Changes for page Workflows

Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2025/12/24 20:34

From version 7.2
edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/12/16 20:28
Change comment: Renamed back-links.
To version 5.1
edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/12/12 21:50
Change comment: Rollback to version 3.1

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -1,410 +1,127 @@
1 1  = Workflows =
2 2  
3 -This page describes the core workflows for content creation, review, and publication in FactHarbor.
3 +This chapter defines the core workflows used across the FactHarbor system.
4 4  
5 -== Overview ==
5 +Each workflow describes:
6 +* Purpose
7 +* Participants
8 +* Steps
9 +* Automation vs. manual work
6 6  
7 -FactHarbor workflows support three publication modes with risk-based review:
11 +== 1. Claim Workflow ==
8 8  
9 -* **Mode 1 (Draft)**: Internal only, failed quality gates or pending review
10 -* **Mode 2 (AI-Generated)**: Public with AI-generated label, passed quality gates
11 -* **Mode 3 (Human-Reviewed)**: Public with human-reviewed status, highest trust
13 +**Purpose:** Transform raw text or input material into a normalized, classified, deduplicated, and versioned claim.
12 12  
13 -Workflows vary by **Risk Tier** (A/B/C) and **Content Type** (Claim, Scenario, Evidence, Verdict).
15 +**Participants:**
16 +* Contributor
17 +* AKEL
18 +* Reviewer
14 14  
15 -----
20 +**Steps:**
21 +1. **Ingestion**: User submits text/URL; AKEL extracts claims.
22 +1. **Normalization**: Standardize wording, reduce ambiguity.
23 +1. **Classification**: Domain, Evaluability, Safety (AKEL draft → Human confirm).
24 +1. **Duplicate Detection**: Check embeddings for existing claims.
25 +1. **Version Creation**: Store new ClaimVersion.
26 +1. **Cluster Assignment**: Assign to Claim Cluster.
27 +1. **Scenario Linking**: Connect to existing or draft new scenarios.
28 +1. **Publication**: Make visible.
16 16  
17 -== Claim Submission & Publication Workflow ==
30 +**Flow:** Ingest → Normalize → Classify Deduplicate → Cluster → Version Publish
18 18  
19 -=== Step 1: Claim Submission ===
32 +== 2. Scenario Workflow ==
20 20  
21 -**Actor**: Contributor or AKEL
34 +**Purpose:** Define the specific analytic contexts needed to evaluate each claim.
22 22  
23 -**Actions**:
36 +**Steps:**
37 +1. **Scenario Proposal**: Drafted by contributor or AKEL.
38 +1. **Required Fields**: Definitions, Assumptions, ContextBoundary, EvaluationMethod, SafetyClass.
39 +1. **Safety Interception**: AKEL flags non-falsifiable or unsafe content.
40 +1. **Conflict Check**: Merge similar scenarios, flag contradictions.
41 +1. **Reviewer Validation**: Ensure clarity and validity.
42 +1. **Expert Approval**: Mandatory for high-risk domains.
43 +1. **Version Storage**: Save ScenarioVersion.
24 24  
25 -* Submit claim text
26 -* Provide initial sources (optional for human contributors, mandatory for AKEL)
27 -* System assigns initial AuthorType (Human or AI)
45 +**Flow:** Draft → Validate → Safety Check → Review → Expert → Version → Activate
28 28  
29 -**Output**: Claim draft created
47 +== 3. Evidence Workflow ==
30 30  
31 -=== Step 2: AKEL Processing ===
49 +**Purpose:** Structure, classify, validate, version, and link evidence to scenarios.
32 32  
33 -**Automated Steps**:
51 +**Steps:**
52 +1. **Submission**: File, URL, or text.
53 +1. **Metadata Extraction**: Type, Category, Provenance, ReliabilityHints.
54 +1. **Relevance Check**: Verify applicability to scenario.
55 +1. **Reliability Assessment**: Score reliability (Reviewer + Expert).
56 +1. **Link Creation**: Create ScenarioEvidenceLink with relevance score.
57 +1. **Versioning**: Update EvidenceVersion.
34 34  
35 -1. Claim extraction and normalization
36 -2. Classification (domain, type, evaluability)
37 -3. Risk tier assignment (A/B/C suggested)
38 -4. Initial scenario generation
39 -5. Evidence search
40 -6. **Contradiction search** (mandatory)
41 -7. Quality gate validation
59 +**Flow:** Submit → Extract → Relevance → Reliability → Link → Version
42 42  
43 -**Output**: Processed claim with risk tier and quality gate results
61 +== 4. Verdict Workflow ==
44 44  
45 -=== Step 3: Quality Gate Checkpoint ===
63 +**Purpose:** Generate likelihood estimates **per scenario** based on evidence.
