Changes for page User Needs

Summary

• Page properties (2 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Parent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.WebHome
	1	+Archive.FactHarbor V0\.9\.50 Plus (Prev Rel).Specification.Requirements.WebHome

Content

...	...	@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
9	9	== 1. Core Reading & Discovery ==
10	10
11	11	=== UN-1: Trust Assessment at a Glance ===
	12	+
12	12	**As** an article reader (any content type),
13	13	**I want** to see a trust score and overall verdict summary at a glance,
14	14	**so that** I can quickly decide if the content is worth my time to read in detail.
...	...	@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
16	16	**Maps to**: FR7 (Automated Verdicts), NFR3 (Transparency)
17	17
18	18	=== UN-2: Claim Extraction and Verification ===
	20	+
19	19	**As** an article reader,
20	20	**I want** to see the key factual claims extracted from content with verification verdicts (likelihood ranges + uncertainty ratings) for each relevant scenario,
21	21	**so that** I can distinguish proven facts from speculation and understand context-dependent truth.
...	...	@@ -22,14 +22,105 @@
22	22
23	23	**Maps to**: FR1 (Claim Intake), FR4 (Scenario Generation), FR7 (Automated Verdicts)
24	24
25		-=== UN-3: Summary with Verdict Context ===
	27	+=== UN-3: Article Summary with FactHarbor Analysis Summary ===
	28	+
26	26	**As** an article reader,
27		-**I want** to see a concise summary of the article's main claims alongside verdict summaries for each scenario,
28		-**so that** I can quickly understand both what is claimed and how credible those claims are under different interpretations.
	30	+**I want** to see an article summary (the document's position, key claims, and reasoning) side-by-side with FactHarbor's analysis summary (source credibility assessment, claim-by-claim verdicts, methodology evaluation, and overall quality verdict),
	31	+**so that** I can quickly understand both what the document claims and FactHarbor's complete analysis of its credibility without reading the full detailed report.
29	29
30		-**Maps to**: FR7 (Automated Verdicts), FR6 (Scenario Comparison)
	33	+**Maps to**: FR7 (Automated Verdicts), FR6 (Scenario Comparison), FR12 (Two-Panel Summary View - Article Summary with FactHarbor Analysis Summary)
31	31
	35	+==== Example: Two-Panel Summary Layout ====
	36	+
	37	+|=**ARTICLE SUMMARY**|=**FACTHARBOR ANALYSIS SUMMARY**
	38	+|(((
	39	+**FactHarbor Summary: AHA Alcohol & Heart Health Statement (2025)**
	40	+
	41	+**Source:** American Heart Association Scientific Statement, //Circulation//, June 2025
	42	+**Credibility:** Very High (peer-reviewed expert consensus)
	43	+
	44	+=== The Big Picture ===
	45	+
	46	+**Old belief:** "A glass of wine is good for your heart"
	47	+**New position:** We're no longer sure that's true
	48	+
	49	+=== Key Findings ===
	50	+
	51	+|=**Drinking Level**|=**Verdict**
	52	+|Heavy (≥3 drinks/day)|(% style="color:red" %)❌ **Harmful** – consistent across ALL studies
	53	+|Moderate (1-2 drinks/day)|(% style="color:orange" %)❓ **Uncertain** – benefits may have been overstated
	54	+|None|(% style="color:green" %)✅ **Don't start drinking for heart health**
	55	+
	56	+=== Why the Shift? ===
	57	+
	58	+Newer genetic studies (Mendelian randomization) found **no evidence** that moderate drinking protects the heart. The apparent benefits in older studies were likely due to lifestyle differences and methodological bias.
	59	+
	60	+=== AHA Bottom Line ===
	61	+
	62	+(% class="box" %)
	63	+(((
	64	+If you don't drink, don't start. If you do drink, keep it to ≤2/day (men) or ≤1/day (women). Focus on proven healthy behaviors instead—exercise, diet, not smoking.
