Skip to Content

Changes for page User Needs

Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2026/02/08 08:27
From version 4.4
edited by Robert Schaub
on 2026/01/20 20:26
Change comment: Renamed back-links.
To version 1.1
edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/12/19 08:55
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Parent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -Archive.FactHarbor V0\.9\.50 Plus (Prev Rel).Specification.Requirements.WebHome
1 +FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.WebHome
Content
... ... @@ -9,7 +9,6 @@
9 9  == 1. Core Reading & Discovery ==
10 10  
11 11  === UN-1: Trust Assessment at a Glance ===
12 -
13 13  **As** an article reader (any content type),
14 14  **I want** to see a trust score and overall verdict summary at a glance,
15 15  **so that** I can quickly decide if the content is worth my time to read in detail.
... ... @@ -17,7 +17,6 @@
17 17  **Maps to**: FR7 (Automated Verdicts), NFR3 (Transparency)
18 18  
19 19  === UN-2: Claim Extraction and Verification ===
20 -
21 21  **As** an article reader,
22 22  **I want** to see the key factual claims extracted from content with verification verdicts (likelihood ranges + uncertainty ratings) for each relevant scenario,
23 23  **so that** I can distinguish proven facts from speculation and understand context-dependent truth.
... ... @@ -24,105 +24,14 @@
24 24  
25 25  **Maps to**: FR1 (Claim Intake), FR4 (Scenario Generation), FR7 (Automated Verdicts)
26 26  
27 -=== UN-3: Article Summary with FactHarbor Analysis Summary ===
28 -
25 +=== UN-3: Summary with Verdict Context ===
29 29  **As** an article reader,
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.
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.
32 32  
33 -**Maps to**: FR7 (Automated Verdicts), FR6 (Scenario Comparison), FR12 (Two-Panel Summary View - Article Summary with FactHarbor Analysis Summary)
30 +**Maps to**: FR7 (Automated Verdicts), FR6 (Scenario Comparison)
34 34  
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 -
124 124  === UN-4: Social Media Fact-Checking ===
125 -
126 126  **As** a social media user,
127 127  **I want** to check claims in posts before sharing,
128 128  **so that** I can avoid spreading misinformation.
... ... @@ -129,39 +129,9 @@
129 129  
130 130  **Maps to**: FR1 (Claim Intake), FR7 (Automated Verdicts), NFR1 (Performance - fast processing)
131 131  
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 -
161 161  == 2. Source Tracing & Credibility ==
162 162  
163 163  === UN-5: Source Provenance and Track Records ===
164 -
165 165  **As** an article reader,
166 166  **I want** to trace each piece of evidence back to its original source and see that source's historical track record,
167 167  **so that** I can assess the reliability of the information chain and learn which sources are consistently trustworthy.
... ... @@ -169,7 +169,6 @@
169 169  **Maps to**: FR5 (Evidence Linking), Section 4.1 (Source Requirements - track record system)
170 170  
171 171  === UN-6: Publisher Reliability History ===
172 -
173 173  **As** an article reader,
174 174  **I want** to see historical accuracy track records for sources and publishers,
175 175  **so that** I can learn which outlets are consistently reliable over time.
... ... @@ -179,7 +179,6 @@
179 179  == 3. Understanding the Analysis ==
180 180  
181 181  === UN-7: Evidence Transparency ===
182 -
183 183  **As** a skeptical reader,
184 184  **I want** to see the evidence and reasoning behind each verdict,
185 185  **so that** I can judge whether I agree with the assessment and form my own conclusions.
... ... @@ -187,7 +187,6 @@
187 187  **Maps to**: FR5 (Evidence Linking), NFR3 (Transparency)
188 188  
189 189  === UN-8: Understanding Disagreement and Consensus ===
190 -
191 191  **As** an article reader,
192 192  **I want** to see which scenarios have strong supporting evidence versus which have conflicting evidence or high uncertainty,
193 193  **so that** I can understand where legitimate disagreement exists versus where consensus is clear.
... ... @@ -195,7 +195,6 @@
195 195  **Maps to**: FR6 (Scenario Comparison), FR7 (Automated Verdicts - uncertainty factors), AKEL Gate 2 (Contradiction Search)
196 196  
197 197  === UN-9: Methodology Transparency ===
198 -
199 199  **As** an article reader,
200 200  **I want** to understand how likelihood ranges and confidence scores are calculated,
201 201  **so that** I can trust the verification process itself.
... ... @@ -205,7 +205,6 @@
205 205  == 4. Pattern Recognition & Learning ==
206 206  
207 207  === UN-10: Manipulation Tactics Detection ===
208 -
209 209  **As** an article reader,
210 210  **I want** to see common manipulation tactics or logical fallacies identified in content,
211 211  **so that** I can recognize them elsewhere and become a more critical consumer of information.
