubs, Klatovy cross-border hub, Monaghan circular-economy hub", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The Commission brief: anchor AI services in living labs, LEADER groups and demonstration sites", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "Why does PoliRural+ treat rural innovation hubs differently from urban incubators, and what is the status of the hubs the pilots propose?", "recallA": "Rural innovation grows from necessity and small firms and depends on absorbing and adapting outside know-how, so hubs must deliver advice, training, demonstration and networking close to farmers and SMEs rather than R&D for start-ups. The pilots' hubs (Apulia SFSC hub, Central Greece knowledge hubs, Klatovy cross-border hub, Monaghan circular-economy hub) are recommendations or RAP actions, not running services.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "klatovy-innovation-hub", "title": "The proposed Klatovy innovation hub", "chapter": "ch08-innovation", "anchor": "ch8-klatovy", "anchorPath": "ch08-innovation/02-spine-klatovy-hub.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "rural-innovation-hubs", "czech-bavarian-pilot" ], "blocks": [ "ch8-klatovy" ], "contract": { "objective": "Bavaria runs a decentralised network of Technology Campuses; the Czech side has nothing comparable. The pilot's answer is a hub model for Klatovy, still at the proposal stage.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Bavaria has a decentralised network of Technology Campuses; Klatovy and Šumava lack comparable structures", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The hub would focus on applied digital tools, sustainable agriculture and market access for farmers", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The pilot plans a support model (networks, advisory, digital tools) rather than a single building", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Status: proposed. RAP, hub model, planned MoU and Steering Committee are meant to carry it past 2026", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What is the Klatovy innovation hub, what model is it adapted from, and what is its status?", "recallA": "It is a proposed cross-border rural innovation hub in Klatovy, inspired by the decentralised Technology Campus model of Deggendorf Institute of Technology. It would support farmers, SMEs and rural innovators through training, demonstration, advisory services and networking. Its status is proposed: it is anchored in the Czech-Bavarian RAP, with a Memorandum of Understanding and a cross-border Steering Committee planned to continue it after 2026.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "arise-heritage-platform", "title": "ARISE heritage platform (Cuenca)", "chapter": "ch08-innovation", "anchor": "ch8-arise", "anchorPath": "ch08-innovation/03-spine-arise-platform.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "rural-innovation-hubs", "cuenca-pilot" ], "blocks": [ "ch8-arise" ], "contract": { "objective": "In Sierra y Mancha Conquense, an open-call team joined archaeological sites, 63 local businesses and 148 itineraries in one open-source platform.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Develop-call project: Obsidian Innovation Institute (Portugal) with Xilbi Sistemas de Informacion (Spain)", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Two layers: a public visitor app with a JackDaw chat guide, and a restricted MAAT workspace for stakeholders", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "63 rural businesses, 148 planned itineraries, 199 verified records, 48 MAAT stakeholders in 17 sessions", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Replication basis: data-free source code on GitHub under Apache-2.0", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What problem did ARISE solve in Sierra y Mancha Conquense, and what did it leave behind for other regions?", "recallA": "Visitor information was fragmented across Roman archaeological sites, rural businesses, routes and services. ARISE joined them in one mobile-first platform with a JackDaw chat guide and a MAAT workspace for local stakeholders (63 businesses, 148 itineraries, 48 registered stakeholders). It left a data-free, Apache-2.0 open-source code base on GitHub for replication.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "people-place-bond", "title": "The people–place bond", "chapter": "ch08-innovation", "anchor": "ch8-people-place", "anchorPath": "ch08-innovation/04-spine-people-place-bond.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "rural-innovation-hubs" ], "blocks": [ "ch8-people-place" ], "contract": { "objective": "A village museum with 400 masks, a sheep farm teaching wool craft, castle trails in Pošumaví: the Atlas tags them all 'people–place bond'. Here is why that counts as innovation.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "D2.2: rural innovation includes social, organisational and resource-based forms, not only technology", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Atlas examples: Lišov Múzeum (SK), Farma Roziak (SK), Olej Hont (SK), Peregrinus and Castles of Pošumaví (CZ)", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Mallusjoki technical pilot: gamification, GIS and AR/VR storytelling for the person–place bond", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Story Pathways editor: local stories become mapped thematic routes with summaries and QR codes", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What do PoliRural+ practices tagged 'people–place bond' have in common, and how is the bond being tested in Mallusjoki?", "recallA": "They turn local heritage, crafts, food and stories into reasons for residents to stay and visitors to come, which counts as social and resource-based rural innovation. In Mallusjoki a technical pilot tests gamification, GIS and AR/VR storytelling to strengthen the person–place bond and pro-environmental behaviour, and the Story Pathways editor turns local audio and video stories into mapped routes.