The static FAQ still provides suitable accessible: Which conclusion about the earlier non-AI comparison must

The changed population and disruption context can invalidate the earlier conclusion that the static FAQ was an adequate alternative.

The question

Preparing for AIGP? Take the free 5-min readiness quiz →

1. The chatbot’s response-latency target remains suitable.

   Latency may need review during disruptions, but this does not address whether the earlier non-AI alternative served the changed population and context.
2. The routine-question test set still represents the changed service context.

   The test set may need expansion, but that is an evaluation-coverage assumption rather than the conclusion about the FAQ’s suitability as an alternative.
3. The vendor’s preferred conversational interface remains appropriate.

   Interface preference is a procurement consideration, not the earlier conclusion about whether passengers could obtain suitable support without the AI system.
4. The static FAQ still provides suitable accessible disruption support. ✓

   Disability-related needs and disruption-time rebooking may make the static FAQ inadequate, so its suitability must be reassessed against an appropriate non-AI support option.

How to remember it

The changed population and disruption context can invalidate the earlier conclusion that the static FAQ was an adequate alternative.

More Understanding How to Govern AI Development questions

• The intended purpose remains editor assistance: Which prior assumption no longer holds? →
• Treat consent as excluding non-user impacts: Which assumption must be rejected? →
• Prioritize high-severity harms even when their likelihood: Which risk should receive priority? →
• All 426 Understanding How to Govern AI Development questions →