PROBLEMS — Safety & freedom

Tier-1/2 problems in this domain have their own files: A1★ Community safety, policing & surveillance.

Six problems around the policing/surveillance spine row: gun and youth violence, road safety, the community-safety-plan-and-bylaw layer, equity-strategy delivery, Indigenous relations and reconciliation, and accessibility. Three of six (A6, H7, and to a lesser extent B2) came back almost silent from the question-bank search — a pattern worth reading as its own finding about where this movement's attention has and hasn't gone.

A6 · Gun & youth violence

The problem. 461 shootings and discharges in 2024 (up 33.6% year-over-year), 43 deaths (up 48.3%); handguns are the instrument in 86% of Toronto firearm crime. $16.6M in federal prevention funds flowed 2023–26 against a prevention landscape of 190+ agencies (F.O.C.U.S. among them) whose evidence base the register's own entry says needs interrogating. Young men in a small number of neighbourhoods are hit overwhelmingly; their communities' citywide sense of safety is hit second. Full receipts: register entry A6.

What we're asking. With 190+ prevention agencies already funded and shootings still up 33.6% year-over-year, does anyone know which of those programs actually reduces violence? - Of the $16.6M in federal prevention funds flowing 2023–26, what is the program-evaluation receipt — has any agency's outcome actually been measured against a comparison group, or is funding allocated on reach alone? - What is the 2025 YTD trend against 2024's +33.6%/+48.3% figures — is the surge continuing, plateauing, or reversing? - Handguns are 86% of Toronto firearm crime — what share trace to a legal Canadian purchase versus cross-border trafficking, and does that split change which level of government actually holds the lever?

• Trace one neighbourhood's violence to the bottom: which specific supports disappeared over twenty years — the rec program, the youth job, the trusted adult, the housing stability — and what does that causal chain say about where a dollar of prevention actually belongs?
• What do the young men closest to the violence say themselves — has anyone asked them, at scale and safely, what would have changed their path? If not, why is a program landscape this large running without its primary source?

• Glasgow sustained its violence drop for two decades; Boston's famous Ceasefire faded when the attention did. What makes a violence-reduction result STICK — institutions, funding structure, ownership — and which of those conditions does Toronto have today?

• Trace one neighbourhood's violence to the bottom: which specific supports disappeared over twenty years — the rec program, the youth job, the trusted adult, the housing stability — and what does that causal chain say about where a dollar of prevention actually belongs?

• What do the young men closest to the violence say themselves — has anyone asked them, at scale and safely, what would have changed their path? If not, why is a program landscape this large running without its primary source?
• Glasgow sustained its violence drop for two decades; Boston's famous Ceasefire faded when the attention did. What makes a violence-reduction result STICK — institutions, funding structure, ownership — and which of those conditions does Toronto have today?

The shelf. backgrounder · not published · brief · card.

Unexplored. Register gap: 2025 YTD trend; program-evaluation receipts. The question bank is essentially silent — one tangential hit across every program searched (newcomers N49, about gang exploitation of migration channels, not youth gun violence in Toronto neighbourhoods specifically).

B2 · Road safety / Vision Zero

The problem. Seniors are 29% of Toronto pedestrian collisions against 17% of the population (2021–25); nationally pedestrians are 15.2% of road deaths; the speed-injury physics are settled (a 15% speed increase drives a 65% increase in fatal-collision risk). This is one of the most municipally-controllable problems in the register — road design is the lever. Full receipts: register entry B2.

What we're asking. Since road design is the lever and the physics is settled, what's actually stopping faster street redesign where seniors are dying disproportionately? - What is the register's named Toronto KSI (killed-or-seriously-injured) 2025 receipt — has it been published yet, and does the senior-overrepresentation pattern hold in the most recent year? - Of the streets where senior pedestrian collisions concentrate, how many have had a redesign (road diet, signal timing, curb extension) versus how many are still on a waitlist? - Automated enforcement (speed cameras) is named as a municipal lever — what is Toronto's current camera count and coverage, and is there any before/after collision data at those specific locations?

• Which 100 Toronto intersections and corridors carry the most death and serious injury, and what would it cost to redesign all of them in one term — priced like the infrastructure program it is, not a pilot?
• What actually slows the redesign pipeline — money, consultation cycles, political heat from drivers, internal capacity — and where have cities like Oslo and Helsinki (zero pedestrian deaths in recent years) simply removed those bottlenecks?