	65	+
	66	+//The "wine for heart health" era appears to be over.//
	67	+)))
	68	+)))|(((
	69	+**FactHarbor Analysis Summary**
	70	+
	71	+**Document:** AHA Scientific Statement on Alcohol and Cardiovascular Disease (2025)
	72	+
	73	+=== Source Assessment ===
	74	+
	75	+**Credibility:** (% style="color:green" %)**VERY HIGH**(%%) – Official AHA statement, peer-reviewed, expert panel, published in top journal (//Circulation//)
	76	+
	77	+=== Analysis Findings ===
	78	+
	79	+|=**Claim in Document**|=**FactHarbor Verdict**|=**Confidence**
	80	+|Heavy drinking harms heart health|(% style="color:green" %)**STRONGLY SUPPORTED**|(% style="color:green" %)**95%**
	81	+|Moderate drinking benefits uncertain|(% style="color:green" %)**WELL SUPPORTED**|(% style="color:green" %)**85%**
	82	+|Prior "cardioprotective" claims overstated|(% style="color:green" %)**SUPPORTED**|(% style="color:green" %)**80%**
	83	+|More research needed|**APPROPRIATE**|N/A
	84	+
	85	+=== Assessment ===
	86	+
	87	+(% style="color:green" %)✅(%%) **Strengths:** Transparent about methodological limitations, incorporates newer Mendelian randomization evidence, appropriately cautious, avoids overstatement
	88	+
	89	+(% style="color:green" %)✅(%%) **Methodology:** Sound synthesis of observational and genetic evidence
	90	+
	91	+(% style="color:orange" %)⚠️(%%) **Limitation:** Still relies heavily on observational data; RCT evidence limited
	92	+
	93	+=== Verdict on the Statement Itself ===
	94	+
	95	+(% class="box successmessage" %)
	96	+(((
	97	+**WELL-SUPPORTED SCIENTIFIC SYNTHESIS** – The AHA statement is credible, balanced, and appropriately reflects the current state of evidence. It correctly signals a shift away from previous assumptions about moderate drinking benefits without overclaiming in either direction.
	98	+)))
	99	+
	100	+**Analysis ID:** FH-AHA-ALCO-2025-12-17
	101	+)))
	102	+
	103	+**Key Elements of Two-Panel Layout**:
	104	+
	105	+**Left Panel (Article Summary)**:
	106	+
	107	+* Document title and source
	108	+* Source credibility (document's own authority)
	109	+* "The Big Picture" - old belief vs. new position
	110	+* "Key Findings" - document's main claims in structured format
	111	+* "Why the Shift?" - document's reasoning
	112	+* "Bottom Line" - document's conclusion
	113	+
	114	+**Right Panel (FactHarbor Analysis Summary)**:
	115	+
	116	+* FactHarbor's source assessment (independent credibility check)
	117	+* Claim-by-claim analysis with verdicts and confidence scores
	118	+* Assessment of methodology (strengths/limitations)
	119	+* Overall verdict on the document itself
	120	+* Analysis ID for reference
	121	+
	122	+**Design Principle**: User sees **what they claim** and **FactHarbor's complete analysis** side-by-side without scrolling.
	123	+
32	32	=== UN-4: Social Media Fact-Checking ===
	125	+
33	33	**As** a social media user,
34	34	**I want** to check claims in posts before sharing,
35	35	**so that** I can avoid spreading misinformation.
...	...	@@ -36,9 +36,39 @@
36	36
37	37	**Maps to**: FR1 (Claim Intake), FR7 (Automated Verdicts), NFR1 (Performance - fast processing)
38	38
	132	+=== UN-17: In-Article Claim Highlighting ===
	133	+
	134	+**As** a reader viewing an article,
	135	+**I want** to see factual claims highlighted with color-coded credibility indicators (green for well-supported, yellow for uncertain, red for refuted),
	136	+**so that** I can immediately identify which statements are trustworthy and which require skepticism without interrupting my reading flow.
	137	+
	138	+**Maps to**: FR7 (Automated Verdicts), FR13 (In-Article Claim Highlighting), NFR1 (Performance - real-time highlighting)
	139	+
	140	+==== Visual Concept ====
	141	+
	142	+When reading an article on FactHarbor:
	143	+
	144	+(% style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#f5f5f5; padding:10px; display:block;" %)
	145	+(((
	146	+Regular article text flows normally...
	147	+
	148	+(% style="background-color:#90EE90; padding:2px 5px;" %)This claim is well-supported by evidence(%%) and you can continue reading...
	149	+
	150	+More context and explanation...
	151	+
	152	+(% style="background-color:#FFD700; padding:2px 5px;" %)This claim is uncertain with conflicting evidence(%%) but the article continues...
