Changes for page Requirements

Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2026/02/08 21:32

From 6.1 to 5.1 From 7.8 to 7.7

From version 7.7

edited by Robert Schaub
on 2026/01/20 20:30

Change comment: Renamed back-links.

To version 6.1

edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/12/23 08:03

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\.76.Specification.WebHome
++Test.FactHarbor.Specification.WebHome

Content

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
  == Navigation ==
--* **[[User Needs>>Archive.FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.User Needs.WebHome]]** - What users need from FactHarbor (drives these requirements)
++* **[[User Needs>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.User Needs.WebHome]]** - What users need from FactHarbor (drives these requirements)
  * **This page** - How we fulfill those needs through system design
  (% class="box infomessage" %)
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
  (((
  **How to read this page:**
--1. **User Needs drive Requirements**: See [[User Needs>>Archive.FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.User Needs.WebHome]] for what users need
++1. **User Needs drive Requirements**: See [[User Needs>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.User Needs.WebHome]] for what users need
 . **Requirements define implementation**: This page shows how we fulfill those needs
 . **Functional Requirements (FR)**: Specific features and capabilities
 . **Non-Functional Requirements (NFR)**: Quality attributes (performance, security, etc.)
@@ -32,7 +32,6 @@
  **Who**: Anyone (no login required)
  **Can**:
--
  * Browse and search claims
  * View scenarios, evidence, verdicts, and confidence scores
  * Flag issues or errors
@@ -40,7 +40,6 @@
  * Submit claims automatically (new claims added if not duplicates)
  **Cannot**:
--
  * Modify content
  * Access edit history details
@@ -51,7 +51,6 @@
  **Who**: Registered users (earns reputation through contributions)
  **Can**:
--
  * Everything a Reader can do
  * Edit claims, evidence, and scenarios
  * Add sources and citations
@@ -60,7 +60,6 @@
  * Earn reputation points for quality contributions
  **Reputation System**:
--
  * New contributors: Limited edit privileges
  * Established contributors (established reputation): Full edit access
  * Trusted contributors (substantial reputation): Can approve certain changes
@@ -68,7 +68,6 @@
  * Reputation lost through: Reverted edits, invalid flags, abuse
  **Cannot**:
--
  * Delete or hide content (only moderators)
  * Override moderation decisions
@@ -79,7 +79,6 @@
  **Who**: Trusted community members with proven track record, appointed by governance board
  **Can**:
--
  * Review flagged content
  * Hide harmful or abusive content
  * Resolve disputes between contributors
@@ -88,7 +88,6 @@
  * Access full audit logs
  **Cannot**:
--
  * Change governance rules
  * Permanently ban users without board approval
  * Override technical quality gates
@@ -102,7 +102,6 @@
  **Not a permanent role**: Contacted externally when needed for contested claims in their domain
  **When used**:
--
  * Medical claims with life/safety implications
  * Legal interpretations with significant impact
  * Scientific claims with high controversy
@@ -109,7 +109,6 @@
  * Technical claims requiring specialized knowledge
  **Process**:
--
  * Moderator identifies need for expert input
  * Contact expert externally (don't require them to be users)
  * Trusted Contributor provides written opinion with sources
@@ -129,13 +129,11 @@
  **Status**: Visible to all users
  **Includes**:
--
  * AI-generated analyses (default state)
  * User-contributed content
  * Edited/improved content
  **Quality Indicators** (displayed with content):
--
  * **Confidence Score**: 0-100% (AI's confidence in analysis)
  * **Source Quality Score**: 0-100% (based on source track record)
  * **Controversy Flag**: If high dispute/edit activity
@@ -145,7 +145,6 @@
  * **Review Status**: AI-generated / Human-reviewed / Expert-validated
  **Automatic Warnings**:
--
  * Confidence < 60%: "Low confidence - use caution"
  * Source quality < 40%: "Sources may be unreliable"
  * High controversy: "Disputed - multiple interpretations exist"
@@ -158,7 +158,6 @@
  **Status**: Not visible to regular users (only to moderators)
  **Reasons**:
--
  * Spam or advertising
  * Personal attacks or harassment
  * Illegal content
@@ -167,7 +167,6 @@
  * Abuse or harmful content
  **Process**:
--
  * Automated detection flags for moderator review
  * Moderator confirms and hides
  * Original author notified with reason
@@ -190,7 +190,6 @@
  **AKEL is the primary system**. Human contributions supplement and train AKEL.
  **AKEL Must**:
--
  * Mark all outputs as AI-generated
  * Display confidence scores prominently
  * Provide source citations
@@ -199,7 +199,6 @@
  * Learn from human corrections
  **When AKEL Makes Errors**:
--
 . Capture the error pattern (what, why, how common)
 . Improve the system (better prompt, model, validation)
 . Re-process affected claims automatically
@@ -230,7 +230,6 @@
  === 4.1 Source Requirements ===
  **Track Record Over Credentials**:
--
  * Sources evaluated by historical accuracy
  * Correction policy matters
  * Independence from conflicts of interest
@@ -237,7 +237,6 @@
  * Methodology transparency
  **Source Quality Database**:
--
  * Automated tracking of source accuracy
  * Correction frequency
  * Reliability score (updated continuously)
@@ -269,7 +269,6 @@
  === 4.4 Confidence Scoring ===
  **Automated confidence calculation based on**:
--
  * Source quality scores
  * Evidence consistency
  * Contradiction detection
@@ -277,7 +277,6 @@
  * Historical accuracy of similar claims
  **Thresholds**:
--
  * < 40%: Too low to publish (needs improvement)