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "new-european-bauhaus", "title": "New European Bauhaus synergies", "chapter": "ch08-innovation", "anchor": "ch8-neb", "anchorPath": "ch08-innovation/05-spine-new-european-bauhaus.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "rural-innovation-hubs" ], "blocks": [ "ch8-neb" ], "contract": { "objective": "Sustainability, aesthetics, inclusion: PoliRural+ has a whole objective on the New European Bauhaus, with countable targets. Here is where it shows up.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Objective O7 targets: 20 projects identified, 10 cooperations, 3 NEB events, 3 joint workshops", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Policy briefs link NEB to landscape-based tourism (Central Greece), food hubs and agri-tourism venues (Malta), and the border region as an NEB pilot area (CZ-BY)", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "ARISE monitors NEB indicators inside its MAAT stakeholder workspace", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "How is the New European Bauhaus built into PoliRural+, and where does it show up in pilot work?", "recallA": "Objective O7 commits the project to synergies with the New European Bauhaus, with KPIs of 20 projects identified, 10 cooperations, participation in 3 NEB events and 3 joint workshops. In the pilots, NEB values of sustainability, aesthetics and inclusion appear in the policy briefs' alignment tables (Central Greece, Czech-Bavarian border, Malta), in ARISE's NEB monitoring in the MAAT workspace, and in an NEB-aligned exploitation pathway in the Atlas.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "consortium", "title": "The PoliRural+ consortium", "chapter": "ch09-community", "anchor": "ch9-consortium", "anchorPath": "ch09-community/01-spine-consortium.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "polirural-plus-project" ], "blocks": [ "ch9-consortium" ], "contract": { "objective": "Nine regional pilot leads, their technical partners, and five partners with no pilot of their own: how the consortium is put together.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "20 beneficiaries from 13 countries; no affiliated entities, no associated partners", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Every pilot has a regional lead partner; Plan4All leads the Czech-Bavarian pilot and also supports the Spanish one", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Type mix in the Grant Agreement: 8 BUS, 5 NFP, 4 RIA, 3 PUB", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Five partners each lead one audience group of the communication plan (D7.1)", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "How is the PoliRural+ consortium put together, and how does it connect to the nine pilots?", "recallA": "The consortium has 20 beneficiaries in 13 countries, coordinated by CVUT (Czech Technical University in Prague). Each of the nine pilots has a lead partner from its own region, usually paired with a technical or business partner. Five partners (CVUT, CCSS, Asplan Viak, PSNC, CKA) hold no pilot role.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "open-calls", "title": "The open-call ladder", "chapter": "ch09-community", "anchor": "ch9-open-calls", "anchorPath": "ch09-community/02-spine-open-calls.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "consortium" ], "blocks": [ "ch9-open-calls", "open-call-ladder-game" ], "contract": { "objective": "€900,000 set aside for outside organisations, split into four calls that each fund the next step, and how the delivered scheme differed from the plan.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Four calls, four steps: map needs, mobilise, develop, test", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Planned €900,000 (16 % of the requested EU contribution, including evaluation costs); reported €850,968 for 26 projects", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "339 applications, 30 approved, 26 funded", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Each criterion scored at least 3/5 and at least 11/15 in total; one project per pilot preferred", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What does each of the four PoliRural+ open calls fund, and how did the delivered scheme differ from the plan?", "recallA": "Outreach (€5,000 lump sums) mapped local needs and stakeholders, Mobilise (€10,000) ran hackathons and ideathons, Develop (€30,000–100,000) built working digital applications, and Enhance (up to €25,000) tested JackDaw in real use. Of the €900,000 planned, D6.3 reports €850,968 paid to 26 projects. Develop took about 68 % of it, against half of the planned envelope.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "multi-actor-approach", "title": "The multi-actor approach", "chapter": "ch09-community", "anchor": "ch9-stakeholders", "anchorPath": "ch09-community/03-spine-stakeholder-engagement.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "pilot-network" ], "blocks": [ "ch9-stakeholders", "stakeholder-tier-game", "ch9-comic-in-the-room", "ch9-comic-in-the-room-cs" ], "contract": { "objective": "By September 2025 the nine pilots had recorded 351 stakeholders. They then sorted them into three tiers that decide who co-creates, who is consulted and who is kept informed.