Wiki source code of POC Summary (POC1 & POC2)
Version 5.1 by Robert Schaub on 2025/12/23 22:59
Hide last authors
| author | version | line-number | content |
|---|---|---|---|
 |
5.1 | 1 | = POC Summary (POC1 & POC2) = |
| |
1.1 | 2 | |
| |
5.1 | 3 | == 1. POC Specification == |
| |
1.1 | 4 | |
| |
2.1 | 5 | === POC Goal |
| |
1.1 | 6 | Prove that AI can extract claims and determine verdicts automatically without human intervention. |
| 7 | |||
| |
2.1 | 8 | === POC Output (4 Components Only) |
| |
1.1 | 9 | |
| 10 | **1. ANALYSIS SUMMARY** | ||
| 11 | - 3-5 sentences | ||
| 12 | - How many claims found | ||
| 13 | - Distribution of verdicts | ||
| 14 | - Overall assessment | ||
| 15 | |||
| 16 | **2. CLAIMS IDENTIFICATION** | ||
| 17 | - 3-5 numbered factual claims | ||
| 18 | - Extracted automatically by AI | ||
| 19 | |||
| 20 | **3. CLAIMS VERDICTS** | ||
| 21 | - Per claim: Verdict label + Confidence % + Brief reasoning (1-3 sentences) | ||
| 22 | - Verdict labels: WELL-SUPPORTED / PARTIALLY SUPPORTED / UNCERTAIN / REFUTED | ||
| 23 | |||
| 24 | **4. ARTICLE SUMMARY (optional)** | ||
| 25 | - 3-5 sentences | ||
| 26 | - Neutral summary of article content | ||
| 27 | |||
| 28 | **Total output: ~200-300 words** | ||
| 29 | |||
| |
2.1 | 30 | === What's NOT in POC |
| |
1.1 | 31 | |
| 32 | ❌ Scenarios (multiple interpretations) | ||
| 33 | ❌ Evidence display (supporting/opposing lists) | ||
| 34 | ❌ Source links | ||
| 35 | ❌ Detailed reasoning chains | ||
| 36 | ❌ User accounts, history, search | ||
| 37 | ❌ Browser extensions, API | ||
| 38 | ❌ Accessibility, multilingual, mobile | ||
| 39 | ❌ Export, sharing features | ||
| 40 | ❌ Any other features | ||
| 41 | |||
| |
2.1 | 42 | === Critical Requirement |
| |
1.1 | 43 | |
| 44 | **FULLY AUTOMATED - NO MANUAL EDITING** | ||
| 45 | |||
| 46 | This is non-negotiable. POC tests whether AI can do this without human intervention. | ||
| 47 | |||
| |
2.1 | 48 | === POC Success Criteria |
| |
1.1 | 49 | |
| 50 | **Passes if:** | ||
| 51 | - ✅ AI extracts 3-5 factual claims automatically | ||
| 52 | - ✅ AI provides reasonable verdicts (≥70% make sense) | ||
| 53 | - ✅ Output is comprehensible | ||
| 54 | - ✅ Team agrees approach has merit | ||
| 55 | - ✅ Minimal or no manual editing needed | ||
| 56 | |||
| 57 | **Fails if:** | ||
| 58 | - ❌ Claim extraction poor (< 60% accuracy) | ||
| 59 | - ❌ Verdicts nonsensical (< 60% reasonable) | ||
| 60 | - ❌ Requires manual editing for most analyses (> 50%) | ||
| 61 | - ❌ Team loses confidence in approach | ||
| 62 | |||
| |
2.1 | 63 | === POC Architecture |
| |
1.1 | 64 | |
| 65 | **Frontend:** Simple input form + results display | ||
| 66 | **Backend:** Single API call to Claude (Sonnet 4.5) | ||
| 67 | **Processing:** One prompt generates complete analysis | ||
| 68 | **Database:** None required (stateless) | ||
| 69 | |||
| |
2.1 | 70 | === POC Philosophy |
| |
1.1 | 71 | |
| 72 | > "Build less, learn more, decide faster. Test the hardest part first." | ||
| 73 | |||
| |
4.1 | 74 | |
| 75 | |||
| 76 | === Context-Aware Analysis (Experimental POC1 Feature) === | ||
| 77 | |||
| 78 | **Problem:** Article credibility ≠ simple average of claim verdicts | ||
| 79 | |||
| 80 | **Example:** Article with accurate facts (coffee has antioxidants, antioxidants fight cancer) but false conclusion (therefore coffee cures cancer) would score as "mostly accurate" with simple averaging, but is actually MISLEADING. | ||
| 81 | |||
