Use this template to turn a street-safety concern into a reviewable decision artifact. It is deliberately usable before the local-first Studio is built. Copy it into a dated working document, complete only the sections supported by your evidence, and retain the empty sections when evidence is missing.
This is a planning and communication template, not a substitute for local engineering judgment, legal review, a traffic study, or a causal evaluation.
- Dossier title:
- Prepared by / community partner:
- Jurisdiction and decision owner:
- Corridor or area:
- Decision requested:
- Decision date or planning window:
- Requested next action:
State one action that a named person or body can take. “Make this street safer” is a goal, not a decision request. “Fund a field audit before the 2027 capital plan” is a decision request.
Choose the strongest statement the evidence supports. Delete stronger statements.
- Tier 0 — coverage gap: Evidence is insufficient to rank this corridor.
- Tier 1 — community signal: Repeated community reports warrant investigation.
- Tier 2 — elevated rate: The observed report rate is elevated in the stated analysis window.
- Tier 3 — triangulated priority: Independent evidence supports prioritizing this corridor for the stated next action.
Permitted claim:
This dossier does not establish: danger, fault, causation, the likely effect
of a treatment, or that a treatment worked. Add any local limitations here. The
generated dossier carries the same boundary: nearmiss dossier renders "does
not establish danger, fault, causation" and a declared evidence tier into
every corridor artifact, so the limit travels with the document rather than
depending on whoever filled the template in.
| Evidence track | Source and window | What it shows | Important limits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community reports | |||
| Exposure / denominator | |||
| Official outcomes | |||
| Infrastructure / field evidence | |||
| Other independent source |
Keep the tracks separate. Agreement across sources can support prioritization; disagreement is also a result and should remain visible.
- Analysis window:
- Unit of analysis: block, corridor, intersection, or other stated unit
- Report count (
n): - Exposure denominator and tier: observed / modeled / proxy / unknown
- Rate and 95% confidence interval:
- Comparison set:
- Spatial result, if used:
- Dominant reported hazard pattern, if publishable:
- Quality / sensitivity flags:
Explain the rate in one plain sentence. Do not call a raw count a rate or treat a wide confidence interval as a precise rank.
- Coverage gaps:
- Reporting-bias risks:
- Exposure alignment, staleness, or representativeness:
- Small-sample or privacy suppression:
- Geographic-boundary sensitivity:
- Data rights, consent, or publication constraints:
If a missing denominator prevents a rate, retain this section and use a Tier 1 claim. “Unknown” is a result, not a zero.
Describe the next step that fits the evidence tier. Examples include a field audit, targeted count, design scoping, accessibility walk-through, pilot evaluation plan, or capital-program review. Do not infer a specific engineering treatment solely from observational reports.
- Action:
- Owner:
- Decision forum:
- Required partners or reviewers:
- Budget / policy / design dependency:
- Baseline period:
- Follow-up period:
- Metric to freeze before follow-up:
- Minimum evidence needed to interpret a change:
- Comparison corridor or other counterfactual, if feasible:
- How reporting, exposure, and method changes will be separated:
- Commitment: publish an inconclusive or null result as prominently as a positive result.
- Dataset / dossier version:
- Source declarations and licenses checked:
- Analysis configuration and input hashes:
- Privacy / small-cell review:
- Conformance-verifier result:
- External method or accessibility review:
- Published artifact URL, if consented:
Never put raw report coordinates, exact timestamps, notes, reporter tokens, or other identifying data in this dossier.