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Six components (D5.1): identify and map, partner, plan and decide together, coordinate, resolve conflict, monitor and adapt", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Target of 300 stakeholders; 351 recorded by September 2025 (117 %), up from 83 in May 2024", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Tier shares in September 2025: Primary 15 %, Secondary 56 %, Peripheral 29 %", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "A stakeholder's tier depends on its role in that pilot, not on its type", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What does the multi-actor approach ask of a PoliRural+ pilot, and how does the tiered stakeholder framework put it into practice?", "recallA": "Under D5.1 a pilot identifies and maps its stakeholders, builds partnerships, plans and decides together with them, sets up coordination, resolves conflicts, and monitors and adapts. D2.1 then ranks each stakeholder as Primary (co-designs the Regional Action Plan), Secondary (consulted through surveys and roundtables) or Peripheral (informed through newsletters, dashboards and open calls).", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "adoption-lessons", "title": "Lessons on uptake", "chapter": "ch09-community", "anchor": "ch9-adoption", "anchorPath": "ch09-community/04-spine-adoption-lessons.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "open-calls", "multi-actor-approach" ], "blocks": [ "ch9-adoption", "ch9-question" ], "contract": { "objective": "Almost half the funded projects struggled to recruit rural participants. Here is what else slowed them down, what helped, and which survey figures to read with care.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Barrier one: finding rural participants (10 of 21 respondents); trusted intermediaries such as LAGs and cooperatives help", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "3–9 month windows are too short for seasonal field tests; D6.3 recommends 9–12 months", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "100 % 'replicable' and 81 % 'will continue' are self-assessments, not proof", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The stakeholder database is thin on infrastructure, digital-technology and finance actors", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "Which barriers to engagement and uptake did the PoliRural+ open-call projects report, and what does D6.3 recommend for future calls?", "recallA": "The most common barrier was recruiting local partners and rural participants (47.6 %), followed by project windows of 3–9 months that were too short (42.9 %) and the administrative burden (23.8 %). D6.3 recommends consortium-backed stakeholder matchmaking, 9–12 month windows for Develop and Enhance, standard reporting templates from day one, and faster feedback channels to the core developers.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "research-pillars", "title": "Research pillars of PoliRural+", "chapter": "ch10-research", "anchor": "ch10-overview", "anchorPath": "ch10-research/01-spine-research-overview.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "polirural-plus-project" ], "blocks": [ "ch10-overview", "ch10-polirural-legacy" ], "contract": { "objective": "Grounded GeoAI, metadata, participation, territorial systems: what PoliRural+ tries to prove, how it tests it, and where its tools are reused.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Four pillars, each tied to a platform component and a public deliverable", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Usability is tested with cognitive walkthroughs, the System Usability Scale and pilot-by-pilot validation", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Five partner projects reuse PoliRural+ assets such as JackDaw, Hub4Everybody, SensLog and the MAA tool", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Sustainability means a stable open core kept separate from project-specific configurations", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What are the four research pillars of PoliRural+, and how does the project show that its tools work beyond the pilots?", "recallA": "Grounded GeoAI, metadata and FAIR data, participation and foresight, and systems and territorial analysis. Reuse in FOCAL, BioClima, INTERESH, FAIR2Adapt and KijaniSpace shows the components working in climate, biodiversity, soil-health, FAIR-data and international settings.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "system-dynamics", "title": "System dynamics in rural policy", "chapter": "ch10-research", "anchor": "ch10-system-dynamics", "anchorPath": "ch10-research/02-spine-system-dynamics.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "foresight-framework" ], "blocks": [ "ch10-system-dynamics" ], "contract": { "objective": "Some policy effects arrive late and in another sector. System dynamics is how PoliRural+ commits to modelling them, starting in County Monaghan.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Objective O6: data-driven decisions, collaborative analysis and system dynamics for a well-being economy", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Technical pilot TP1 (Monaghan) combines action-foresight, system dynamics and MapWhiteboard", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "D2.3 flags the kind of trade-off feedback models are built for: short-term gains, long-term ecosystem costs", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The public deliverables reviewed here do not yet document a released model", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "Where does system dynamics appear in PoliRural+, and what is it meant to add to Regional Action Plans?", "recallA": "Objective O6 names it as an instrument of mission-oriented experimentation, and the Monaghan technical pilot TP1 uses it with action-foresight and MapWhiteboard to define and implement the RAP. It adds feedback and delayed trade-offs that static indicators miss.