  * 40-60%: Published with "Low confidence" warning
  * 60-80%: Published as standard
@@ -294,7 +294,6 @@
  === 5.1 Risk Score Calculation ===
  **Factors** (weighted algorithm):
--
  * **Domain sensitivity**: Medical, legal, safety auto-flagged higher
  * **Potential impact**: Views, citations, spread
  * **Controversy level**: Flags, disputes, edit wars
@@ -321,7 +321,6 @@
  === 6.1 Error Capture ===
  **When users flag errors or make corrections**:
--
 . What was wrong? (categorize)
 . What should it have been?
 . Why did the system fail? (root cause)
@@ -340,7 +340,6 @@
  === 6.3 Quality Metrics Dashboard ===
  **Track continuously**:
--
  * Error rate by category
  * Source quality distribution
  * Confidence score trends
@@ -366,7 +366,6 @@
  === 7.2 Anomaly Detection ===
  **Automated alerts for**:
--
  * Sudden quality drops
  * Unusual patterns
  * Contradiction clusters
@@ -419,7 +419,6 @@
  **Fulfills**: UN-2 (Context-dependent verification), UN-3 (Article summary with FactHarbor analysis summary), UN-8 (Understanding disagreement)
  **Automated scenario creation**:
--
  * AKEL analyzes claim and generates likely scenarios (use-cases and contexts)
  * Each scenario includes: assumptions, definitions, boundaries, evidence context
  * Users can flag incorrect scenarios
@@ -480,7 +480,6 @@
  **Purpose**: Provide side-by-side comparison of what a document claims vs. FactHarbor's complete analysis of its credibility
  **Left Panel: Article Summary**:
--
  * Document title, source, and claimed credibility
  * "The Big Picture" - main thesis or position change
  * "Key Findings" - structured summary of document's main claims
@@ -488,7 +488,6 @@
  * "Conclusion" - document's bottom line
  **Right Panel: FactHarbor Analysis Summary**:
--
  * FactHarbor's independent source credibility assessment
  * Claim-by-claim verdicts with confidence scores
  * Methodology assessment (strengths, limitations)
@@ -496,7 +496,6 @@
  * Analysis ID for reference
  **Design Principles**:
--
  * No scrolling required - both panels visible simultaneously
  * Visual distinction between "what they say" and "FactHarbor's analysis"
  * Color coding for verdicts (supported, uncertain, refuted)
@@ -504,7 +504,6 @@
  * Mobile responsive (panels stack vertically on small screens)
  **Implementation Notes**:
--
  * Generated automatically by AKEL for every analyzed document
  * Updates when verdict evolves (maintains version history)
  * Exportable as standalone summary report
@@ -531,8 +531,7 @@
  (% style="font-size:0.9em; color:#666;" %)
  ↑ WELL SUPPORTED • 87% confidence
  [[Click for evidence details →]]
--
--
++(%%)
  )))
  The study, which followed 10,000 participants over five years, showed significant improvements in cardiovascular health markers.
@@ -545,8 +545,7 @@
  ↑ UNCERTAIN • 45% confidence
  Overstated - evidence shows risk reduction, not prevention
  [[Click for details →]]
--
--
++(%%)
  )))
  Dr. Maria Rodriguez, lead researcher, recommends incorporating more olive oil, fish, and vegetables into daily meals.
@@ -559,8 +559,7 @@
  ↑ REFUTED • 15% confidence
  Claim not supported by study design; correlation ≠ causation
  [[Click for counter-evidence →]]
--
--
++(%%)
  )))
  Participants also reported feeling more energetic and experiencing better sleep quality, though these were secondary measures.
@@ -567,7 +567,6 @@
  )))
  **Legend:**
--
  * 🟢 = Well-supported claim (confidence ≥75%)
  * 🟡 = Uncertain claim (confidence 40-74%)
  * 🔴 = Refuted/unsupported claim (confidence <40%)
@@ -586,13 +586,11 @@
  **Confidence:** 87%
  **Evidence Summary:**
--
  * Meta-analysis of 12 RCTs confirms 23-28% risk reduction
  * Consistent findings across multiple populations
  * Published in peer-reviewed journal (high credibility)
  **Uncertainty Factors:**
--
  * Exact percentage varies by study (20-30% range)
  [[View Full Analysis →]]
@@ -599,7 +599,6 @@
  )))
  **Color-Coding System**:
--
  * **Green**: Well-supported claims (confidence ≥75%, strong evidence)
  * **Yellow/Orange**: Uncertain claims (confidence 40-74%, conflicting or limited evidence)
  * **Red**: Refuted or unsupported claims (confidence <40%, contradicted by evidence)
@@ -609,12 +609,8 @@
  (% style="width:100%; border-collapse:collapse;" %)
  |=**Article Text**|=**Status**|=**Analysis**
--|(((
--A recent study published in the Journal of Nutrition has revealed new findings about the Mediterranean diet.
--)))|(% style="text-align:center;" %)Plain text|(% style="font-style:italic; color:#888;" %)Context - no highlighting
--|(((
--//Researchers found that Mediterranean diet followers had a 25% lower risk of heart disease compared to control groups//
--)))|(% style="background-color:#D4EDDA; text-align:center; padding:8px;" %)🟢 **WELL SUPPORTED**|(((
++|(((A recent study published in the Journal of Nutrition has revealed new findings about the Mediterranean diet.)))|(% style="text-align:center;" %)Plain text|(% style="font-style:italic; color:#888;" %)Context - no highlighting
++|(((//Researchers found that Mediterranean diet followers had a 25% lower risk of heart disease compared to control groups//)))|(% style="background-color:#D4EDDA; text-align:center; padding:8px;" %)🟢 **WELL SUPPORTED**|(((
  **87% confidence**
  Meta-analysis of 12 RCTs confirms 23-28% risk reduction
@@ -621,12 +621,8 @@
  [[View Full Analysis]]
  )))
--|(((
--The study, which followed 10,000 participants over five years, showed significant improvements in cardiovascular health markers.
--)))|(% style="text-align:center;" %)Plain text|(% style="font-style:italic; color:#888;" %)Methodology - no highlighting
--|(((
--//Some experts believe this diet can completely prevent heart attacks//
--)))|(% style="background-color:#FFF3CD; text-align:center; padding:8px;" %)🟡 **UNCERTAIN**|(((