	153	+
	154	+Additional information...
	155	+
	156	+(% style="background-color:#FFB6C6; padding:2px 5px;" %)This claim has been refuted by research(%%) and understanding that helps readers...
	157	+)))
	158	+
	159	+**Hover/Click on any highlighted claim** → See verdict, confidence score, and evidence summary
	160	+
39	39	== 2. Source Tracing & Credibility ==
40	40
41	41	=== UN-5: Source Provenance and Track Records ===
	164	+
42	42	**As** an article reader,
43	43	**I want** to trace each piece of evidence back to its original source and see that source's historical track record,
44	44	**so that** I can assess the reliability of the information chain and learn which sources are consistently trustworthy.
...	...	@@ -46,6 +46,7 @@
46	46	**Maps to**: FR5 (Evidence Linking), Section 4.1 (Source Requirements - track record system)
47	47
48	48	=== UN-6: Publisher Reliability History ===
	172	+
49	49	**As** an article reader,
50	50	**I want** to see historical accuracy track records for sources and publishers,
51	51	**so that** I can learn which outlets are consistently reliable over time.
...	...	@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@
55	55	== 3. Understanding the Analysis ==
56	56
57	57	=== UN-7: Evidence Transparency ===
	182	+
58	58	**As** a skeptical reader,
59	59	**I want** to see the evidence and reasoning behind each verdict,
60	60	**so that** I can judge whether I agree with the assessment and form my own conclusions.
...	...	@@ -62,6 +62,7 @@
62	62	**Maps to**: FR5 (Evidence Linking), NFR3 (Transparency)
63	63
64	64	=== UN-8: Understanding Disagreement and Consensus ===
	190	+
65	65	**As** an article reader,
66	66	**I want** to see which scenarios have strong supporting evidence versus which have conflicting evidence or high uncertainty,
67	67	**so that** I can understand where legitimate disagreement exists versus where consensus is clear.
...	...	@@ -69,6 +69,7 @@
69	69	**Maps to**: FR6 (Scenario Comparison), FR7 (Automated Verdicts - uncertainty factors), AKEL Gate 2 (Contradiction Search)
70	70
71	71	=== UN-9: Methodology Transparency ===
	198	+
72	72	**As** an article reader,
73	73	**I want** to understand how likelihood ranges and confidence scores are calculated,
74	74	**so that** I can trust the verification process itself.
...	...	@@ -78,6 +78,7 @@
78	78	== 4. Pattern Recognition & Learning ==
79	79
80	80	=== UN-10: Manipulation Tactics Detection ===
	208	+
81	81	**As** an article reader,
82	82	**I want** to see common manipulation tactics or logical fallacies identified in content,
83	83	**so that** I can recognize them elsewhere and become a more critical consumer of information.
...	...	@@ -85,6 +85,7 @@
85	85	**Maps to**: AKEL (Bubble Detection), Section 5 (Automated Risk Scoring)
86	86
87	87	=== UN-11: Filtered Research ===
	216	+
88	88	**As** a researcher,
89	89	**I want** to filter content by verification status, confidence levels, and source quality,
90	90	**so that** I can work only with reliable information appropriate for my research needs.
...	...	@@ -94,6 +94,7 @@
94	94	== 5. Taking Action ==
95	95
96	96	=== UN-12: Submit Unchecked Claims ===
	226	+
97	97	**As** a reader who finds unchecked claims,
98	98	**I want** to submit them for verification,
99	99	**so that** I can help expand fact-checking coverage and contribute to the knowledge base.
...	...	@@ -101,6 +101,7 @@
101	101	**Maps to**: FR1 (Claim Intake), Section 1.1 (Reader role)
102	102
103	103	=== UN-13: Cite FactHarbor Verdicts ===
	234	+
104	104	**As** a content creator,
105	105	**I want** to cite FactHarbor verdicts when sharing content,
106	106	**so that** I can add credibility to what I publish and help my audience distinguish fact from speculation.
...	...	@@ -110,6 +110,7 @@
110	110	== 6. Professional Use ==
111	111
112	112	=== UN-14: API Access for Integration ===
	244	+
113	113	**As** a journalist/researcher,
114	114	**I want** API access to verification data and claim histories,
115	115	**so that** I can integrate fact-checking into my professional workflow without manual lookups.