• Where do the critics have a point worth conceding — deliveries, trades, winter operations, emergency access — and what does a street design that answers them honestly look like, rather than one that dismisses them?

• Which 100 Toronto intersections and corridors carry the most death and serious injury, and what would it cost to redesign all of them in one term — priced like the infrastructure program it is, not a pilot?

• What actually slows the redesign pipeline — money, consultation cycles, political heat from drivers, internal capacity — and where have cities like Oslo and Helsinki (zero pedestrian deaths in recent years) simply removed those bottlenecks?
• Where do the critics have a point worth conceding — deliveries, trades, winter operations, emergency access — and what does a street design that answers them honestly look like, rather than one that dismisses them?

The shelf. backgrounder · not published · brief · card.

Unexplored. Register gap: Toronto KSI 2025 receipt. The question bank is essentially silent — the only hit across every program searched was a TTC-bus-collision-factors row (operational, not pedestrian or senior safety), which is itself a finding.

A3 / A5 · CSWB plans & bylaw enforcement

The problem. The mandated community-safety-and-wellbeing plan (CSPA s.243) and the everyday-order layer — noise, property standards, vacant buildings. Delivery-audit receipts are the named gap for both halves of this compact entry. Full receipts: register entry A3/A5.

What we're asking. Is Toronto's community-safety-and-wellbeing plan actually being delivered against, or does it exist mainly as a compliance document? - The "no one prosecuted for poverty" audit — which bylaws, enforcement patterns, and fare-inspection practices functionally criminalize being poor in Toronto today, and what do the institutions that run them recommend themselves? (mci MC51) - What is the delivery-audit receipt the register names as missing for the CSWB plan — has anyone measured what the plan promised against what's actually been delivered? - For bylaw enforcement specifically (noise, property standards, vacant buildings), is there any receipt on response times, or on which neighbourhoods see the most versus least enforcement?

The shelf. backgrounder · not published · brief · card — plus bylaw-enforcement-property-standards (full set).

Unexplored. Register: "Delivery-audit receipts are the gap for both."

H7 · Equity strategies delivery

The problem. The city has adopted strategies on anti-Black racism, gender equity, 2SLGBTQ+ inclusion, and disability beyond AODA; the problem the register tracks is funded-versus-delivered — an audit shape, not a scale number. A dedicated pass through the city's own audit and progress reports is named as owed but not yet done. Full receipts: register entry H7.

What we're asking. The strategies are adopted — is anyone tracking whether the funding and the delivery actually match what was promised? - For each of the four named equity strategies, what is the funded-vs-delivered gap in the most recent progress report or Ombudsman finding? - Is there a single dashboard anywhere that tracks all four strategies' delivery status together, or does each live in a separate, hard-to-compare report? - Who owns the dedicated audit-and-progress-report review the register says is owed — has that work started anywhere in the corpus?

• Which city anywhere publishes a real delivery dashboard for its equity strategies — commitments, dollars, outcomes, on one public page — and what would it cost Toronto to match it within a year?

• Ask the communities the strategies name: does anything feel different on the ground since adoption — and what one delivered commitment would matter most next? Has that question been asked directly, or only through progress reports about reports?

• Which city anywhere publishes a real delivery dashboard for its equity strategies — commitments, dollars, outcomes, on one public page — and what would it cost Toronto to match it within a year?

• Ask the communities the strategies name: does anything feel different on the ground since adoption — and what one delivered commitment would matter most next? Has that question been asked directly, or only through progress reports about reports?

The shelf. anti-black-racism-investment · gender-equity-womens-safety · 2slgbtq-inclusion-protection · disability-accessibility-inclusion — each with a full backgrounder/leaf/brief/card set.

Unexplored. Register names the gap directly: the dedicated audit-report review is still owed. The question bank returned zero matches for equity-strategy delivery specifically across all 1,234 rows — the single quietest problem in this domain by harvest volume.

F3 · Indigenous relations & reconciliation

The problem. 27.3% of Indigenous adults in Toronto have experienced homelessness, with chronic-homelessness rates worse than non-Indigenous peers; the city commits 20% of housing/homelessness grants to Indigenous-led projects, and the $4B federal urban Indigenous housing strategy remains unreleased. The same funded-vs-delivered audit H7 is owed applies here too. Full receipts: register entry F3.

