Participation is
not decoration.

“Where does the route become unclear?” leaves space for the answer to be “the sign is not the problem.” A project invitation should name what can still change and what is outside its scope.

For the courtyard example, signs are a proposal to examine. They are not a substitute for understanding the route, resolving building issues or obtaining the host’s permission.

Explain the activity in ordinary language, including how notes or images would be used. Let a person decline or stop without having to defend that choice. Offer a way to contribute a concern without joining a workshop.

Access, language, timing and support needs belong in the preparation. Ask what would make participation possible; do not infer someone’s needs from how they look.

A route observer notices. A maker develops an agreed panel. A helper supports the invitation. None of these roles authorizes an installation, certifies a route or speaks for everyone who uses the space.

The facilitator makes the decisions and boundaries visible. The actual site host and relevant qualified people must confirm the matters they are responsible for.

Document what was proposed, what was heard, the limits of the evidence and how the plan responded. A neat summary must not erase disagreement or imply agreement from people who were not involved.

Use an agreed feedback route and a clear removal or revision plan. A temporary project should not become permanent simply because no one was assigned to take it down.