...	...	@@ -119,6 +119,7 @@
119	119	== 7. Understanding Evolution & Trust Labels ==
120	120
121	121	=== UN-15: Verdict Evolution Timeline ===
	254	+
122	122	**As** an article reader,
123	123	**I want** to see how a claim's verdict has evolved over time with clear timestamps,
124	124	**so that** I can understand whether the current assessment is stable or recently changed based on new evidence.
...	...	@@ -126,6 +126,7 @@
126	126	**Maps to**: FR8 (Time Evolution), Data Model (Versioned entities), NFR3 (Transparency)
127	127
128	128	=== UN-16: AI vs. Human Review Status ===
	262	+
129	129	**As** an article reader,
130	130	**I want** to know if the verdict was AI-generated, human-reviewed, or expert-validated,
131	131	**so that** I can gauge the appropriate level of trust and understand the review process used.
...	...	@@ -138,43 +138,45 @@
138	138
139	139	=== 8.1 Functional Requirements Coverage ===
140	140
141		-| FR# | Requirement | Fulfills User Needs |
142		-|-----|-------------|-------------------|
143		-| FR1 | Claim Intake | UN-2, UN-4, UN-12 |
144		-| FR4 | Scenario Generation | UN-2, UN-3 |
145		-| FR5 | Evidence Linking | UN-5, UN-7 |
146		-| FR6 | Scenario Comparison | UN-3, UN-8 |
147		-| FR7 | Automated Verdicts | UN-1, UN-2, UN-3, UN-4, UN-13 |
148		-| FR8 | Time Evolution | UN-15 |
149		-| FR11 | Audit Trail | UN-14, UN-16 |
	275	+(% style="width:100%" %)
	276	+|=(% style="width:10%" %)FR#|=(% style="width:35%" %)Requirement|=(% style="width:55%" %)Fulfills User Needs
	277	+|(% style="width:10%" %)FR1|(% style="width:35%" %)Claim Intake|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-2, UN-4, UN-12
	278	+|(% style="width:10%" %)FR4|(% style="width:35%" %)Scenario Generation|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-2, UN-3
	279	+|(% style="width:10%" %)FR5|(% style="width:35%" %)Evidence Linking|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-5, UN-7
	280	+|(% style="width:10%" %)FR6|(% style="width:35%" %)Scenario Comparison|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-3, UN-8
	281	+|(% style="width:10%" %)FR7|(% style="width:35%" %)Automated Verdicts|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-1, UN-2, UN-3, UN-4, UN-13, UN-17
	282	+|(% style="width:10%" %)FR8|(% style="width:35%" %)Time Evolution|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-15
	283	+|(% style="width:10%" %)FR11|(% style="width:35%" %)Audit Trail|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-14, UN-16
	284	+|(% style="width:10%" %)FR12|(% style="width:35%" %)Two-Panel Summary View|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-3
	285	+|(% style="width:10%" %)FR13|(% style="width:35%" %)In-Article Claim Highlighting|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-17
150	150
151	151	=== 8.2 Non-Functional Requirements Coverage ===
152	152
153		-| NFR# | Requirement | Fulfills User Needs |
154		-|------|-------------|-------------------|
155		-| NFR1 | Performance | UN-4 (fast fact-checking), UN-11 (responsive filtering) |
156		-| NFR2 | Scalability | UN-14 (API access at scale) |
157		-| NFR3 | Transparency | UN-1, UN-7, UN-9, UN-13, UN-15 |
	289	+(% style="width:100%" %)
	290	+|=(% style="width:10%" %)NFR#|=(% style="width:35%" %)Requirement|=(% style="width:55%" %)Fulfills User Needs
	291	+|(% style="width:10%" %)NFR1|(% style="width:35%" %)Performance|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-4 (fast fact-checking), UN-11 (responsive filtering), UN-17 (real-time highlighting)
	292	+|(% style="width:10%" %)NFR2|(% style="width:35%" %)Scalability|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-14 (API access at scale)
	293	+|(% style="width:10%" %)NFR3|(% style="width:35%" %)Transparency|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-1, UN-7, UN-9, UN-13, UN-15
158	158
159	159	=== 8.3 AKEL System Coverage ===
160	160
161		-| AKEL Component | Fulfills User Needs |
162		-|----------------|-------------------|
163		-| Quality Gates | UN-9 (methodology transparency) |
164		-| Contradiction Search (Gate 2) | UN-8 (understanding disagreement) |
165		-| Bubble Detection | UN-10 (manipulation tactics) |