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "grounded-ai-planning", "title": "Grounded AI for rural planning", "chapter": "ch10-research", "anchor": "ch10-ai-rural", "anchorPath": "ch10-research/03-spine-ai-rural-planning.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "geoai" ], "blocks": [ "ch10-ai-rural", "ch10-geoai-research" ], "contract": { "objective": "The Beta showed that maps plus plain language help non-GIS users. It also showed what an AI answer needs before a planner can rely on it.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Main positive pilot finding: map interaction combined with plain-language dialogue", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Four rules: a controlled corpus, visible sources and limits, human validation, sensitive data kept in-house", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Open problems: uneven local data and metadata, local languages and place names, technical noise in answers", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "Under what conditions does D4.2 consider AI answers usable for planning decisions?", "recallA": "When they are grounded in reliable data and structured metadata, with clear provenance, appropriate tool selection and openly stated limits. Outputs must show sources, data validity and limitations, and people validate what the AI extracts or proposes.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "spatial-data-infrastructure", "title": "Metadata-driven spatial data infrastructure", "chapter": "ch10-research", "anchor": "ch10-spatial", "anchorPath": "ch10-research/04-spine-spatial-data.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "jackdaw" ], "blocks": [ "ch10-spatial", "ch10-hub4everybody", "ch10-question" ], "contract": { "objective": "The first GeoAI demos needed one Python function per dataset. The Beta lets metadata decide which data and tools to use, so metadata quality now matters a great deal.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Proof of concept: hard-coded functions; Beta: generic tools set up over described data", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Raven resolves data references and tool contexts for JackDaw", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Standards stack: ISO 19115/19119, Micka, Layman, STAC, OGC API – Records, RO-Crate, I-ADOPT", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Pilots must describe coverage, validity, licences and known limitations", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What changed between the PoliRural+ proof of concept and the Beta in how data reaches the AI tools?", "recallA": "The proof of concept hard-coded Python functions for fixed datasets, with metadata hidden in code comments. The Beta relies on explicit metadata and service descriptions, so Raven can select datasets and set up generic tools over them, which makes metadata quality decisive.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "research-outputs", "title": "Public research outputs", "chapter": "ch10-research", "anchor": "ch10-publications", "anchorPath": "ch10-research/05-spine-publications.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "research-pillars" ], "blocks": [ "ch10-publications" ], "contract": { "objective": "One paper, one open-source tool, recorded webinars and the public deliverables: every PoliRural+ research output here has a link.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Only outputs with a public URL in the project fact sheet are listed", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "CVUT: the reasoning-grounded explanations paper and SHIELD on GitHub", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "JackDaw webinar recordings (November–December 2025) are on the project website", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "D2.2, D2.3, D4.1 and D4.2 carry most of the research content", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "Which two PoliRural+ research outputs with a public link deal with trustworthy AI, and what does each do?", "recallA": "The paper on reasoning-grounded explanations (predict-and-explain with compressed reasoning, presented at the XAI World Conference) and SHIELD, open-source software that filters unsafe or irrelevant queries before the AI answers.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "open-call-results", "title": "Open-call results", "chapter": "ch11-results", "anchor": "ch11-open-call-results", "anchorPath": "ch11-results/01-spine-open-call-results.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "open-calls" ], "blocks": [ "ch11-open-call-results" ], "contract": { "objective": "339 applications, 26 funded projects in 14 countries: from farm-to-tourist workshops to a forestry GeoAI that cut analysis time from 296 to 11 minutes.