What we're asking. With the $4B federal urban Indigenous housing strategy still unreleased, what is Toronto actually able to deliver on its own 20% commitment in the meantime? - Food sovereignty as a model for the wider question — how do we support Indigenous food sovereignty as Indigenous-led and protocol-governed, supported-never-ours, amplifying published Indigenous voices about themselves rather than speaking for them? (harvest H59, applied to reconciliation more broadly) - Data sovereignty as a non-negotiable — how does any centralized city or health data system guarantee Indigenous ownership, control, access and possession of Indigenous data, led by Indigenous data-governance bodies on their own terms, not as a courtesy? (vitality V18) - Is the city's 20%-of-grants commitment to Indigenous-led housing/homelessness projects actually being met year over year, or does the gap between commitment and delivery need the same funded-vs-delivered audit H7 is owed? - What is the current status of the $4B federal urban Indigenous housing strategy — any timeline for release, or is "unreleased" now a multi-year holding pattern?

The shelf. indigenous-relations-reconciliation (full set) · indigenous-priorities-suite (full set).

Unexplored. No explicit gaps line on this entry's face beyond the unreleased federal strategy; the dayone Indigenous suite is named as the depth surface. Worth flagging: the question bank's Indigenous-tagged content clusters on elder-care protocol (see E3 in the health domain) rather than the homelessness/housing-grant angle this register row actually measures — a mismatch between what the corpus discusses and what the register tracks.

D7 · Accessibility (AODA and beyond)

The problem. 8 million Canadians 15+ live with disabilities; 56% hit barriers in public spaces; the employment rate gap runs 62% versus 78%. AODA's 2025 compliance deadline has passed with gaps unresolved. Full receipts: register entry D7.

What we're asking. AODA's 2025 compliance deadline has passed — what's actually different for a disabled Torontonian today versus a year ago? - The structurally excluded, named directly — most infrastructure, physical and civic, assumes a body that can climb stairs, an evenings-and-weekends schedule, and free hands; is accessibility a first-class design constraint or an afterthought bolted onto a design built for someone else? (connection C70) - Whose needs, and who decides they're "low" — a person with a disability, a chronic illness, or a body that needs more care does not get to "need less"; their floor is higher and non-negotiable — how does any needing-least or dignity-floor design avoid punishing high-need people? (livelihood L49) - Accessible by design from day one — AODA/WCAG compliance, plain language, every major Toronto language, the digitally excluded reached through human and offline channels, since a "for all" system that only the connected can use is a new inequity? (torontoos T12) - What is the actual post-2025-deadline compliance rate across city-owned buildings and services — has anyone published a number, or is "gaps unresolved" the only public statement? - The 62% vs 78% employment-rate gap is national — does a Toronto-specific employment-rate gap for disabled residents exist anywhere?

The shelf. accessibility-public-space-aoda (full set) · disability-accessibility-inclusion (full set) · disability-accessibility-universal-design (full set).

Unexplored. No explicit gaps line on this compact entry beyond the national figures already quoted; a Toronto-specific post-deadline compliance-rate receipt is the obvious missing piece.

Across this domain — steal from the world, collect everything, find the best minds

• Who actually reduced the harms this domain tracks — Glasgow's violence-reduction unit treating violence as a health problem, Oakland's Ceasefire with its evaluated homicide drops, Oslo and Helsinki hitting zero pedestrian deaths in a year, the jurisdictions whose equity strategies carry published delivery dashboards — what EXACTLY did each do, what did it cost, and which piece does Toronto steal first?
• Collect ALL of it: every violence-prevention evaluation, Vision Zero review, CSWB-plan audit, equity-delivery finding, and reconciliation commitment already written for Toronto — the full pile in one honest synthesis, before another dollar is allocated on reach alone?
• Who are the best minds and organizations on violence prevention, road safety, and rights delivery anywhere — and which Toronto community organizations already hold the ground truth this domain's programs keep re-purchasing as consulting?

Source tags like (homes HM12) mark questions carried from the project's own question banks (QUESTION_HARVEST.csv); untagged questions were raised in the 2026-08-11 rewrite.