Skip to content
Prototype v0.1 · All issue records are demo / synthetic data
Back to the map
OpenInfrastructuredemo-water-001Demo / synthetic data

School drinking-water reliability

Example municipality · Eastern Europe (synthetic)

Date observed
4 Feb 2026
Last update
28 Jun 2026
Local contact
School facilities coordinator (local contact, name withheld)

Current status

  1. Observed

    Completed

  2. Verified

    Completed

  3. Open

    Current

  4. Solution Proposed

    Not reached

  5. Testing

    Not reached

  6. Resolved

    Not reached

  7. Monitored

    Not reached

Active and awaiting workable solutions.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS STATUS?

A second flow-rate log from an independent source, or a completed municipal pressure survey, would move this from Open towards Verified. Evidence that the tank refills reliably for a full school term would justify Resolved.

Every record states in advance what evidence would move it. A status is a current reading of the evidence, not a verdict.

Local context

OBSERVATION

Students and staff report inconsistent access to reliable drinking water. Supply appears to drop during afternoon peak use, and taste complaints follow maintenance work on the building loop.

Who is affected: Approximately 420 students and 38 staff (synthetic figure).

Evidence

Evidence summary: Synthetic demonstration records only.

Evidence here does not mean absolute truth. It means: a record exists, with a source, a date and a provenance, and it has reached the review stage shown below.

EVIDENCEConfidence: ModerateReviewed

Fourteen days of synthetic tap-pressure readings taken at three points in the building.

Source
Local caretaker log (synthetic)
Evidence submitted
11 Feb 2026
Provenance
Submitted by a local school maintenance contact; raw log attached as demo placeholder.
Evidence reviewed
2 Mar 2026
EVIDENCEConfidence: LowUnreviewed

Two taste/odour complaint clusters recorded after pipe maintenance.

Source
Staff report form (synthetic)
Evidence submitted
14 Mar 2026
Provenance
Self-reported, unverified against any laboratory sample.
Evidence reviewed
Not reviewed

Conflicting evidence
A separate synthetic municipal note states no supply interruption was recorded on the same dates.

What is needed

  • Water-quality assessment
  • Filtration expertise
  • Engineering review
  • Possible funding pathways

Proposed solutions

PROPOSALIn testingProposed 9 Apr 2026

Point-of-use filtration at drinking stations

What is proposed
Install certified point-of-use filters at the six main drinking stations rather than treating the whole building loop.
Why it might work
If the issue is localised sediment after maintenance, point-of-use filtering addresses exposure without rebuilding the distribution loop.
Experience / expertise
Building services engineer (synthetic contributor)
Supporting references
Generic filtration guidance; no site-specific study yet.
What needs testing
Pre- and post-filter sampling across four weeks, including a post-maintenance window.
Risks / limitations
Does nothing about pressure drops. Filter maintenance burden falls on local staff.

Tests

One solution in active testing. One earlier approach recorded as unsuccessful.

Retained knowledge — earlier approaches

PROPOSALDid not workProposed 21 Mar 2026

Rooftop buffer tank

What is proposed
Add a gravity-fed buffer tank to smooth afternoon demand peaks.
Why it might work
Assumed the cause was municipal supply pressure rather than internal plumbing.
Experience / expertise
Volunteer civil engineer (synthetic contributor)
Supporting references
None site-specific.
What needs testing
Pressure logging with and without buffer.
Risks / limitations
Structural load; stagnation risk raising a new water-quality concern.

Tried · Did not fully work · Here is why

Synthetic pressure logs showed the drop originated inside the building loop, not at the municipal connection. A buffer tank would have masked the symptom and added a stagnation risk. Kept visible so the same proposal is not repeated blindly.

Updates

  1. OBSERVATION· Local contributor

    Local staff report intermittent drinking-water availability in the afternoon.

  2. EVIDENCE· Local caretaker

    Fourteen days of synthetic pressure readings submitted with provenance note.

  3. PROPOSAL· Remote contributor

    Rooftop buffer tank proposed by a remote contributor.

  4. INTERPRETATION· Reviewer

    Readings are more consistent with an internal loop restriction than with municipal supply pressure.

  5. UPDATE· Reviewer

    Buffer-tank approach marked as did-not-work and retained as knowledge. Filtration trial started.

Outcome

No outcome recorded yet. This is the current evidence-backed state of the issue, not a final conclusion.

Offer a solution

A proposed solution is not a verified solution. It enters as Solution Proposed and only testing can move it forward. Local people decide what is workable in their context.

State the assumption your proposal depends on.

If nothing could disprove it, it cannot be tested.