166		-| Publication Modes | UN-16 (AI vs. human review status) |
167		-| Risk Tiers | UN-16 (appropriate review level) |
	297	+(% style="width:100%" %)
	298	+|=(% style="width:45%" %)AKEL Component|=(% style="width:55%" %)Fulfills User Needs
	299	+|(% style="width:45%" %)Quality Gates|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-9 (methodology transparency)
	300	+|(% style="width:45%" %)Contradiction Search (Gate 2)|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-8 (understanding disagreement)
	301	+|(% style="width:45%" %)Bubble Detection|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-10 (manipulation tactics)
	302	+|(% style="width:45%" %)Publication Modes|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-16 (AI vs. human review status)
	303	+|(% style="width:45%" %)Risk Tiers|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-16 (appropriate review level)
168	168
169	169	=== 8.4 Data Model Coverage ===
170	170
171		-| Entity | Fulfills User Needs |
172		-|--------|-------------------|
173		-| Source (with track_record_score) | UN-5, UN-6 (source reliability) |
174		-| Scenario | UN-2, UN-3, UN-8 (context-dependent truth) |
175		-| Verdict (with likelihood_range, uncertainty_factors) | UN-1, UN-2, UN-3, UN-8 (detailed assessment) |
176		-| Versioned entities | UN-15 (evolution timeline) |
177		-| AuthorType field | UN-16 (AI vs. human status) |
	307	+(% style="width:100%" %)
	308	+|=(% style="width:45%" %)Entity|=(% style="width:55%" %)Fulfills User Needs
	309	+|(% style="width:45%" %)Source (with track_record_score)|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-5, UN-6 (source reliability)
	310	+|(% style="width:45%" %)Scenario|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-2, UN-3, UN-8 (context-dependent truth)
	311	+|(% style="width:45%" %)Verdict (with likelihood_range, uncertainty_factors)|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-1, UN-2, UN-3, UN-8 (detailed assessment)
	312	+|(% style="width:45%" %)Versioned entities|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-15 (evolution timeline)
	313	+|(% style="width:45%" %)AuthorType field|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-16 (AI vs. human status)
178	178
179	179	== 9. User Need Gaps & Future Considerations ==
180	180
...	...	@@ -181,6 +181,7 @@
181	181	This section identifies user needs that may emerge as the platform matures:
182	182
183	183	**Potential Future Needs**:
	320	+
184	184	* **Collaborative annotation**: Users want to discuss verdicts with others
185	185	* **Personal tracking**: Users want to track claims they're following
186	186	* **Custom alerts**: Users want notifications when tracked claims are updated
...	...	@@ -188,6 +188,7 @@
188	188	* **Comparative analysis**: Users want to compare how different fact-checkers rate the same claim
189	189
190	190	**When to address**: These needs should be considered when:
	328	+
191	191	1. User feedback explicitly requests them
192	192	2. Usage metrics show users attempting these workflows
193	193	3. Competitive analysis shows these as differentiators
...	...	@@ -197,7 +197,7 @@
197	197	== 10. Related Pages ==
198	198
199	199	* [[Requirements>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.WebHome]] - Parent page with roles, rules, and functional requirements
200		-* [[Architecture>>FactHarbor.Specification.Architecture.WebHome]] - How requirements are implemented
201		-* [[Data Model>>FactHarbor.Specification.Data Model.WebHome]] - Data structures supporting user needs
202		-* [[AKEL (AI Knowledge Extraction Layer)>>FactHarbor.Specification.AI Knowledge Extraction Layer (AKEL).WebHome]] - AI system fulfilling automation needs
	338	+* [[Architecture>>Archive.FactHarbor.Specification.Architecture.WebHome]] - How requirements are implemented
	339	+* [[Data Model>>Archive.FactHarbor.Specification.Data Model.WebHome]] - Data structures supporting user needs
	340	+* [[AKEL (AI Knowledge Extraction Layer)>>Archive.FactHarbor.Specification.AI Knowledge Extraction Layer (AKEL).WebHome]] - AI system fulfilling automation needs
203	203	* [[Workflows>>FactHarbor.Specification.Workflows.WebHome]] - User interaction workflows