POC1: Core Workflow with Quality Gates

Phase Goal: Prove AKEL can produce credible, quality outputs without manual intervention

Success Metric: <10% hallucination rate, quality gates prevent low-confidence publications

1. Overview

POC1 validates that the core AKEL workflow (Article → Claims → Verdicts) can produce trustworthy fact-checking analyses automatically. This phase implements 2 critical quality gates to prevent low-quality outputs from being published.

Key Innovation: Quality validation BEFORE publication, not after

What We're Proving:

• AKEL can reliably extract factual claims from articles
• AKEL can generate credible verdicts with proper evidence
• Quality gates prevent hallucinations and low-confidence outputs
• Fully automated approach is viable

2. Scope

In Scope

• Core AKEL workflow (claim extraction, verdict generation)
• Gate 1: Claim Validation (factual vs. opinion/prediction)
• Gate 4: Verdict Confidence Assessment (minimum 2 sources, quality thresholds)
• Basic UI to display results
• Manual quality tracking

Out of Scope (Deferred to POC2+)

• User accounts / authentication
• Corrections system
• Search engine optimization (ClaimReview schema)
• Image verification
• API endpoints
• Archive.org integration
• Security hardening
• A/B testing
• Gates 2 & 3 (Evidence relevance, Scenario coherence)

3. Requirements

3.1 NFR11: Quality Assurance Framework (POC1 Lite Version)

Priority: CRITICAL - Core POC1 Requirement  
Fulfills: AI safety, credibility, prevents embarrassing failures

Specification:

AKEL must validate outputs before displaying to users. POC1 implements a 2-gate subset of the full NFR11 framework.

Gate 1: Claim Validation

Purpose: Ensure extracted claims are factual assertions, not opinions or predictions

Validation Checks:

1. Factual Statement Test: Can this be verified with evidence?
   2. Opinion Detection: Contains hedging language? ("I think", "probably", "best", "worst")
   3. Specificity Score: Contains concrete details? (names, numbers, dates, locations)
   4. Future Prediction Test: Makes claims about future events?

Pass Criteria:
- isFactual: true
- opinionScore: ≤ 0.3
- specificityScore: ≥ 0.3
- claimType: FACTUAL

Action if Failed:

• Flag as "Non-verifiable: Opinion/Prediction/Ambiguous"
• Do NOT generate scenarios or verdicts
• Display explanation to user

Target: 0% opinion statements processed as facts

Gate 4: Verdict Confidence Assessment

Purpose: Only publish verdicts with sufficient evidence and confidence

Validation Checks:

1. Evidence Count: Minimum 2 independent sources
   2. Source Quality: Average reliability ≥ 0.6 (on 0-1 scale)
   3. Evidence Agreement: % supporting vs. contradicting ≥ 0.6
   4. Uncertainty Factors: Count of hedging statements in reasoning

Confidence Tiers:
HIGH (80-100%):
 - ≥3 sources
 - ≥0.7 average quality
 - ≥80% agreement
 
MEDIUM (50-79%):
 - ≥2 sources
 - ≥0.6 average quality
 - ≥60% agreement
 
LOW (0-49%):
 - ≥2 sources BUT low quality/agreement
 
INSUFFICIENT:
 - <2 sources → DO NOT PUBLISH

POC1 Publication Rule:

• Minimum MEDIUM confidence required
• Blocked verdicts show "Insufficient Evidence" message

Target: 0% verdicts published with <2 sources

3.2 Modified FR7: Automated Verdicts (Enhanced)

Enhancement for POC1:

After AKEL generates a verdict, it must pass through the quality validation pipeline:

Updated Verdict States:

• PUBLISHED - Passed all gates
• INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE - Failed Gate 4
• NON_FACTUAL_CLAIM - Failed Gate 1
• PROCESSING - In progress
• ERROR - System failure

3.3 Modified FR4: Analysis Summary (Enhanced)

Enhancement for POC1:

Analysis Summary must now display quality metadata:

4. Success Criteria

POC1 is considered SUCCESSFUL if:

✅ Functional:

• Processes diverse test articles without crashes
• Generates verdicts for all factual claims
• Blocks all non-factual claims (0% pass through)
• Blocks all insufficient-evidence verdicts (0% with <2 sources)

✅ Quality:

• Hallucination rate <10% (manual verification)
• 0 verdicts with <2 sources published
• 0 opinion statements published as facts
• Average quality score ≥7.0/10

✅ Performance:

• Processing time reasonable for POC demonstration
• Quality gates execute efficiently
• UI displays results clearly

✅ Learnings:

• Identified prompt engineering improvements
• Documented AKEL strengths/weaknesses
• Validated threshold values
• Clear path to POC2 defined

5. Decision Gates

POC1 → POC2 Decision:

• IF hallucination rate >10% → Pause, improve prompts before POC2
• IF majority of claims non-processable → Rethink claim extraction approach
• IF quality gates too strict (excessive blocking) → Adjust thresholds
• IF quality gates too loose (hallucinations pass) → Tighten criteria

Only proceed to POC2 if all success criteria met

6. Architecture Notes

POC1 Simplified Architecture:

vs. Full System (Future):

POC1 Acceptable Simplifications:

• Single AKEL call (not multi-component pipeline)
• No scenarios (implicit in verdicts)
• Basic evidence linking
• 2 gates instead of 4
• No review queue

See: Architecture for details

Related Pages

• Roadmap Overview - All phases
• POC2 Requirements - Next phase
• Requirements - Full system requirements
• Architecture - System architecture
• NFR11 Full Specification - Complete quality framework

Document Status: ✅ POC1 Specification Complete - Ready for Implementation  
Version: V0.9.70