Changes for page User Needs

Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2025/12/24 21:53

From 2.1 to 3.1

From version 3.1

edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/12/19 10:03

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

To version 5.1

edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/12/24 21:53

Change comment: Imported from XAR

Raw
Rendered

Summary

Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

@@ -9,22 +9,22 @@
  == 1. Core Reading & Discovery ==
  === UN-1: Trust Assessment at a Glance ===
--**As** an article reader (any content type),
--**I want** to see a trust score and overall verdict summary at a glance,
++**As** an article reader (any content type),
++**I want** to see a trust score and overall verdict summary at a glance,
  **so that** I can quickly decide if the content is worth my time to read in detail.
  **Maps to**: FR7 (Automated Verdicts), NFR3 (Transparency)
  === UN-2: Claim Extraction and Verification ===
--**As** an article reader,
--**I want** to see the key factual claims extracted from content with verification verdicts (likelihood ranges + uncertainty ratings) for each relevant scenario,
++**As** an article reader,
++**I want** to see the key factual claims extracted from content with verification verdicts (likelihood ranges + uncertainty ratings) for each relevant scenario,
  **so that** I can distinguish proven facts from speculation and understand context-dependent truth.
  **Maps to**: FR1 (Claim Intake), FR4 (Scenario Generation), FR7 (Automated Verdicts)
  === UN-3: Article Summary with FactHarbor Analysis Summary ===
--**As** an article reader,
--**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),
++**As** an article reader,
++**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),
  **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.
  **Maps to**: FR7 (Automated Verdicts), FR6 (Scenario Comparison), FR12 (Two-Panel Summary View - Article Summary with FactHarbor Analysis Summary)
@@ -113,24 +113,52 @@
  **Design Principle**: User sees **what they claim** and **FactHarbor's complete analysis** side-by-side without scrolling.
  === UN-4: Social Media Fact-Checking ===
--**As** a social media user,
--**I want** to check claims in posts before sharing,
++**As** a social media user,
++**I want** to check claims in posts before sharing,
  **so that** I can avoid spreading misinformation.
  **Maps to**: FR1 (Claim Intake), FR7 (Automated Verdicts), NFR1 (Performance - fast processing)
++=== UN-17: In-Article Claim Highlighting ===
++**As** a reader viewing an article,
++**I want** to see factual claims highlighted with color-coded credibility indicators (green for well-supported, yellow for uncertain, red for refuted),
++**so that** I can immediately identify which statements are trustworthy and which require skepticism without interrupting my reading flow.
++
++**Maps to**: FR7 (Automated Verdicts), FR13 (In-Article Claim Highlighting), NFR1 (Performance - real-time highlighting)
++
++==== Visual Concept ====
++
++When reading an article on FactHarbor:
++
++(% style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#f5f5f5; padding:10px; display:block;" %)
++(((
++Regular article text flows normally...
++
++(% style="background-color:#90EE90; padding:2px 5px;" %)This claim is well-supported by evidence(%%) and you can continue reading...
++
++More context and explanation...
++
++(% style="background-color:#FFD700; padding:2px 5px;" %)This claim is uncertain with conflicting evidence(%%) but the article continues...
++
++Additional information...
++
++(% style="background-color:#FFB6C6; padding:2px 5px;" %)This claim has been refuted by research(%%) and understanding that helps readers...
++)))
++
++**Hover/Click on any highlighted claim** → See verdict, confidence score, and evidence summary
++
  == 2. Source Tracing & Credibility ==
  === UN-5: Source Provenance and Track Records ===
--**As** an article reader,
--**I want** to trace each piece of evidence back to its original source and see that source's historical track record,
++**As** an article reader,
++**I want** to trace each piece of evidence back to its original source and see that source's historical track record,
  **so that** I can assess the reliability of the information chain and learn which sources are consistently trustworthy.
  **Maps to**: FR5 (Evidence Linking), Section 4.1 (Source Requirements - track record system)
  === UN-6: Publisher Reliability History ===