++|(((The study, which followed 10,000 participants over five years, showed significant improvements in cardiovascular health markers.)))|(% style="text-align:center;" %)Plain text|(% style="font-style:italic; color:#888;" %)Methodology - no highlighting
++|(((//Some experts believe this diet can completely prevent heart attacks//)))|(% style="background-color:#FFF3CD; text-align:center; padding:8px;" %)🟡 **UNCERTAIN**|(((
  **45% confidence**
  Overstated - evidence shows risk reduction, not prevention
@@ -633,12 +633,8 @@
  [[View Details]]
  )))
--|(((
--Dr. Rodriguez recommends incorporating more olive oil, fish, and vegetables into daily meals.
--)))|(% style="text-align:center;" %)Plain text|(% style="font-style:italic; color:#888;" %)Recommendation - no highlighting
--|(((
--//The study proves that saturated fats cause heart disease//
--)))|(% style="background-color:#F8D7DA; text-align:center; padding:8px;" %)🔴 **REFUTED**|(((
++|(((Dr. Rodriguez recommends incorporating more olive oil, fish, and vegetables into daily meals.)))|(% style="text-align:center;" %)Plain text|(% style="font-style:italic; color:#888;" %)Recommendation - no highlighting
++|(((//The study proves that saturated fats cause heart disease//)))|(% style="background-color:#F8D7DA; text-align:center; padding:8px;" %)🔴 **REFUTED**|(((
  **15% confidence**
  Claim not supported by study; correlation ≠ causation
@@ -647,7 +647,6 @@
  )))
  **Design Notes:**
--
  * Highlighted claims use italics to distinguish from plain text
  * Color backgrounds match XWiki message box colors (success/warning/error)
  * Status column shows verdict prominently
@@ -654,7 +654,6 @@
  * Analysis column provides quick summary with link to details
  **User Actions**:
--
  * **Hover** over highlighted claim → Tooltip appears
  * **Click** highlighted claim → Detailed analysis modal/panel
  * **Toggle** button to turn highlighting on/off
@@ -661,18 +661,16 @@
  * **Keyboard**: Tab through highlighted claims
  **Interaction Design**:
--
  * Hover/click on highlighted claim → Show tooltip with:
--* Claim text
--* Verdict (e.g., "WELL SUPPORTED")
--* Confidence score (e.g., "85%")
--* Brief evidence summary
--* Link to detailed analysis
++  * Claim text
++  * Verdict (e.g., "WELL SUPPORTED")
++  * Confidence score (e.g., "85%")
++  * Brief evidence summary
++  * Link to detailed analysis
  * Toggle highlighting on/off (user preference)
  * Adjustable color intensity for accessibility
  **Technical Requirements**:
--
  * Real-time highlighting as page loads (non-blocking)
  * Claim boundary detection (start/end of assertion)
  * Handle nested or overlapping claims
@@ -680,19 +680,16 @@
  * Work with various content formats (HTML, plain text, PDFs)
  **Performance Requirements**:
--
  * Highlighting renders within 500ms of page load
  * No perceptible delay in reading experience
  * Efficient DOM manipulation (avoid reflows)
  **Accessibility**:
--
  * Color-blind friendly palette (use patterns/icons in addition to color)
  * Screen reader compatible (ARIA labels for claim credibility)
  * Keyboard navigation to highlighted claims
  **Implementation Notes**:
--
  * Claims extracted and analyzed by AKEL during initial processing
  * Highlighting data stored as annotations with byte offsets
  * Client-side rendering of highlights based on verdict data
@@ -705,7 +705,6 @@
  **Fulfills**: UN-1 (Fast access to verified content), UN-16 (Clear review status)
  **Simple flow**:
--
 . Claim submitted
 . AKEL processes (automated)
 . If confidence > threshold: Publish (labeled as AI-generated)
@@ -717,7 +717,6 @@
  ==== FR10 — Moderation ====
  **Focus on abuse, not routine quality**:
--
  * Automated abuse detection
  * Moderators handle flags
  * Quick response to harmful content
@@ -788,7 +788,6 @@
  **Purpose:** Ensure extracted claims are factual assertions (not opinions/predictions)
  **Checks:**
--
 . **Factual Statement Test:** Is this verifiable? (Yes/No)
 . **Opinion Detection:** Contains hedging language? ("I think", "probably", "best")
 . **Future Prediction Test:** Makes claims about future events?
@@ -795,7 +795,6 @@
 . **Specificity Score:** Contains specific entities, numbers, dates?
  **Thresholds:**
--
  * Factual: Must be "Yes"
  * Opinion markers: <2 hedging phrases
  * Specificity: ≥3 specific elements
@@ -807,13 +807,11 @@
  **Purpose:** Ensure AI-linked evidence actually relates to claim
  **Checks:**
--
 . **Semantic Similarity Score:** Evidence vs. claim (embeddings)
 . **Entity Overlap:** Shared people/places/things?
 . **Topic Relevance:** Discusses claim subject?
  **Thresholds:**
--
  * Similarity: ≥0.6 (cosine similarity)
  * Entity overlap: ≥1 shared entity
  * Topic relevance: ≥0.5
@@ -825,13 +825,11 @@
  **Purpose:** Validate scenario assumptions are logical and complete
  **Checks:**
--
 . **Completeness:** All required fields populated
 . **Internal Consistency:** Assumptions don't contradict
 . **Distinguishability:** Scenarios meaningfully different
  **Thresholds:**
--
  * Required fields: 100%
  * Contradiction score: <0.3
  * Scenario similarity: <0.8
@@ -843,7 +843,6 @@
  **Purpose:** Only publish high-confidence verdicts
  **Checks:**
--
 . **Evidence Count:** Minimum 2 sources
 . **Source Quality:** Average reliability ≥0.6
 . **Evidence Agreement:** Supporting vs. contradicting ≥0.6
@@ -850,7 +850,6 @@
 . **Uncertainty Factors:** Hedging in reasoning
  **Confidence Tiers:**
--
  * **HIGH (80-100%):** ≥3 sources, ≥0.7 quality, ≥80% agreement
  * **MEDIUM (50-79%):** ≥2 sources, ≥0.6 quality, ≥60% agreement
  * **LOW (0-49%):** <2 sources OR low quality/agreement
@@ -857,13 +857,11 @@
  * **INSUFFICIENT:** <2 sources → DO NOT PUBLISH
  **Implementation Phases:**
--
  * **POC1:** Gates 1 & 4 only (basic validation)
  * **POC2:** All 4 gates (complete framework)