46 46  
47 -**Gates Evaluated**:
65 +**Steps:**
66 +1. **Aggregation**: Collect linked evidence for a specific scenario.
67 +1. **Draft Verdict**: AKEL proposes likelihood and uncertainty for that scenario.
68 +1. **Reasoning**: AKEL drafts explanation chain.
69 +1. **Validation**: Reviewer checks logic and hallucinations.
70 +1. **Expert Review**: Required for sensitive topics.
71 +1. **Storage**: Save VerdictVersion.
48 48  
49 -* Source quality
50 -* Contradiction search completion
51 -* Uncertainty quantification
52 -* Structural integrity
73 +**Flow:** Aggregate → Draft → Reasoning → Review → Expert → Version
53 53  
54 -**Outcomes**:
75 +== 5. Re-evaluation Workflow ==
55 55  
56 -* **All gates pass** → Proceed to Mode 2 publication (if Tier B or C)
57 -* **Any gate fails** → Mode 1 (Draft), flag for human review
58 -* **Tier A** → Mode 2 with warnings + auto-escalate to expert queue
77 +**Purpose:** Keep verdicts current when inputs change.
59 59  
60 -=== Step 4: Publication (Risk-Tier Dependent) ===
79 +**Steps:**
80 +1. **Trigger**: Evidence update, Scenario change, or Contradiction.
81 +1. **Impact Analysis**: Identify affected nodes.
82 +1. **Re-calculation**: AKEL proposes new likelihoods.
83 +1. **Validation**: Human review.
84 +1. **Storage**: New version.
61 61  
62 -**Tier C (Low Risk)**:
86 +**Flow:** Trigger Analyze → Recompute Review → Version
63 63  
64 -* **Direct to Mode 2**: AI-generated, public, clearly labeled
65 -* User can request human review
66 -* Sampling audit applies
88 +== 6. Federation Synchronization Workflow ==
67 67  
68 -**Tier B (Medium Risk)**:
90 +**Purpose:** Exchange structured data between nodes.
69 69  
70 -* **Direct to Mode 2**: AI-generated, public, clearly labeled
71 -* Higher audit sampling rate
72 -* High-engagement content may auto-escalate
92 +**Steps:**
93 +1. Detect Version Changes.
94 +1. Build Signed Bundle (Merkle tree).
95 +1. Push/Pull to Peers.
96 +1. Validate Signatures & Lineage.
97 +1. Resolve Conflicts (Merge/Fork).
98 +1. Trigger Re-evaluation.
73 73  
74 -**Tier A (High Risk)**:
100 +== 7. User Role & Review Workflow ==
75 75  
76 -* **Mode 2 with warnings**: AI-generated, public, prominent disclaimers
77 -* **Auto-escalated** to expert review queue
78 -* User warnings displayed
79 -* Highest audit sampling rate
102 +**Purpose:** Ensure correctness and safety.
80 80  
81 -=== Step 5: Human Review (Optional for B/C, Escalated for A) ===
104 +**Steps:**
105 +1. Submission.
106 +1. Auto-check (AKEL).
107 +1. Reviewer Validation.
108 +1. Expert Validation (if needed).
109 +1. Moderator Oversight (if flagged).
82 82  
83 -**Triggers**:
111 +== 8. AKEL Workflow ==
84 84  
85 -* User requests review
86 -* Audit flags issues
87 -* High engagement (Tier B)
88 -* Automatic (Tier A)
113 +**Stages:**
114 +* Input Understanding
115 +* Scenario Drafting
116 +* Evidence Processing
117 +* Verdict Drafting
118 +* Safety & Integrity
119 +* Human Approval
89 89  
90 -**Process**:
121 +== 9. Global Trigger Flow (Cascade) ==
91 91  
92 -1. Reviewer/Expert examines claim
93 -2. Validates quality gates
94 -3. Checks contradiction search results
95 -4. Assesses risk tier appropriateness
96 -5. Decision: Approve, Request Changes, or Reject
123 +**Sources:** Claim/Scenario/Evidence change, Verdict contradiction, Federation update.