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "339 applications, 30 approved, 26 funded: 7.67 % of applicants ended up with a project", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Each call produced a different kind of result: needs maps, ideathons, operational apps, JackDaw validations", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "LocalLinks.AI mapped 460 supplier-customer links of 175 producers around Klatovy", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "D6.3 shows outputs and early outcomes; long-term impact is left to D6.4", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What did the PoliRural+ open calls produce, and how strong is the evidence that the instrument worked?", "recallA": "26 projects (6 Outreach, 7 Mobilise, 6 Develop, 7 Enhance) in 14 countries shared about EUR 851,000 and delivered needs studies, ideathons, operational apps and real-world JackDaw validations. D6.3 rates the instrument favourably on demand, outputs and beneficiary feedback, but the evidence is mostly outputs and short-term outcomes, partly self-reported, with no counterfactual.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "atlas-of-practices", "title": "Atlas of best practices", "chapter": "ch11-results", "anchor": "ch11-atlas-of-practices", "anchorPath": "ch11-results/02-spine-atlas-of-practices.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "pilot-network" ], "blocks": [ "ch11-atlas-of-practices", "ch11-guide-atlas" ], "contract": { "objective": "A public, searchable atlas of practices from the pilots and open calls, each with a place, activity tags and the results it produced.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "126 practices, edited by CCSS, public at atlasbestpractices.com", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Every entry has a prp-id, a location, activity tags, a description and results", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Open-call teams feed it too: LocalLinks.AI documented six farm cases", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Use it to find a practice tested in a context like yours, then follow its results", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What is the PoliRural+ Atlas of best practices, and how can a region outside the project use it?", "recallA": "A public online atlas (atlasbestpractices.com, edited by CCSS) of 126 practices from the pilots, open-call projects and project-wide services. Each entry gives a location, activity tags, a description and results. A region filters by tag or region, picks a practice whose context matches its own, and can document its own practices in the same format.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "key-exploitable-results", "title": "Key exploitable results (KERs)", "chapter": "ch11-results", "anchor": "ch11-key-exploitable-results", "anchorPath": "ch11-results/03-spine-key-exploitable-results.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "tool-ecosystem" ], "blocks": [ "ch11-key-exploitable-results", "ch11-ker-type-sort-game" ], "contract": { "objective": "Six project-level results with business potential, five pilot-level ones, and the scoring rule that decides which survive into the final exploitation plan.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Six project-level KERs with business potential, from the Advisor to JackDaw and Vulture", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Five spheres of exploitation; most KERs outside the business sphere stay free and open source", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "KER index = innovation × exploitability × impact, each rated Low, Medium or High", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "D7.4 is edition 1; the final KER list and owners come in D7.8", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "Which key exploitable results does D7.4 name, and how will the final selection be made?", "recallA": "At project level: the Advisor knowledge space, the Multi-Actor Approach Tool, JackDaw, rural circular-economy funding business models, Vulture and the AI advisory Dashboard. At pilot level there are five, such as smart-village hubs and cross-border innovation hubs. The final selection comes in D7.8, scored by a KER index that multiplies innovation, exploitability and impact ratings, with each result assigned to one of five exploitation spheres.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "practice-abstracts", "title": "Practice abstracts", "chapter": "ch11-results", "anchor": "ch11-practice-abstracts", "anchorPath": "ch11-results/04-spine-practice-abstracts.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "key-exploitable-results" ], "blocks": [ "ch11-practice-abstracts" ], "contract": { "objective": "Three short videos from 2025 show, side by side, what a plain chatbot answers and what JackDaw answers once it can query real data.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "EIP-AGRI-style abstracts: short, practical, publicly circulated", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Batch 1 = three videos on OSM innovation mapping, GeoAI linkages and JackDaw vs plain LLMs", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Written for policymakers, practitioners and open-call applicants", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What are the PoliRural+ practice abstracts, and what does batch 1 (D7.2) cover?", "recallA": "Short, practitioner-oriented summaries in line with EIP-AGRI guidelines. Batch 1 is three videos: innovation mapping from OpenStreetMap data, GeoAI for rural-urban linkage analysis with JackDaw, and a comparison of plain LLM answers with JackDaw's agentic tool calling. Batch 2 (D7.5) is due in month 34.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "project-legacy", "title": "What remains after the project", "chapter": "ch11-results", "anchor": "ch11-what-remains", "anchorPath": "ch11-results/05-spine-what-remains.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "key-exploitable-results", "atlas-of-practices" ], "blocks": [ "ch11-what-remains", "ch11-meet-the-project", "ch11-q-adopt-first" ], "contract": { "objective": "Some results are operational, some are Beta, some are plans: a status-honest inventory of what is meant to continue after the project ends.