  * **V1.0:** Hardened with <5% hallucination rate
  **Acceptance Criteria:**
--
  * ✅ All gates operational
  * ✅ Hallucination rate <5%
  * ✅ Quality metrics public
@@ -881,7 +881,6 @@
  ==== API Security ====
  **Rate Limiting:**
--
  * **Analysis endpoints:** 100 requests/hour per IP
  * **Read endpoints:** 1,000 requests/hour per IP
  * **Search:** 500 requests/hour per IP
@@ -889,24 +889,21 @@
  * **Burst protection:** Max 10 requests/second
  **Authentication & Authorization:**
--
  * **API Keys:** Required for programmatic access
  * **JWT tokens:** For user sessions (1-hour expiry)
  * **OAuth2:** For third-party integrations
  * **Role-Based Access Control (RBAC):**
--* Public: Read-only access to published claims
--* Contributor: Submit claims, provide evidence
--* Moderator: Review contributions, manage quality
--* Admin: System configuration, user management
++  * Public: Read-only access to published claims
++  * Contributor: Submit claims, provide evidence
++  * Moderator: Review contributions, manage quality
++  * Admin: System configuration, user management
  **CORS Policies:**
--
  * Whitelist approved domains only
  * No wildcard origins in production
  * Credentials required for sensitive endpoints
  **Input Sanitization:**
--
  * Validate all user input against schemas
  * Sanitize HTML/JavaScript in text submissions
  * Prevent SQL injection (use parameterized queries)
@@ -914,12 +914,11 @@
  * Max request size: 10MB
  * File upload restrictions: Whitelist file types, scan for malware
------
++---
  ==== Data Security ====
  **Encryption at Rest:**
--
  * Database encryption using AES-256
  * Encrypted backups
  * Key management via cloud provider KMS (AWS KMS, Google Cloud KMS)
@@ -926,7 +926,6 @@
  * Regular key rotation (90-day cycle)
  **Encryption in Transit:**
--
  * HTTPS/TLS 1.3 only (no TLS 1.0/1.1)
  * Strong cipher suites only
  * HSTS (HTTP Strict Transport Security) enabled
@@ -933,7 +933,6 @@
  * Certificate pinning for mobile apps
  **Secure Credential Storage:**
--
  * Passwords hashed with bcrypt (cost factor 12+)
  * API keys encrypted in database
  * Secrets stored in environment variables (never in code)
@@ -940,13 +940,12 @@
  * Use secrets manager (AWS Secrets Manager, HashiCorp Vault)
  **Data Privacy:**
--
  * Minimal data collection (privacy by design)
  * User data deletion on request (GDPR compliance)
  * PII encryption in database
  * Anonymize logs (no PII in log files)
------
++---
  ==== Application Security ====
@@ -964,7 +964,6 @@
 . **Server-Side Request Forgery:** URL validation, whitelist domains
  **Security Headers:**
--
  * `Content-Security-Policy`: Strict CSP to prevent XSS
  * `X-Frame-Options`: DENY (prevent clickjacking)
  * `X-Content-Type-Options`: nosniff
@@ -972,7 +972,6 @@
  * `Permissions-Policy`: Restrict browser features
  **Dependency Vulnerability Scanning:**
--
  * **Tools:** Snyk, Dependabot, npm audit, pip-audit
  * **Frequency:** Daily automated scans
  * **Action:** Patch critical vulnerabilities within 24 hours
@@ -979,34 +979,30 @@
  * **Policy:** No known high/critical CVEs in production
  **Security Audits:**
--
  * **Internal:** Quarterly security reviews
  * **External:** Annual penetration testing by certified firm
  * **Bug Bounty:** Public bug bounty program (V1.1+)
  * **Compliance:** SOC 2 Type II certification target (V1.5)
------
++---
  ==== Operational Security ====
  **DDoS Protection:**
--
  * CloudFlare or AWS Shield
  * Rate limiting at CDN layer
  * Automatic IP blocking for abuse patterns
  **Monitoring & Alerting:**
--
  * Real-time security event monitoring
  * Alerts for:
--* Failed login attempts (>5 in 10 minutes)
--* API abuse patterns
--* Unusual data access patterns
--* Security scan detections
++  * Failed login attempts (>5 in 10 minutes)
++  * API abuse patterns
++  * Unusual data access patterns
++  * Security scan detections
  * Integration with SIEM (Security Information and Event Management)
  **Incident Response:**
--
  * Documented incident response plan
  * Security incident classification (P1-P4)
  * On-call rotation for security issues
@@ -1014,18 +1014,16 @@
  * Public disclosure policy (coordinated disclosure)
  **Backup & Recovery:**
--
  * Daily encrypted backups
  * 30-day retention period
  * Tested recovery procedures (quarterly)
  * Disaster recovery plan (RTO: 4 hours, RPO: 1 hour)
------
++---
  ==== Compliance & Standards ====
  **GDPR Compliance:**
--
  * User consent management
  * Right to access data
  * Right to deletion
@@ -1033,7 +1033,6 @@
  * Privacy policy published
  **Accessibility:**
--
  * WCAG 2.1 AA compliance
  * Screen reader compatibility
  * Keyboard navigation
@@ -1040,7 +1040,6 @@
  * Alt text for images
  **Browser Support:**
--
  * Modern browsers only (Chrome/Edge/Firefox/Safari latest 2 versions)
  * No IE11 support
@@ -1055,6 +1055,7 @@
  * ✅ Incident response plan documented and tested
  * ✅ 95% uptime over 30-day period
++
  === NFR13: Quality Metrics Transparency ===
  **Fulfills:** User trust, transparency, continuous improvement, IFCN methodology transparency
@@ -1069,18 +1069,16 @@
  **Core Metrics to Display:**
--* \\
--** \\
--**1. Verdict Quality Metrics
++**1. Verdict Quality Metrics**
  **TIGERScore (Fact-Checking Quality):**
--
  * **Definition:** Measures how well generated verdicts match expert fact-checker judgments
  * **Scale:** 0-100 (higher is better)
  * **Calculation:** Using TIGERScore framework (Truth-conditional accuracy, Informativeness, Generality, Evaluativeness, Relevance)
  * **Target:** Average ≥80 for production release
  * **Display:**
--{{code}}Verdict Quality (TIGERScore):
++{{code}}
++Verdict Quality (TIGERScore):
  Overall: 84.2 ▲ (+2.1 from last month)
  Distribution:
@@ -1088,18 +1088,19 @@
    Good (60-80): 28%