| 82 | **Solution (POC1 Test):** Approach 1 - Single-Pass Holistic Analysis | ||
| 83 | * Enhanced AI prompt to evaluate logical structure | ||
| 84 | * AI identifies main argument and assesses if it follows from evidence | ||
| 85 | * Article verdict may differ from claim average | ||
| 86 | * Zero additional cost, no architecture changes | ||
| 87 | |||
| 88 | **Testing:** | ||
| 89 | * 30-article test set | ||
| 90 | * Success: ≥70% accuracy detecting misleading articles | ||
| 91 | * Marked as experimental | ||
| 92 | |||
| 93 | **See:** [[Article Verdict Problem>>Test.FactHarbor.Specification.POC.Article-Verdict-Problem]] for full analysis and solution approaches. | ||
| 94 | |||
| |
3.1 | 95 | == 2. Key Strategic Recommendations |
| |
1.1 | 96 | |
| |
2.1 | 97 | === Immediate Actions |
| |
1.1 | 98 | |
| 99 | **For POC:** | ||
| 100 | 1. Focus on core functionality only (claims + verdicts) | ||
| 101 | 2. Create basic explainer (1 page) | ||
| 102 | 3. Test AI quality without manual editing | ||
| 103 | 4. Make GO/NO-GO decision | ||
| 104 | |||
| 105 | **Planning:** | ||
| 106 | 1. Define accessibility strategy (when to build) | ||
| 107 | 2. Decide on multilingual priorities (which languages first) | ||
| 108 | 3. Research media verification options (partner vs build) | ||
| 109 | 4. Evaluate browser extension approach | ||
| 110 | |||
| |
2.1 | 111 | === Testing Strategy |
| |
1.1 | 112 | |
| 113 | **POC Tests:** Can AI do this without humans? | ||
| 114 | **Beta Tests:** What do users need? What works? What doesn't? | ||
| 115 | **Release Tests:** Is it production-ready? | ||
| 116 | |||
| 117 | **Key Principle:** Test assumptions before building features. | ||
| 118 | |||
| |
2.1 | 119 | === Build Sequence (Priority Order) |
| |
1.1 | 120 | |
| 121 | **Must Build:** | ||
| 122 | 1. Core analysis (claims + verdicts) ← POC | ||
| 123 | 2. Educational resources (basic → comprehensive) | ||
| 124 | 3. Accessibility (WCAG 2.1 AA) ← Legal requirement | ||
| 125 | |||
| 126 | **Should Build (Validate First):** | ||
| 127 | 4. Browser extensions ← Test demand | ||
| 128 | 5. Media verification ← Pilot with existing tools | ||
| 129 | 6. Multilingual ← Start with 2-3 languages | ||
| 130 | |||
| 131 | **Can Build Later:** | ||
| 132 | 7. Mobile apps ← PWA first | ||
| 133 | 8. ClaimReview schema ← After content library | ||
| 134 | 9. Export features ← Based on user requests | ||
| 135 | 10. Everything else ← Based on validation | ||
| 136 | |||
| |
2.1 | 137 | === Decision Framework |
| |
1.1 | 138 | |
| 139 | **For each feature, ask:** | ||
| 140 | 1. **Importance:** Risk + Impact + Strategy alignment? | ||
| 141 | 2. **Urgency:** Fail fast + Legal + Promises? | ||
| 142 | 3. **Validation:** Do we know users want this? | ||
| |
2.1 | 143 | 4. **Priority:** When should we build it? |
| |
1.1 | 144 | |
| 145 | **Don't build anything without answering these questions.** | ||
| 146 | |||
| |
2.1 | 147 | == 4. Critical Principles |
| |
1.1 | 148 | |
| |
2.1 | 149 | === Automation First |
| |
1.1 | 150 | - AI makes content decisions |
| 151 | - Humans improve algorithms | ||
| 152 | - Scale through code, not people | ||
| 153 | |||
| |
2.1 | 154 | === Fail Fast |
| |
1.1 | 155 | - Test assumptions quickly |
| 156 | - Don't build unvalidated features | ||
| 157 | - Accept that experiments may fail | ||
| 158 | - Learn from failures | ||
| 159 | |||
| |
2.1 | 160 | === Evidence Over Authority |
| |
1.1 | 161 | - Transparent reasoning visible |
| 162 | - No single "true/false" verdicts | ||
| 163 | - Multiple scenarios shown | ||
| 164 | - Assumptions made explicit | ||
| 165 | |||
| |
2.1 | 166 | === User Focus |
| |
1.1 | 167 | - Serve users' needs first |
| 168 | - Build what's actually useful | ||
| 169 | - Don't build what's just "cool" | ||
| 170 | - Measure and iterate | ||
| 171 | |||
| |
2.1 | 172 | === Honest Assessment |
| |
1.1 | 173 | - Don't cherry-pick examples |
| 174 | - Document failures openly | ||
| 175 | - Accept limitations | ||
| 176 | - No overpromising | ||
| 177 | |||
| |
2.1 | 178 | == 5. POC Decision Gate |
| |
1.1 | 179 | |
| |
2.1 | 180 | === After POC, Choose: |
| |
1.1 | 181 | |
| 182 | **GO (Proceed to Beta):** | ||
| 183 | - AI quality ≥70% without editing | ||
| 184 | - Approach validated | ||
| 185 | - Team confident | ||
| 186 | - Clear path to improvement | ||
| 187 | |||
| 188 | **NO-GO (Pivot or Stop):** | ||
| 189 | - AI quality < 60% | ||
| 190 | - Requires manual editing for most | ||
| 191 | - Fundamental flaws identified | ||
| 192 | - Not feasible with current technology | ||
| 193 | |||
| 194 | **ITERATE (Improve & Retry):** | ||
| 195 | - Concept has merit | ||
| 196 | - Specific improvements identified | ||
| 197 | - Addressable with better prompts | ||
| 198 | - Test again after changes | ||
| 199 | |||
| |
2.1 | 200 | == 6. Key Risks & Mitigations |
| |
1.1 | 201 | |
| |
2.1 | 202 | === Risk 1: AI Quality Not Good Enough |
| |
1.1 | 203 | **Mitigation:** Extensive prompt testing, use best models |
| 204 | **Acceptance:** POC might fail - that's what testing reveals | ||
| 205 | |||
| |
2.1 | 206 | === Risk 2: Users Don't Understand Output |
| |
1.1 | 207 | **Mitigation:** Create clear explainer, test with real users |
| 208 | **Acceptance:** Iterate on explanation until comprehensible | ||
| 209 | |||
| |
2.1 | 210 | === Risk 3: Approach Doesn't Scale |
| |
1.1 | 211 | **Mitigation:** Start simple, add complexity only when proven |
| 212 | **Acceptance:** POC proves concept, beta proves scale | ||
| 213 | |||
| |
2.1 | 214 | === Risk 4: Legal/Compliance Issues |
| |
1.1 | 215 | **Mitigation:** Plan accessibility early, consult legal experts |
| 216 | **Acceptance:** Can't launch publicly without compliance | ||
| 217 | |||
| |
2.1 | 218 | === Risk 5: Feature Creep |
| |
1.1 | 219 | **Mitigation:** Strict scope discipline, say NO to additions |
| 220 | **Acceptance:** POC is minimal by design | ||
| 221 | |||
| |
2.1 | 222 | == 7. Success Metrics |
| |
1.1 | 223 | |
| |
2.1 | 224 | === POC Success |
| |
1.1 | 225 | - AI output quality ≥70% |
| 226 | - Manual editing needed < 30% of time | ||
| 227 | - Team confidence: High | ||
| 228 | - Decision: GO to beta | ||
| 229 | |||
| |
2.1 | 230 | === Platform Success (Later) |
| |
1.1 | 231 | - User comprehension ≥80% |
| 232 | - Return user rate ≥30% | ||
| 233 | - Flag rate (user corrections) < 10% | ||
| 234 | - Processing time < 30 seconds | ||
| 235 | - Error rate < 1% | ||
| 236 | |||
| |
2.1 | 237 | === Mission Success (Long-term) |
| |
1.1 | 238 | - Users make better-informed decisions |
| 239 | - Misinformation spread reduced | ||
| 240 | - Public discourse improves | ||
| 241 | - Trust in evidence increases | ||
| 242 | |||
| |
2.1 | 243 | == 8. What Makes FactHarbor Different |
| |
1.1 | 244 | |
| |
2.1 | 245 | === Not Traditional Fact-Checking |
| |
1.1 | 246 | - ❌ No simple "true/false" verdicts |
| 247 | - ✅ Multiple scenarios with context | ||
| 248 | - ✅ Transparent reasoning chains | ||
