I'm a little surprised to hear some feel the "charter" of the site precludes assistance.  I hadn't any idea that was a concern.  But just to be clear of my intentions (if it's not already) are that the site was, from the day it was made public, intended to assist in the execution of a regatta.  Quite honestly the forums section has a life of it's own and, because of legitimate concerns, has always been focused on providing public opinion not official rules interpretation.  And we took pains early on to make sure the disclaimer was in place that the official WS rules and interpretations only came from WS.  But the event management system has always focused on providing as much automated support as possible.  So the idea that AI assistance is scope creep is antithetical to the to intended purpose of the site.

For those of you who have been around from the beginning, you may remember the concern in the early years with using a computer during events.  There were some who adamantly refused to use RRoS as it wasn't the "pure" way of running a regatta and they didn't want to include the use of computers.  For better or worse, change happens.  I think nearly every competitor under the age of 25 is using AI routinely, whether or not you realize it.  And honestly, we're a little late in implementing some AI solutions as the technology is pretty broadly integrated. 

Having said that, thank you for the discussion.  It has been helpful to talk and think about the issues involved.  When the AI features are deployed, we'll continue to adjust and refine the process as we receive feedback.  But I think this discussion has given me some ideas around how and why it will be used. 

Rule 89.2 provides the option to change the NoR provided adequate notice is given.

As brought out by John d Farris, any change needs to be communicated to all stakeholders.

I was responding to your question about QR codes.

John,
Thank you for providing the link to the article posted by Graeme Hayward and originally written by Mary Pera.  It is sad that neither of them are with us any more.  

I think I probably hint at it in my OP, but I think some of these shifts are fully appropriate, while others are maybe appropriate, even if potentially at odds with the phrasing in Case 103:

TLDR: