Changes for page User Needs

Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2026/02/08 08:27

From 1.4 to 1.3

From version 1.3

edited by Robert Schaub
on 2026/01/20 20:24

Change comment: Renamed back-links.

To version 1.1

edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/12/23 18:19

Change comment: Imported from XAR

Raw
Rendered

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Parent

@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
--Test.FactHarbor V0\.9\.100 incremental.Specification.Requirements.WebHome
++Test.FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.WebHome

Content

@@ -9,7 +9,6 @@
  == 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,
  **so that** I can quickly decide if the content is worth my time to read in detail.
@@ -17,7 +17,6 @@
  **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,
  **so that** I can distinguish proven facts from speculation and understand context-dependent truth.
@@ -25,7 +25,6 @@
  **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),
  **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.
@@ -42,7 +42,6 @@
  **Credibility:** Very High (peer-reviewed expert consensus)
  === The Big Picture ===
--
  **Old belief:** "A glass of wine is good for your heart"
  **New position:** We're no longer sure that's true
@@ -54,11 +54,9 @@
  |None|(% style="color:green" %)✅ **Don't start drinking for heart health**
  === Why the Shift? ===
--
  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.
  === AHA Bottom Line ===
--
  (% class="box" %)
  (((
  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.
@@ -71,7 +71,6 @@
  **Document:** AHA Scientific Statement on Alcohol and Cardiovascular Disease (2025)
  === Source Assessment ===
--
  **Credibility:** (% style="color:green" %)**VERY HIGH**(%%) – Official AHA statement, peer-reviewed, expert panel, published in top journal (//Circulation//)
  === Analysis Findings ===
@@ -103,7 +103,6 @@
  **Key Elements of Two-Panel Layout**:
  **Left Panel (Article Summary)**:
--
  * Document title and source
  * Source credibility (document's own authority)
  * "The Big Picture" - old belief vs. new position
@@ -112,7 +112,6 @@
  * "Bottom Line" - document's conclusion
  **Right Panel (FactHarbor Analysis Summary)**:
--
  * FactHarbor's source assessment (independent credibility check)
  * Claim-by-claim analysis with verdicts and confidence scores
  * Assessment of methodology (strengths/limitations)
@@ -122,7 +122,6 @@
  **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,
  **so that** I can avoid spreading misinformation.
@@ -130,7 +130,6 @@
  **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.
@@ -161,7 +161,6 @@
  == 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,
  **so that** I can assess the reliability of the information chain and learn which sources are consistently trustworthy.
@@ -169,7 +169,6 @@
  **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,
  **so that** I can learn which outlets are consistently reliable over time.
@@ -179,7 +179,6 @@
  == 3. Understanding the Analysis ==
  === UN-7: Evidence Transparency ===
--
  **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.
@@ -187,7 +187,6 @@
  **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,
  **so that** I can understand where legitimate disagreement exists versus where consensus is clear.
@@ -195,7 +195,6 @@
  **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,
  **so that** I can trust the verification process itself.
@@ -205,7 +205,6 @@
  == 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,
  **so that** I can recognize them elsewhere and become a more critical consumer of information.
@@ -213,7 +213,6 @@
  **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,
  **so that** I can work only with reliable information appropriate for my research needs.
@@ -223,7 +223,6 @@
  == 5. Taking Action ==
  === UN-12: Submit Unchecked Claims ===
--
  **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.
@@ -231,7 +231,6 @@
  **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,
  **so that** I can add credibility to what I publish and help my audience distinguish fact from speculation.
@@ -241,7 +241,6 @@
  == 6. Professional Use ==
  === UN-14: API Access for Integration ===
--
  **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.
@@ -266,7 +266,6 @@
  **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,
  **so that** I can gauge the appropriate level of trust and understand the review process used.
@@ -324,7 +324,6 @@
  This section identifies user needs that may emerge as the platform matures:
  **Potential Future Needs**:
--
  * **Collaborative annotation**: Users want to discuss verdicts with others
  * **Personal tracking**: Users want to track claims they're following
  * **Custom alerts**: Users want notifications when tracked claims are updated
@@ -332,7 +332,6 @@
  * **Comparative analysis**: Users want to compare how different fact-checkers rate the same claim
  **When to address**: These needs should be considered when:
--
 . User feedback explicitly requests them
 . Usage metrics show users attempting these workflows
 . Competitive analysis shows these as differentiators
@@ -344,9 +344,10 @@
  * [[Requirements>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.WebHome]] - Parent page with roles, rules, and functional requirements
  * [[Architecture>>FactHarbor.Specification.Architecture.WebHome]] - How requirements are implemented
  * [[Data Model>>FactHarbor.Specification.Data Model.WebHome]] - Data structures supporting user needs
--* [[AKEL (AI Knowledge Extraction Layer)>>Archive.FactHarbor.Specification.AI Knowledge Extraction Layer (AKEL).WebHome]] - AI system fulfilling automation 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 ===
@@ -374,3 +374,4 @@
  **So that** I can contribute without fear
  **Requirements:** FR48 (Safety Framework)
++

Changes for page User Needs

Summary

Details

Applications

Navigation

Need help?