    Needs Improvement (<60): 5%
--Trend: [Graph showing improvement over time]{{/code}}
++Trend: [Graph showing improvement over time]
++{{/code}}
  **2. Hallucination & Faithfulness Metrics**
  **AlignScore (Faithfulness to Evidence):**
--
  * **Definition:** Measures how well verdicts align with actual evidence content
  * **Scale:** 0-1 (higher is better)
  * **Purpose:** Detect AI hallucinations (making claims not supported by evidence)
  * **Target:** Average ≥0.85, hallucination rate <5%
  * **Display:**
--{{code}}Evidence Faithfulness (AlignScore):
++{{code}}
++Evidence Faithfulness (AlignScore):
  Average: 0.87 ▼ (-0.02 from last month)
  Hallucination Rate: 4.2%
@@ -1106,24 +1106,24 @@
    - Claims without evidence support: 3.1%
    - Misrepresented evidence: 1.1%
--Action: Prompt engineering review scheduled{{/code}}
++Action: Prompt engineering review scheduled
++{{/code}}
  **3. Evidence Quality Metrics**
  **Source Reliability:**
--
  * Average source quality score (0-1 scale)
  * Distribution of high/medium/low quality sources
  * Publisher track record trends
  **Evidence Coverage:**
--
  * Average number of sources per claim
  * Percentage of claims with ≥2 sources (EFCSN minimum)
  * Geographic diversity of sources
  **Display:**
--{{code}}Evidence Quality:
++{{code}}
++Evidence Quality:
  Average Sources per Claim: 4.2
  Claims with ≥2 sources: 94% (EFCSN compliant)
@@ -1133,23 +1133,24 @@
    Medium quality (0.5-0.8): 43%
    Low quality (<0.5): 9%
--Geographic Diversity: 23 countries represented{{/code}}
++Geographic Diversity: 23 countries represented
++{{/code}}
  **4. Contributor Consensus Metrics** (when human reviewers involved)
  **Inter-Rater Reliability (IRR):**
--
  * **Calculation:** Cohen's Kappa or Fleiss' Kappa for multiple raters
  * **Scale:** 0-1 (higher is better)
  * **Interpretation:**
--* >0.8: Almost perfect agreement
--* 0.6-0.8: Substantial agreement
--* 0.4-0.6: Moderate agreement
--* <0.4: Poor agreement
++  * >0.8: Almost perfect agreement
++  * 0.6-0.8: Substantial agreement
++  * 0.4-0.6: Moderate agreement
++  * <0.4: Poor agreement
  * **Target:** Maintain ≥0.7 (substantial agreement)
  **Display:**
--{{code}}Contributor Consensus:
++{{code}}
++Contributor Consensus:
  Inter-Rater Reliability (IRR): 0.73 (Substantial agreement)
    - Verdict agreement: 78%
@@ -1157,9 +1157,10 @@
    - Scenario structure agreement: 69%
  Cases requiring moderator review: 12
--Moderator override rate: 8%{{/code}}
++Moderator override rate: 8%
++{{/code}}
------
++---
  ==== Quality Dashboard Implementation ====
@@ -1166,7 +1166,6 @@
  **Dashboard Location:** `/quality-metrics`
  **Update Frequency:**
--
  * **POC2:** Weekly manual updates
  * **Beta 0:** Daily automated updates
  * **V1.0:** Real-time metrics (updated hourly)
@@ -1216,7 +1216,7 @@
  {{/code}}
------
++---
  ==== Continuous Improvement Feedback Loop ====
@@ -1223,36 +1223,31 @@
  **How Metrics Inform AKEL Improvements:**
 . **Identify Weak Areas:**
++   * Low TIGERScore → Review prompt engineering
++   * High hallucination → Strengthen evidence grounding
++   * Low IRR → Clarify evaluation criteria
--* Low TIGERScore → Review prompt engineering
--* High hallucination → Strengthen evidence grounding
--* Low IRR → Clarify evaluation criteria
--
 . **A/B Testing Integration:**
++   * Test prompt variations
++   * Measure impact on quality metrics
++   * Deploy winners automatically
--* Test prompt variations
--* Measure impact on quality metrics
--* Deploy winners automatically
--
 . **Alert Thresholds:**
++   * TIGERScore drops below 75 → Alert team
++   * Hallucination rate exceeds 7% → Pause auto-publishing
++   * IRR below 0.6 → Moderator training needed
--* TIGERScore drops below 75 → Alert team
--* Hallucination rate exceeds 7% → Pause auto-publishing
--* IRR below 0.6 → Moderator training needed
--
 . **Monthly Quality Reviews:**
++   * Analyze trends
++   * Identify systematic issues
++   * Plan prompt improvements
++   * Update AKEL models
--* Analyze trends
--* Identify systematic issues
--* Plan prompt improvements
--* Update AKEL models
++---
------
--
  ==== Metric Calculation Details ====
  **TIGERScore Implementation:**
--
  * Reference: https://github.com/TIGER-AI-Lab/TIGERScore
  * Input: Generated verdict + reference verdict (from expert)
  * Output: 0-100 score across 5 dimensions
@@ -1259,7 +1259,6 @@
  * Requires: Test set of expert-reviewed claims (minimum 100)
  **AlignScore Implementation:**
--
  * Reference: https://github.com/yuh-zha/AlignScore
  * Input: Generated verdict + source evidence text
  * Output: 0-1 faithfulness score
@@ -1266,12 +1266,11 @@
  * Calculation: Semantic alignment between claim and evidence
  **Source Quality Scoring:**
--
  * Use existing source reliability database (e.g., NewsGuard, MBFC)
  * Factor in: Publication history, corrections record, transparency
  * Scale: 0-1 (weighted average across sources)
------
++---
  ==== Integration Points ====
@@ -1297,28 +1297,26 @@
  For full traceability matrix showing which requirements fulfill which user needs, see:
--* [[User Needs>>Archive.FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.User Needs.WebHome]] - Section 8 includes comprehensive mapping tables
++* [[User Needs>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.User Needs.WebHome]] - Section 8 includes comprehensive mapping tables
  == 14. Related Pages ==
  **Non-Functional Requirements (see Section 9):**
--
  * [[NFR11 — AKEL Quality Assurance Framework>>#NFR11]]
  * [[NFR12 — Security Controls>>#NFR12]]
  * [[NFR13 — Quality Metrics Transparency>>#NFR13]]
  **Other Requirements:**
--
--* [[User Needs>>Archive.FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.User Needs.WebHome]]
++* [[User Needs>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.User Needs.WebHome]]