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "D4.2 calls the platform a functional and reusable Beta that still needs consolidation", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "D7.4: free and open source by default, a hybrid funding model, final KER list in D7.8", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Pilot roadmaps run to 2030 and 2040; 81 % of open-call teams report continuing", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The Atlas and this knowledge base keep the evidence public", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What is meant to continue after PoliRural+ ends in December 2026, and on what terms?", "recallA": "The open-source platform components (Hub, JackDaw, Magpie, Vulture, MapWhiteboard), which D4.2 describes as a functional, reusable Beta still to be consolidated; the free Advisor and Dashboard services; the public Atlas; the pilots' roadmaps to 2030–2040; and the open-call tools, 81 % of whose teams report continuing. D7.4 relies on a hybrid of public funding, private investment and subscription services, and fixes the final list of KERs in D7.8.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "participatory-ai-principles", "title": "Participatory AI Principles", "chapter": "ch12-ai-ethics", "anchor": "ch12-participatory-ai-principles", "anchorPath": "ch12-ai-ethics/01-spine-participatory-ai-principles.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "polirural-plus-project" ], "blocks": [ "ch12-participatory-ai-principles" ], "contract": { "objective": "PoliRural+ wrote down how its AI tools may be used in planning. The short version: AI amplifies local knowledge, and people decide.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "D2.3 (August 2025) sets out eight principles, each tied to a concrete tool or practice", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The premise: AI amplifies local intelligence, it does not replace it", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "AI responses must be understandable and questioned, not blindly accepted", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Policy Brief No. 1: AI quality rests on months of human data curation that is rarely funded", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What are the PoliRural+ Participatory AI Principles, and which premise ties them together?", "recallA": "D2.3 lists eight principles: transparency and explainability, stakeholder co-creation, multi-actor involvement, iterative feedback, ethical and responsible use, capacity building, inclusive policy design, and gender equality and social justice. They rest on the premise that AI amplifies local intelligence and does not replace it, so people question the outputs and make the decisions.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "eu-ai-act-alignment", "title": "Alignment with the EU AI Act", "chapter": "ch12-ai-ethics", "anchor": "ch12-eu-ai-act-alignment", "anchorPath": "ch12-ai-ethics/02-spine-eu-ai-act-alignment.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "participatory-ai-principles" ], "blocks": [ "ch12-eu-ai-act-alignment", "ch12-question" ], "contract": { "objective": "D2.3 maps each PoliRural+ AI principle to an AI Act provision and to the tool that delivers it. Read it as a self-check, not a legal verdict.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 entered into force on 1 August 2024 and applies in phases", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Risk-based: prohibited practices, high-risk systems, transparency obligations, minimal risk, plus rules for general-purpose AI models", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "D2.3 maps principles to Articles 9, 13, 14 and 15 and to concrete tools", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The map is a self-assessment; article numbers here follow the adopted Regulation", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "How does PoliRural+ relate its AI principles to the EU AI Act, and what kind of document is that mapping?", "recallA": "D2.3's alignment map pairs each principle with AI Act provisions it reads as matching (for example transparency with Article 13, ethical use with human oversight and accuracy in Articles 14 and 15) and names the project mechanism behind it. It is the project's own self-assessment against a risk-based Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, not a legal conformity assessment.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "ai-ethics-dashboard", "title": "The AI ethics dashboard for pilots", "chapter": "ch12-ai-ethics", "anchor": "ch12-ai-ethics-dashboard", "anchorPath": "ch12-ai-ethics/03-spine-ai-ethics-dashboard.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "participatory-ai-principles" ], "blocks": [ "ch12-ai-ethics-dashboard", "ch12-dashboard-monaghan" ], "contract": { "objective": "Eight questions, three ratings, one form per pilot. The template that turns AI principles into something a region can check.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Official title: PoliRuralPlus AI Ethics & Participatory AI Maturity Tracker (WP2)", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Eight guiding questions, three ratings: fully integrated, needs improvement, not implemented", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "A story form asks for one local story per principle, up to 250 words", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The filled rows in D2.3 are labelled fictionalised illustrations, not results", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What does the PoliRural+ AI ethics dashboard ask a pilot to do?", "recallA": "For each of the eight principles the pilot answers a guiding question about its current practice (for example how it handles bias, limitations or hallucination) and rates itself as fully integrated, needs improvement or not implemented. One form per pilot; a companion form collects one local story of up to 250 words per principle.