97 97  
98 -**Outcomes**:
125 +**Flow:** Trigger → Dependency Graph → Re-evaluation → Updated Verdicts
99 99  
100 -* **Approved** → Mode 3 (Human-Reviewed)
101 -* **Changes Requested** → Back to contributor or AKEL for revision
102 -* **Rejected** → Rejected status with reasoning
103 -
104 -----
105 -
106 -== Scenario Creation Workflow ==
107 -
108 -=== Step 1: Scenario Generation ===
109 -
110 -**Automated (AKEL)**:
111 -
112 -* Generate scenarios for claim
113 -* Define boundaries, assumptions, context
114 -* Identify evaluation methods
115 -
116 -**Manual (Expert/Reviewer)**:
117 -
118 -* Create custom scenarios
119 -* Refine AKEL-generated scenarios
120 -* Add domain-specific nuances
121 -
122 -=== Step 2: Scenario Validation ===
123 -
124 -**Quality Checks**:
125 -
126 -* Completeness (definitions, boundaries, assumptions clear)
127 -* Relevance to claim
128 -* Evaluability
129 -* No circular logic
130 -
131 -**Risk Tier Assignment**:
132 -
133 -* Inherits from parent claim
134 -* Can be overridden by expert if scenario increases/decreases risk
135 -
136 -=== Step 3: Scenario Publication ===
137 -
138 -**Mode 2 (AI-Generated)**:
139 -
140 -* Tier B/C scenarios can publish immediately
141 -* Subject to sampling audits
142 -
143 -**Mode 1 (Draft)**:
144 -
145 -* Tier A scenarios default to draft
146 -* Require expert validation for Mode 2 or Mode 3
147 -
148 -----
149 -
150 -== Evidence Evaluation Workflow ==
151 -
152 -=== Step 1: Evidence Search & Retrieval ===
153 -
154 -**AKEL Actions**:
155 -
156 -* Search academic databases, reputable media
157 -* **Mandatory contradiction search** (counter-evidence, reservations)
158 -* Extract metadata (author, date, publication, methodology)
159 -* Assess source reliability
160 -
161 -**Quality Requirements**:
162 -
163 -* Primary sources preferred
164 -* Diverse perspectives included
165 -* Echo chambers flagged
166 -* Conflicting evidence acknowledged
167 -
168 -=== Step 2: Evidence Summarization ===
169 -
170 -**AKEL Generates**:
171 -
172 -* Summary of evidence
173 -* Relevance assessment
174 -* Reliability score
175 -* Limitations and caveats
176 -* Conflicting evidence summary
177 -
178 -**Quality Gate**: Structural integrity, source quality
179 -
180 -=== Step 3: Evidence Review ===
181 -
182 -**Reviewer/Expert Validates**:
183 -
184 -* Accuracy of summaries
185 -* Appropriateness of sources
186 -* Completeness of contradiction search
187 -* Reliability assessments
188 -
189 -**Outcomes**:
190 -
191 -* **Mode 2**: Evidence summaries published as AI-generated
192 -* **Mode 3**: After human validation
193 -* **Mode 1**: Failed quality checks or pending expert review
194 -
195 -----
196 -
197 -== Verdict Generation Workflow ==
198 -
199 -=== Step 1: Verdict Computation ===
200 -
201 -**AKEL Computes**:
202 -
203 -* Verdict across scenarios
204 -* Confidence scores
205 -* Uncertainty quantification
206 -* Key assumptions
207 -* Limitations
208 -
209 -**Inputs**:
210 -
211 -* Claim text
212 -* Scenario definitions
213 -* Evidence assessments
214 -* Contradiction search results
215 -
216 -=== Step 2: Verdict Validation ===
217 -
218 -**Quality Gates**:
219 -
220 -* All four gates apply (source, contradiction, uncertainty, structure)
221 -* Reasoning chain must be traceable
222 -* Assumptions must be explicit
223 -
224 -**Risk Tier Check**:
225 -
226 -* Tier A: Always requires expert validation for Mode 3
227 -* Tier B: Mode 2 allowed, audit sampling
228 -* Tier C: Mode 2 default
229 -
230 -=== Step 3: Verdict Publication ===
231 -
232 -**Mode 2 (AI-Generated Verdict)**:
233 -
234 -* Clear labeling with confidence scores
235 -* Uncertainty disclosure
236 -* Links to reasoning trail
237 -* User can request expert review
238 -
239 -**Mode 3 (Expert-Validated Verdict)**:
240 -
241 -* Human reviewer/expert stamp
242 -* Additional commentary (optional)
243 -* Highest trust level
244 -
245 -----
246 -
247 -== Audit Workflow ==
248 -
249 -=== Step 1: Audit Sampling Selection ===
250 -
251 -**Stratified Sampling**:
252 -
253 -* Risk tier priority (A > B > C)
254 -* Low confidence scores
255 -* High traffic content
256 -* Novel topics
257 -* User flags
258 -
259 -**Sampling Rates** (Recommendations):