  * [[V1.0 Requirements>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.V10.]]
  * [[Gap Analysis>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.GapAnalysis]]
--* **[[User Needs>>Archive.FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.User Needs.WebHome]]** - What users need (drives these requirements)
--* [[Architecture>>Archive.FactHarbor.Specification.Architecture.WebHome]] - How requirements are implemented
--* [[Data Model>>Archive.FactHarbor.Specification.Data Model.WebHome]] - Data structures supporting requirements
++* **[[User Needs>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.User Needs.WebHome]]** - What users need (drives these requirements)
++* [[Architecture>>FactHarbor.Specification.Architecture.WebHome]] - How requirements are implemented
++* [[Data Model>>FactHarbor.Specification.Data Model.WebHome]] - Data structures supporting requirements
  * [[Workflows>>FactHarbor.Specification.Workflows.WebHome]] - User interaction workflows
--* [[AKEL>>Archive.FactHarbor.Specification.AI Knowledge Extraction Layer (AKEL).WebHome]] - AI system fulfilling automation requirements
--* [[Global Rules>>Archive.FactHarbor.Organisation.How-We-Work-Together.GlobalRules.WebHome]]
++* [[AKEL>>FactHarbor.Specification.AI Knowledge Extraction Layer (AKEL).WebHome]] - AI system fulfilling automation requirements
++* [[Global Rules>>FactHarbor.Organisation.How-We-Work-Together.GlobalRules.WebHome]]
  * [[Privacy Policy>>FactHarbor.Organisation.How-We-Work-Together.Privacy-Policy]]
  = V0.9.70 Additional Requirements =
@@ -1378,7 +1378,6 @@
  **FactHarbor-Specific Mapping:**
  **Likelihood Score to Rating Scale:**
--
  * 80-100% likelihood → 5 (Highly Supported)
  * 60-79% likelihood → 4 (Supported)
  * 40-59% likelihood → 3 (Mixed/Uncertain)
@@ -1386,7 +1386,6 @@
  * 0-19% likelihood → 1 (Refuted)
  **Multiple Scenarios Handling:**
--
  * If claim has multiple scenarios with different verdicts, generate **separate ClaimReview** for each scenario
  * Add `disambiguatingDescription` field explaining scenario context
  * Example: "Scenario: If interpreted as referring to 2023 data..."
@@ -1419,6 +1419,7 @@
  * ✅ All required fields populated with correct data types
  * ✅ Handles multi-scenario claims correctly (separate ClaimReview per scenario)
++
  === FR45: User Corrections Notification System ===
  **Fulfills:** IFCN Principle 5 (Open & Honest Corrections), EFCSN compliance
@@ -1440,9 +1440,7 @@
  ==== Notification Mechanisms ====
--* \\
--** \\
--**1. In-Page Banner:
++**1. In-Page Banner:**
  Display prominent banner on claim page:
@@ -1462,10 +1462,10 @@
  * Public changelog at `/claims/{id}/corrections`
  * Displays for each correction:
--* Date/time of correction
--* What changed (before/after comparison)
--* Why changed (reason if provided)
--* Who made change (AKEL auto-update vs. contributor override)
++  * Date/time of correction
++  * What changed (before/after comparison)
++  * Why changed (reason if provided)
++  * Who made change (AKEL auto-update vs. contributor override)
  **3. Email Notifications (opt-in):**
@@ -1509,6 +1509,7 @@
  * ✅ Mobile-responsive banner design
  * ✅ Accessible (screen reader compatible)
++
  === FR46: Image Verification System ===
  **Fulfills:** UN-27 (Visual Claim Verification)
@@ -1526,25 +1526,23 @@
  **Purpose:** Find earlier uses of the image to verify context
  **Implementation:**
--
  * Integrate APIs:
--* **Google Vision AI** (reverse search)
--* **TinEye** (oldest known uses)
--* **Bing Visual Search** (broad coverage)
++  * **Google Vision AI** (reverse search)
++  * **TinEye** (oldest known uses)
++  * **Bing Visual Search** (broad coverage)
  **Process:**
--
 . Extract image from claim or user upload
 . Query multiple reverse search services
 . Analyze results for:
++   * Earliest known publication
++   * Original context (what was it really showing?)
++   * Publication timeline
++   * Geographic spread
--* Earliest known publication
--* Original context (what was it really showing?)
--* Publication timeline
--* Geographic spread
--
  **Output:**
--{{code}}Reverse Image Search Results:
++{{code}}
++Reverse Image Search Results:
  Earliest known use: 2019-03-15 (5 years before claim)
  Original context: "Photo from 2019 flooding in Mumbai"
@@ -1557,9 +1557,10 @@
  • 2020-07-22: Bangladesh monsoon
  • 2024-10-15: Current claim (misattributed)
--[View full timeline]{{/code}}
++[View full timeline]
++{{/code}}
------
++---
  **Method 2: AI Manipulation Detection**
@@ -1566,41 +1566,36 @@
  **Purpose:** Detect deepfakes, face swaps, and digital alterations
  **Implementation:**
--
  * Integrate detection services:
--* **Sensity AI** (deepfake detection)
--* **Reality Defender** (multimodal analysis)
--* **AWS Rekognition** (face detection inconsistencies)
++  * **Sensity AI** (deepfake detection)
++  * **Reality Defender** (multimodal analysis)
++  * **AWS Rekognition** (face detection inconsistencies)
  **Detection Categories:**
--
 . **Face Manipulation:**
++   * Deepfake face swaps
++   * Expression manipulation
++   * Identity replacement
--* Deepfake face swaps
--* Expression manipulation
--* Identity replacement
--
 . **Image Manipulation:**
++   * Copy-paste artifacts
++   * Clone stamp detection
++   * Content-aware fill detection
++   * JPEG compression inconsistencies
--* Copy-paste artifacts
--* Clone stamp detection
--* Content-aware fill detection
--* JPEG compression inconsistencies
--
 . **AI Generation:**
++   * Detect fully AI-generated images
++   * Identify generation artifacts
++   * Check for model signatures
--* Detect fully AI-generated images
--* Identify generation artifacts
--* Check for model signatures
--
  **Confidence Scoring:**
--
  * **HIGH (80-100%):** Strong evidence of manipulation