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "data-protection-ai", "title": "Data protection and responsible AI on the platform", "chapter": "ch12-ai-ethics", "anchor": "ch12-data-protection", "anchorPath": "ch12-ai-ethics/04-spine-data-protection-and-sovereignty.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "data-to-decisions" ], "blocks": [ "ch12-data-protection" ], "contract": { "objective": "Who may open a dataset, what it must declare about itself, and what happens when an AI provider changes its service.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "OAuth flow with time-limited tokens, checked by server-side APIs over secure HTTP", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Every resource declares an access level and a sensitive-data flag; access is not reuse", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Hybrid AI strategy: commercial APIs plus self-hosted open-weight models as fallback", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Open-call beneficiaries must respect personal-data protection and obtain ethics approvals first", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "Which safeguards does the PoliRural+ Beta platform use to protect data and keep AI outputs accountable?", "recallA": "Time-limited OAuth tokens validated server-side over secure HTTP; dataset-level permissions in Raven, with an access level, licence and sensitive-data flag on every resource and reuse governed separately from access; and responsible-AI safeguards in D4.2 §10.2: transparency on model limits, human oversight, a clear line between evidence and interpretation, and fallback through a hybrid strategy that includes self-hosted open-weight models.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "ai-known-limits", "title": "Known limits of AI tools, and the safeguards", "chapter": "ch12-ai-ethics", "anchor": "ch12-known-limits", "anchorPath": "ch12-ai-ethics/05-spine-known-limits.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "polirural-advisor", "jackdaw" ], "blocks": [ "ch12-known-limits", "ch12-ai-red-flags-game" ], "contract": { "objective": "A wrong programme name, a daily usage cap, advice that ignored allergens: the project's own record of AI limits, and the fixes it names.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "February 2025: 8 structured walkthroughs of the Advisor found useful structure but wrong and outdated facts", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Testers' own conclusion: for the future of a RAP, we need to think for ourselves", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "JackDaw first-timers felt lost; D2.3 recommends a 60-second tutorial and in-tool help", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "D4.2: user-facing outputs must carry sources, validity information and limits", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "What problems did PoliRural+ testers and pilots find with the project's AI tools, and which safeguards do the sources name?", "recallA": "Advisor testers met wrong or outdated facts (a Horizon 2020 reference), daily usage caps and generic advice; first-time JackDaw users felt lost and wanted more data-backed answers; pilots reported weak multilingual and place-name handling and heavy manual data curation. The named safeguards are human judgement on anything forward-looking, visible sources and limits, onboarding and in-tool help, and feedback channels.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } }, { "id": "ai-in-this-book", "title": "How this book uses AI", "chapter": "ch12-ai-ethics", "anchor": "ch12-ai-in-this-book", "anchorPath": "ch12-ai-ethics/06-spine-how-this-book-uses-ai.md", "provenance": "anchored", "parents": [ "participatory-ai-principles" ], "blocks": [ "ch12-ai-in-this-book" ], "contract": { "objective": "This knowledge base was drafted by AI agents. Here is what they could use, how their claims were checked, and what they cannot change.", "objectiveSource": "teaser-bootstrap", "mustCover": [ { "point": "Drafted by AI agents from public deliverables only; every block ends with its sources", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Sampled fact-check: 40 random claims, 37 supported, 3 corrected", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "Consortium members decide what is published; AI remixes are labelled and never overwrite the core", "modality": "prose" }, { "point": "The MCP server /api/mcp is read-only; no personal data is processed", "modality": "prose" } ], "recallQ": "How was this knowledge base produced with AI, and what keeps its verified core trustworthy?", "recallA": "AI agents drafted the text only from public project deliverables; a sample of 40 random claims was checked against the sources (37 supported, 3 corrected); every block lists its sources and consortium members decide what is published. Reader remixes and generated tellings are labelled and never overwrite the verified core; the MCP server is read-only and no personal data is processed.", "forbidden": [ "invented statistics or benchmark numbers", "invented citations, URLs, or paper titles", "claiming a single method fully solves the problem" ] } } ] }