260 -
261 -* Tier A: 30-50%
262 -* Tier B: 10-20%
263 -* Tier C: 5-10%
264 -
265 -=== Step 2: Audit Execution ===
266 -
267 -**Auditor Actions**:
268 -
269 -1. Review sampled AI-generated content
270 -2. Validate quality gates were properly applied
271 -3. Check contradiction search completeness
272 -4. Assess reasoning quality
273 -5. Identify errors or hallucinations
274 -
275 -**Audit Outcome**:
276 -
277 -* **Pass**: Content remains in Mode 2, logged as validated
278 -* **Fail**: Content flagged for review, system improvement triggered
279 -
280 -=== Step 3: Feedback Loop ===
281 -
282 -**System Improvements**:
283 -
284 -* Failed audits analyzed for patterns
285 -* AKEL parameters adjusted
286 -* Quality gates refined
287 -* Risk tier assignments recalibrated
288 -
289 -**Transparency**:
290 -
291 -* Audit statistics published periodically
292 -* Patterns shared with community
293 -* System improvements documented
294 -
295 -----
296 -
297 -== Mode Transition Workflow ==
298 -
299 -=== Mode 1 → Mode 2 ===
300 -
301 -**Requirements**:
302 -
303 -* All quality gates pass
304 -* Risk tier B or C (or A with warnings)
305 -* Contradiction search completed
306 -
307 -**Trigger**: Automatic upon quality gate validation
308 -
309 -=== Mode 2 → Mode 3 ===
310 -
311 -**Requirements**:
312 -
313 -* Human reviewer/expert validation
314 -* Quality standards confirmed
315 -* For Tier A: Expert approval required
316 -* For Tier B/C: Reviewer approval sufficient
317 -
318 -**Trigger**: Human review completion
319 -
320 -=== Mode 3 → Mode 1 (Demotion) ===
321 -
322 -**Rare - Only if**:
323 -
324 -* New evidence contradicts verdict
325 -* Error discovered in reasoning
326 -* Source retraction
327 -
328 -**Process**:
329 -
330 -1. Content flagged for re-evaluation
331 -2. Moved to draft (Mode 1)
332 -3. Re-processed through workflow
333 -4. Reason for demotion documented
334 -
335 -----
336 -
337 -== User Actions Across Modes ==
338 -
339 -=== On Mode 1 (Draft) Content ===
340 -
341 -**Contributors**:
342 -
343 -* Edit their own drafts
344 -* Submit for review
345 -
346 -**Reviewers/Experts**:
347 -
348 -* View and comment
349 -* Request changes
350 -* Approve for Mode 2 or Mode 3
351 -
352 -=== On Mode 2 (AI-Generated) Content ===
353 -
354 -**All Users**:
355 -
356 -* Read and use content
357 -* Request human review
358 -* Flag for expert attention
359 -* Provide feedback
360 -
361 -**Reviewers/Experts**:
362 -
363 -* Validate for Mode 3 transition
364 -* Edit and refine
365 -* Adjust risk tier if needed
366 -
367 -=== On Mode 3 (Human-Reviewed) Content ===
368 -
369 -**All Users**:
370 -
371 -* Read with highest confidence
372 -* Still can flag if new evidence emerges
373 -
374 -**Reviewers/Experts**:
375 -
376 -* Update if needed
377 -* Trigger re-evaluation if new evidence
378 -
379 -----
380 -
381 -== Diagram References ==
382 -
383 -=== Claim and Scenario Lifecycle (Overview) ===
384 -
385 -{{include reference="FactHarbor.Archive.FactHarbor V0\.9\.23 Lost Data.Organisation.Diagrams.Claim and Scenario Lifecycle (Overview).WebHome"/}}
386 -
387 -=== Claim and Scenario Workflow ===
388 -
389 -{{include reference="Test.FactHarborV09.Specification.Diagrams.Claim and Scenario Workflow.WebHome"/}}
390 -
391 -=== Evidence and Verdict Workflow ===
392 -
393 -{{include reference="Test.FactHarborV09.Specification.Diagrams.Evidence and Verdict Workflow.WebHome"/}}
394 -
395 -=== Quality and Audit Workflow ===
396 -
397 -{{include reference="Test.FactHarborV09.Specification.Diagrams.Quality and Audit Workflow.WebHome"/}}
398 -
399 -
400 -
401 -{{include reference="Test.FactHarborV09.Specification.Diagrams.Manual vs Automated matrix.WebHome"/}}
402 -
403 -----
404 -
405 -== Related Pages ==
406 -
407 -* [[AKEL (AI Knowledge Extraction Layer)>>FactHarbor.Specification.AI Knowledge Extraction Layer (AKEL).WebHome]]
408 -* [[Automation>>FactHarbor.Specification.Automation.WebHome]]
409 -* [[Requirements (Roles)>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.WebHome]]
410 -* [[Governance>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Governance]]
127 +{{include reference="FactHarbor.Specification.Diagrams.Global Trigger Cascade.WebHome"/}}