... ... @@ -213,7 +213,6 @@
213 213  **Maps to**: AKEL (Bubble Detection), Section 5 (Automated Risk Scoring)
214 214  
215 215  === UN-11: Filtered Research ===
216 -
217 217  **As** a researcher,
218 218  **I want** to filter content by verification status, confidence levels, and source quality,
219 219  **so that** I can work only with reliable information appropriate for my research needs.
... ... @@ -223,7 +223,6 @@
223 223  == 5. Taking Action ==
224 224  
225 225  === UN-12: Submit Unchecked Claims ===
226 -
227 227  **As** a reader who finds unchecked claims,
228 228  **I want** to submit them for verification,
229 229  **so that** I can help expand fact-checking coverage and contribute to the knowledge base.
... ... @@ -231,7 +231,6 @@
231 231  **Maps to**: FR1 (Claim Intake), Section 1.1 (Reader role)
232 232  
233 233  === UN-13: Cite FactHarbor Verdicts ===
234 -
235 235  **As** a content creator,
236 236  **I want** to cite FactHarbor verdicts when sharing content,
237 237  **so that** I can add credibility to what I publish and help my audience distinguish fact from speculation.
... ... @@ -241,7 +241,6 @@
241 241  == 6. Professional Use ==
242 242  
243 243  === UN-14: API Access for Integration ===
244 -
245 245  **As** a journalist/researcher,
246 246  **I want** API access to verification data and claim histories,
247 247  **so that** I can integrate fact-checking into my professional workflow without manual lookups.
... ... @@ -251,7 +251,6 @@
251 251  == 7. Understanding Evolution & Trust Labels ==
252 252  
253 253  === UN-15: Verdict Evolution Timeline ===
254 -
255 255  **As** an article reader,
256 256  **I want** to see how a claim's verdict has evolved over time with clear timestamps,
257 257  **so that** I can understand whether the current assessment is stable or recently changed based on new evidence.
... ... @@ -259,7 +259,6 @@
259 259  **Maps to**: FR8 (Time Evolution), Data Model (Versioned entities), NFR3 (Transparency)
260 260  
261 261  === UN-16: AI vs. Human Review Status ===
262 -
263 263  **As** an article reader,
264 264  **I want** to know if the verdict was AI-generated, human-reviewed, or expert-validated,
265 265  **so that** I can gauge the appropriate level of trust and understand the review process used.
... ... @@ -272,45 +272,43 @@
272 272  
273 273  === 8.1 Functional Requirements Coverage ===
274 274  
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
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 |
286 286  
287 287  === 8.2 Non-Functional Requirements Coverage ===
288 288  
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
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 |
294 294  
295 295  === 8.3 AKEL System Coverage ===
296 296  
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)
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) |
304 304  
305 305  === 8.4 Data Model Coverage ===
306 306  
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)
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) |
314 314  
315 315  == 9. User Need Gaps & Future Considerations ==
316 316  
... ... @@ -317,7 +317,6 @@
317 317  This section identifies user needs that may emerge as the platform matures:
318 318  
319 319  **Potential Future Needs**:
320 -
321 321  * **Collaborative annotation**: Users want to discuss verdicts with others
322 322  * **Personal tracking**: Users want to track claims they're following
323 323  * **Custom alerts**: Users want notifications when tracked claims are updated
... ... @@ -325,7 +325,6 @@
325 325  * **Comparative analysis**: Users want to compare how different fact-checkers rate the same claim
326 326  
327 327  **When to address**: These needs should be considered when:
328 -
329 329  1. User feedback explicitly requests them
330 330  2. Usage metrics show users attempting these workflows
331 331  3. Competitive analysis shows these as differentiators
... ... @@ -335,7 +335,7 @@
335 335  == 10. Related Pages ==
336 336  
337 337  * [[Requirements>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.WebHome]] - Parent page with roles, rules, and functional requirements
338 -* [[Architecture>>Archive.FactHarbor.Specification.Architecture.WebHome]] - How requirements are implemented
200 +* [[Architecture>>FactHarbor.Specification.Architecture.WebHome]] - How requirements are implemented
339 339  * [[Data Model>>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
202 +* [[AKEL (AI Knowledge Extraction Layer)>>FactHarbor.Specification.AI Knowledge Extraction Layer (AKEL).WebHome]] - AI system fulfilling automation needs
341 341  * [[Workflows>>FactHarbor.Specification.Workflows.WebHome]] - User interaction workflows