--**As** an article reader,
--**I want** to see historical accuracy track records for sources and publishers,
++**As** an article reader,
++**I want** to see historical accuracy track records for sources and publishers,
  **so that** I can learn which outlets are consistently reliable over time.
  **Maps to**: Section 4.1 (Source Requirements), Data Model (Source entity with track_record_score)
@@ -138,22 +138,22 @@
  == 3. Understanding the Analysis ==
  === UN-7: Evidence Transparency ===
--**As** a skeptical reader,
--**I want** to see the evidence and reasoning behind each verdict,
++**As** a skeptical reader,
++**I want** to see the evidence and reasoning behind each verdict,
  **so that** I can judge whether I agree with the assessment and form my own conclusions.
  **Maps to**: FR5 (Evidence Linking), NFR3 (Transparency)
  === UN-8: Understanding Disagreement and Consensus ===
--**As** an article reader,
--**I want** to see which scenarios have strong supporting evidence versus which have conflicting evidence or high uncertainty,
++**As** an article reader,
++**I want** to see which scenarios have strong supporting evidence versus which have conflicting evidence or high uncertainty,
  **so that** I can understand where legitimate disagreement exists versus where consensus is clear.
  **Maps to**: FR6 (Scenario Comparison), FR7 (Automated Verdicts - uncertainty factors), AKEL Gate 2 (Contradiction Search)
  === UN-9: Methodology Transparency ===
--**As** an article reader,
--**I want** to understand how likelihood ranges and confidence scores are calculated,
++**As** an article reader,
++**I want** to understand how likelihood ranges and confidence scores are calculated,
  **so that** I can trust the verification process itself.
  **Maps to**: NFR3 (Transparency), Architecture (documented algorithms), AKEL (Quality Gates)
@@ -161,15 +161,15 @@
  == 4. Pattern Recognition & Learning ==
  === UN-10: Manipulation Tactics Detection ===
--**As** an article reader,
--**I want** to see common manipulation tactics or logical fallacies identified in content,
++**As** an article reader,
++**I want** to see common manipulation tactics or logical fallacies identified in content,
  **so that** I can recognize them elsewhere and become a more critical consumer of information.
  **Maps to**: AKEL (Bubble Detection), Section 5 (Automated Risk Scoring)
  === UN-11: Filtered Research ===
--**As** a researcher,
--**I want** to filter content by verification status, confidence levels, and source quality,
++**As** a researcher,
++**I want** to filter content by verification status, confidence levels, and source quality,
  **so that** I can work only with reliable information appropriate for my research needs.
  **Maps to**: FR1 (Claim Classification), Section 4.4 (Confidence Scoring), NFR1 (Performance)
@@ -177,15 +177,15 @@
  == 5. Taking Action ==
  === UN-12: Submit Unchecked Claims ===
--**As** a reader who finds unchecked claims,
--**I want** to submit them for verification,
++**As** a reader who finds unchecked claims,
++**I want** to submit them for verification,
  **so that** I can help expand fact-checking coverage and contribute to the knowledge base.
  **Maps to**: FR1 (Claim Intake), Section 1.1 (Reader role)
  === UN-13: Cite FactHarbor Verdicts ===
--**As** a content creator,
--**I want** to cite FactHarbor verdicts when sharing content,
++**As** a content creator,
++**I want** to cite FactHarbor verdicts when sharing content,
  **so that** I can add credibility to what I publish and help my audience distinguish fact from speculation.
  **Maps to**: FR7 (Automated Verdicts), NFR3 (Transparency - exportable data)
@@ -193,8 +193,8 @@
  == 6. Professional Use ==
  === UN-14: API Access for Integration ===
--**As** a journalist/researcher,
--**I want** API access to verification data and claim histories,
++**As** a journalist/researcher,
++**I want** API access to verification data and claim histories,
  **so that** I can integrate fact-checking into my professional workflow without manual lookups.
  **Maps to**: Architecture (REST API), NFR2 (Scalability), FR11 (Audit Trail)
@@ -202,15 +202,22 @@
  == 7. Understanding Evolution & Trust Labels ==
  === UN-15: Verdict Evolution Timeline ===