  * **MEDIUM (50-79%):** Suspicious artifacts detected
  * **LOW (0-49%):** Minor inconsistencies or inconclusive
  **Output:**
--{{code}}Manipulation Analysis:
++{{code}}
++Manipulation Analysis:
  Face Manipulation: LOW RISK (12%)
  Image Editing: MEDIUM RISK (64%)
@@ -1609,9 +1609,10 @@
  AI Generation: LOW RISK (8%)
--⚠️ Possible manipulation detected. Manual review recommended.{{/code}}
++⚠️ Possible manipulation detected. Manual review recommended.
++{{/code}}
------
++---
  **Method 3: Metadata Analysis (EXIF)**
@@ -1618,7 +1618,6 @@
  **Purpose:** Extract technical details that may reveal manipulation or misattribution
  **Extracted Data:**
--
  * **Camera/Device:** Make, model, software
  * **Timestamps:** Original date, modification dates
  * **Location:** GPS coordinates (if present)
@@ -1626,7 +1626,6 @@
  * **File Properties:** Resolution, compression, format conversions
  **Red Flags:**
--
  * Metadata completely stripped (suspicious)
  * Timestamp conflicts with claimed date
  * GPS location conflicts with claimed location
@@ -1634,7 +1634,8 @@
  * Creation date after modification date (impossible)
  **Output:**
--{{code}}Image Metadata:
++{{code}}
++Image Metadata:
  Camera: iPhone 14 Pro
  Original date: 2023-08-12 14:32:15
@@ -1646,20 +1646,19 @@
  Claim says: "Taken in Los Angeles"
  EXIF says: New York City
--⚠️ Edited 14 months after capture{{/code}}
++⚠️ Edited 14 months after capture
++{{/code}}
------
++---
  ==== Verification Workflow ====
  **Automatic Triggers:**
--
 . User submits claim with image
 . Article being analyzed contains images
 . Social media post includes photos
  **Process:**
--
 . Extract images from content
 . Run all 3 verification methods in parallel
 . Aggregate results into confidence score
@@ -1694,16 +1694,14 @@
  ==== Cost Considerations ====
  **API Costs (estimated per image):**
--
  * Google Vision AI: $0.001-0.003
  * TinEye: $0.02 (commercial API)
  * Sensity AI: $0.05-0.10
  * AWS Rekognition: $0.001-0.002
--**Total per image:** $0.07-0.15**
++**Total per image:** ~$0.07-0.15
  **Mitigation Strategies:**
--
  * Cache results for duplicate images
  * Use free tier quotas where available
  * Prioritize higher-value claims for deep analysis
@@ -1718,229 +1718,29 @@
  * ✅ Mobile-friendly image comparison interface
  * ✅ False positive rate <15%
++
  === FR47: Archive.org Integration ===
--**Priority:** CRITICAL
--**Fulfills:** Evidence persistence, FR5 (Evidence linking)
--**Phase:** V1.0
++Auto-save evidence sources to Wayback Machine.
--**Purpose:** Ensure evidence remains accessible even if original sources are deleted.
++**Milestone:** Beta 0
--**Specification:**
++=== FR48: Safety Framework for Contributors ===
--**Automatic Archiving:**
++Protect contributors from harassment and legal threats.
--When AKEL links evidence:
++**Milestone:** V1.1
--1. Check if URL already archived (Wayback Machine API)
--2. If not, submit for archiving (Save Page Now API)
--3. Store both original URL and archive URL
--4. Display both to users
++=== FR49: A/B Testing Framework ===
--**Archive Display:**
++Test AKEL approaches and UI designs systematically.
--{{code}}
--Evidence Source: [Original URL]
--Archived: [Archive.org URL] (Captured: [date])
++**Milestone:** V1.0
--[View Original] [View Archive]
--{{/code}}
++=== FR50: OSINT Toolkit Integration ===
--**Fallback Logic:**
--* If original URL unavailable → Auto-redirect to archive
--* If archive unavailable → Display warning
--* If both unavailable → Flag for manual review
--**API Integration:**
--
--* Use Wayback Machine Availability API
--* Use Save Page Now API (SPNv2)
--* Rate limiting: 15 requests/minute (Wayback limit)
--
--**Acceptance Criteria:**
--
--* ✅ All evidence URLs auto-archived
--* ✅ Archive links displayed to users
--* ✅ Fallback to archive if original unavailable
--* ✅ API rate limits respected
--* ✅ Archive status visible in evidence display
--
--== Category 4: Community Safety ==
--
-- FR48: Contributor Safety Framework ===
--
--**Priority:** CRITICAL
--**Fulfills:** UN-28 (Safe contribution environment)
--**Phase:** V1.0
--
--**Purpose:** Protect contributors from harassment, doxxing, and coordinated attacks.
--
--**Specification:**
--
--* \\
--** \\
--**1. Privacy Protection:
--
--* **Optional Pseudonymity:** Contributors can use pseudonyms
--* **Email Privacy:** Emails never displayed publicly
--* **Profile Privacy:** Contributors control what's public
--* **IP Logging:** Only for abuse prevention, not public
--
--**2. Harassment Prevention:**
--
--* **Automated Toxicity Detection:** Flag abusive comments
--* **Personal Information Detection:** Auto-block doxxing attempts
--* **Coordinated Attack Detection:** Identify brigading patterns
--* **Rapid Response:** Moderator alerts for harassment
--
--**3. Safety Features:**
--
--* **Block Users:** Contributors can block harassers
--* **Private Contributions:** Option to contribute anonymously
--* **Report Harassment:** One-click harassment reporting
--* **Safety Resources:** Links to support resources
--
--**4. Moderator Tools:**
--
--* **Quick Ban:** Immediately block abusers
--* **Pattern Detection:** Identify coordinated attacks
--* **Appeal Process:** Fair review of moderation actions
--* **Escalation:** Serious threats escalated to authorities
--
--**5. Trusted Contributor Protection:**
--
--* **Enhanced Privacy:** Additional protection for high-profile contributors
--* **Verification:** Optional identity verification (not public)
--* **Legal Support:** Resources for contributors facing legal threats
--
--**Acceptance Criteria:**
--
--* ✅ Pseudonyms supported
--* ✅ Toxicity detection active
--* ✅ Doxxing auto-blocked
--* ✅ Harassment reporting functional
--* ✅ Moderator tools implemented
--* ✅ Safety policy published
--
--== Category 5: Continuous Improvement ==
--