| 249 | - ✅ Explicit assumptions shown | ||
| 250 | |||
| |
2.1 | 251 | === Not AI Chatbot |
| |
1.1 | 252 | - ❌ Not conversational |
| 253 | - ✅ Structured Evidence Models | ||
| 254 | - ✅ Reproducible analysis | ||
| 255 | - ✅ Verifiable sources | ||
| 256 | |||
| |
2.1 | 257 | === Not Just Automation |
| |
1.1 | 258 | - ❌ Not replacing human judgment |
| 259 | - ✅ Augmenting human reasoning | ||
| 260 | - ✅ Making process transparent | ||
| 261 | - ✅ Enabling informed decisions | ||
| 262 | |||
| |
2.1 | 263 | == 9. Core Philosophy |
| |
1.1 | 264 | |
| 265 | **Three Pillars:** | ||
| 266 | |||
| 267 | **1. Scenarios Over Verdicts** | ||
| 268 | - Show multiple interpretations | ||
| 269 | - Make context explicit | ||
| 270 | - Acknowledge uncertainty | ||
| 271 | - Avoid false certainty | ||
| 272 | |||
| 273 | **2. Transparency Over Authority** | ||
| 274 | - Show reasoning, not just conclusions | ||
| 275 | - Make assumptions explicit | ||
| 276 | - Link to evidence | ||
| 277 | - Enable verification | ||
| 278 | |||
| 279 | **3. Evidence Over Opinions** | ||
| 280 | - Ground claims in sources | ||
| 281 | - Show supporting AND opposing evidence | ||
| 282 | - Evaluate source quality | ||
| 283 | - Avoid cherry-picking | ||
| 284 | |||
| |
2.1 | 285 | == 10. Next Actions |
| |
1.1 | 286 | |
| |
2.1 | 287 | === Immediate |
| |
1.1 | 288 | □ Review this consolidated summary |
| 289 | □ Confirm POC scope agreement | ||
| 290 | □ Make strategic decisions on key questions | ||
| 291 | □ Begin POC development | ||
| 292 | |||
| |
2.1 | 293 | === Strategic Planning |
| |
1.1 | 294 | □ Define accessibility approach |
| 295 | □ Select initial languages for multilingual | ||
| 296 | □ Research media verification partners | ||
| 297 | □ Evaluate browser extension frameworks | ||
| 298 | |||
| |
2.1 | 299 | === Continuous |
| |
1.1 | 300 | □ Test assumptions before building |
| 301 | □ Measure everything | ||
| 302 | □ Learn from failures | ||
| 303 | □ Stay focused on mission | ||
| 304 | |||
| |
2.1 | 305 | == Summary of Summaries |
| |
1.1 | 306 | |
| 307 | **POC Goal:** Prove AI can do this automatically | ||
| 308 | **POC Scope:** 4 simple components, ~200-300 words | ||
| 309 | **POC Critical:** Fully automated, no manual editing | ||
| 310 | **POC Success:** ≥70% quality without human correction | ||
| 311 | |||
| 312 | **Gap Analysis:** 18 gaps identified, 2 critical (Accessibility + Education) | ||
| 313 | **Framework:** Importance (risk + impact + strategy) + Urgency (fail fast + legal + promises) | ||
| 314 | **Key Insight:** Context matters - urgency changes with milestones | ||
| 315 | |||
| 316 | **Strategy:** Test first, build second. Fail fast. Stay focused. | ||
| 317 | **Philosophy:** Scenarios, transparency, evidence. No false certainty. | ||
| 318 | |||
| |
2.1 | 319 | == Document Status |
| |
1.1 | 320 | |
| 321 | **This document supersedes all previous analysis documents.** | ||
| 322 | |||
| 323 | All gap analysis, POC specifications, and strategic frameworks are consolidated here without timeline references. | ||
| 324 | |||
| 325 | **For detailed specifications, refer to:** | ||
| 326 | - User Needs document (in project knowledge) | ||
| 327 | - Requirements document (in project knowledge) | ||
| 328 | - This summary (comprehensive overview) | ||
| 329 | |||
| 330 | **Previous documents are archived for reference but this is the authoritative summary.** | ||
| 331 | |||
| 332 | **End of Consolidated Summary** | ||
| 333 |