--**As** an article reader,
--**I want** to see how a claim's verdict has evolved over time with clear timestamps,
++
++{{warning}}
++**Status:** Deferred (Not in V1.0)
++
++Full verdict evolution timeline has been **dropped from V1.0**. The system will track edit history only. Versioned entities and full evolution tracking are deferred to future releases.
++{{/warning}}
++
++**As** an article reader,
++**I want** to see how a claim's verdict has evolved over time with clear timestamps,
  **so that** I can understand whether the current assessment is stable or recently changed based on new evidence.
--**Maps to**: FR8 (Time Evolution), Data Model (Versioned entities), NFR3 (Transparency)
++**Maps to**: ~~FR8 (Deferred)~~, Data Model (Versioned entities), NFR3 (Transparency)
  === UN-16: AI vs. Human Review Status ===
--**As** an article reader,
--**I want** to know if the verdict was AI-generated, human-reviewed, or expert-validated,
++**As** an article reader,
++**I want** to know if the verdict was AI-generated, human-reviewed, or expert-validated,
  **so that** I can gauge the appropriate level of trust and understand the review process used.
  **Maps to**: AKEL (Publication Modes), Section 5 (Risk Tiers), Data Model (AuthorType field)
@@ -227,16 +227,17 @@
  |(% style="width:10%" %)FR4|(% style="width:35%" %)Scenario Generation|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-2, UN-3
  |(% style="width:10%" %)FR5|(% style="width:35%" %)Evidence Linking|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-5, UN-7
  |(% style="width:10%" %)FR6|(% style="width:35%" %)Scenario Comparison|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-3, UN-8
--|(% style="width:10%" %)FR7|(% style="width:35%" %)Automated Verdicts|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-1, UN-2, UN-3, UN-4, UN-13
++|(% style="width:10%" %)FR7|(% style="width:35%" %)Automated Verdicts|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-1, UN-2, UN-3, UN-4, UN-13, UN-17
  |(% style="width:10%" %)FR8|(% style="width:35%" %)Time Evolution|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-15
  |(% style="width:10%" %)FR11|(% style="width:35%" %)Audit Trail|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-14, UN-16
  |(% style="width:10%" %)FR12|(% style="width:35%" %)Two-Panel Summary View|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-3
++|(% style="width:10%" %)FR13|(% style="width:35%" %)In-Article Claim Highlighting|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-17
  === 8.2 Non-Functional Requirements Coverage ===
  (% style="width:100%" %)
  |=(% style="width:10%" %)NFR#|=(% style="width:35%" %)Requirement|=(% style="width:55%" %)Fulfills User Needs
--|(% style="width:10%" %)NFR1|(% style="width:35%" %)Performance|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-4 (fast fact-checking), UN-11 (responsive filtering)
++|(% 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)
  |(% style="width:10%" %)NFR2|(% style="width:35%" %)Scalability|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-14 (API access at scale)
  |(% style="width:10%" %)NFR3|(% style="width:35%" %)Transparency|(% style="width:55%" %)UN-1, UN-7, UN-9, UN-13, UN-15
@@ -285,3 +285,30 @@
  * [[Data Model>>FactHarbor.Specification.Data Model.WebHome]] - Data structures supporting user needs
  * [[AKEL (AI Knowledge Extraction Layer)>>FactHarbor.Specification.AI Knowledge Extraction Layer (AKEL).WebHome]] - AI system fulfilling automation needs
  * [[Workflows>>FactHarbor.Specification.Workflows.WebHome]] - User interaction workflows
++
++== Additional User Needs (V0.9.70) ==
++
++=== UN-26: Search Engine Visibility ===
++
++**As a** content consumer
++**I want** FactHarbor analyses to appear in Google search results
++**So that** I can find fact-checks when searching
++
++**Requirements:** FR44 (ClaimReview schema)
++
++=== UN-27: Visual Claim Verification ===
++
++**As a** social media user
++**I want** to verify images shared with claims
++**So that** I can detect manipulated photos
++
++**Requirements:** FR46 (Image Verification)
++
++=== UN-28: Safe Contribution Environment ===
++
++**As a** fact-checking contributor
++**I want** protection from harassment
++**So that** I can contribute without fear
++
++**Requirements:** FR48 (Safety Framework)
++

Changes for page User Needs

Summary

Details

Applications

Navigation

Need help?