-- FR49: A/B Testing Framework ===
--
--**Priority:** CRITICAL
--**Fulfills:** Continuous system improvement
--**Phase:** V1.0
--
--**Purpose:** Test and measure improvements to AKEL prompts, algorithms, and workflows.
--
--**Specification:**
--
--**Test Capabilities:**
--
--1. **Prompt Variations:**
--
--* Test different claim extraction prompts
--* Test different verdict generation prompts
--* Measure: Accuracy, clarity, completeness
--
--2. **Algorithm Variations:**
--
--* Test different source scoring algorithms
--* Test different confidence calculations
--* Measure: Audit accuracy, user satisfaction
--
--3. **Workflow Variations:**
--
--* Test different quality gate thresholds
--* Test different risk tier assignments
--* Measure: Publication rate, quality scores
--
--**Implementation:**
--
--* **Traffic Split:** 50/50 or 90/10 splits
--* **Randomization:** Consistent per claim (not per user)
--* **Metrics Collection:** Automatic for all variants
--* **Statistical Significance:** Minimum sample size calculation
--* **Rollout:** Winner promoted to 100% traffic
--
--**A/B Test Workflow:**
--
--{{code}}
--1. Hypothesis: "New prompt improves claim extraction"
--2. Design test: Control vs. Variant
--3. Define metrics: Extraction accuracy, completeness
--4. Run test: 7-14 days, minimum 100 claims each
--5. Analyze results: Statistical significance?
--6. Decision: Deploy winner or iterate
--{{/code}}
--
--**Acceptance Criteria:**
--
--* ✅ A/B testing framework implemented
--* ✅ Can test prompt variations
--* ✅ Can test algorithm variations
--* ✅ Metrics automatically collected
--* ✅ Statistical significance calculated
--* ✅ Results inform system improvements
--
--=== FR54: Evidence Deduplication ===
--
--**Priority:** CRITICAL (POC2/Beta)
--**Fulfills:** Accurate evidence counting, quality metrics
--**Phase:** POC2, Beta 0, V1.0
--
--**Purpose:** Avoid counting the same source multiple times when it appears in different forms.
--
--**Specification:**
--
--**Deduplication Logic:**
--
--1. **URL Normalization:**
--
--* Remove tracking parameters (?utm_source=...)
--* Normalize http/https
--* Normalize www/non-www
--* Handle redirects
--
--2. **Content Similarity:**
--
--* If two sources have >90% text similarity → Same source
--* If one is subset of other → Same source
--* Use fuzzy matching for minor differences
--
--3. **Cross-Domain Syndication:**
--
--* Detect wire service content (AP, Reuters)
--* Mark as single source if syndicated
--* Count original publication only
--
--**Display:**
--
--{{code}}
--Evidence Sources (3 unique, 5 total):
--
--1. Original Article (NYTimes)
--   - Also appeared in: WashPost, Guardian (syndicated)
--
--2. Research Paper (Nature)
--
--3. Official Statement (WHO)
--{{/code}}
--
--**Acceptance Criteria:**
--
--* ✅ URL normalization works
--* ✅ Content similarity detected
--* ✅ Syndicated content identified
--* ✅ Unique vs. total counts accurate
--* ✅ Improves evidence quality metrics
--
--== Additional Requirements (Lower Priority) ==
--
-- FR50: OSINT Toolkit Integration ===
--
--
--
  **Fulfills:** Advanced media verification
  **Phase:** V1.1
@@ -1947,7 +1947,6 @@
  **Purpose:** Integrate open-source intelligence tools for advanced verification.
  **Tools to Integrate:**
--
  * InVID/WeVerify (video verification)
  * Bellingcat toolkit
  * Additional TBD based on V1.0 learnings
@@ -1962,7 +1962,6 @@
  **Purpose:** Verify video-based claims.
  **Specification:**
--
  * Keyframe extraction
  * Reverse video search
  * Deepfake detection (AI-powered)
@@ -1979,7 +1979,6 @@
  **Purpose:** Teach users to identify misinformation.
  **Specification:**
--
  * Interactive tutorials
  * Practice exercises
  * Detection quizzes
@@ -1995,12 +1995,12 @@
  **Purpose:** Share findings with IFCN/EFCSN members.
  **Specification:**
--
  * API for fact-checking organizations
  * Structured data exchange
  * Privacy controls
  * Attribution requirements
++
  == Summary ==
  **V1.0 Critical Requirements (Must Have):**
@@ -2023,6 +2023,7 @@
  * FR52: Detection Training
  * FR53: Cross-Org Sharing
++
  **Total:** 11 critical requirements for V1.0
  === FR54: Evidence Deduplication ===
@@ -2039,24 +2039,21 @@
  **Deduplication Logic:**
 . **URL Normalization:**
++   * Remove tracking parameters (?utm_source=...)
++   * Normalize http/https
++   * Normalize www/non-www
++   * Handle redirects
--* Remove tracking parameters (?utm_source=...)
--* Normalize http/https
--* Normalize www/non-www
--* Handle redirects
--
 . **Content Similarity:**
++   * If two sources have >90% text similarity → Same source
++   * If one is subset of other → Same source
++   * Use fuzzy matching for minor differences
--* If two sources have >90% text similarity → Same source
--* If one is subset of other → Same source
--* Use fuzzy matching for minor differences
--
 . **Cross-Domain Syndication:**
++   * Detect wire service content (AP, Reuters)
++   * Mark as single source if syndicated
++   * Count original publication only
--* Detect wire service content (AP, Reuters)
--* Mark as single source if syndicated
--* Count original publication only
--
  **Display:**
  {{code}}
@@ -2078,9 +2078,8 @@
  * ✅ Unique vs. total counts accurate
  * ✅ Improves evidence quality metrics
--== Additional Requirements (Lower Priority) ==
-- FR7: Automated Verdicts (Enhanced with Quality Gates) ===
++== Additional Requirements (Lower Priority) ===== FR7: Automated Verdicts (Enhanced with Quality Gates) ===
  **POC1+ Enhancement:**
@@ -2102,7 +2102,6 @@
  {{/code}}
  **Updated Verdict States:**
--
  * PUBLISHED
  * INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE
  * NON_FACTUAL_CLAIM
@@ -2124,3 +2124,4 @@
    Avg Source Quality: 0.73
    Quality Score: 8.5/10
  {{/code}}
++

Changes for page Requirements

Summary

Details

Applications

Navigation

Need help?