Changes for page POC Requirements (POC1 & POC2)

Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2025/12/23 18:00

From 2.1 to 2.2

From version 1.1

edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/12/23 17:44

Change comment: Imported from XAR

To version 2.1

edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/12/23 17:44

Change comment: Imported from XAR

Raw
Rendered

Summary

Page properties (3 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Title

@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
--POC Requirements
++POC Requirements (POC1 & POC2)

Parent

@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
--FactHarbor.Specification.POC.WebHome
++WebHome

Content

@@ -1,11 +1,14 @@
  = POC Requirements =
  **Status:** ✅ Approved for Development
--**Version:** 2.0 (Updated after Specification Cross-Check)
++**Version:** 3.0 (Aligned with Main Requirements)
  **Goal:** Prove that AI can extract claims and determine verdicts automatically without human intervention
-----
++{{info}}
++**Core Philosophy:** POC validates the [[Main Requirements>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.WebHome]] through simplified implementation. All POC features map to formal FR/NFR requirements.
++{{/info}}
++
  == 1. POC Overview ==
  === 1.1 What POC Tests ===
@@ -15,1345 +15,523 @@
  **What we're proving:**
  * AI can identify factual claims from text
--* AI can evaluate those claims and produce verdicts
--* Output is comprehensible and useful
--* Fully automated approach is viable
++* AI can evaluate those claims with structured evidence
++* Quality gates can filter unreliable outputs
++* The core workflow is technically feasible
--**What we're NOT testing:**
--* Scenario generation (deferred to POC2)
--* Evidence display (deferred to POC2)
--* Production scalability
--* Perfect accuracy
--* Complete feature set
++**What we're NOT proving:**
++* Production-ready reliability (that's POC2)
++* User-facing features (that's Beta 0)
++* Full IFCN compliance (that's V1.0)
-----
++=== 1.2 Requirements Mapping ===
--=== 1.2 Scenarios Deferred to POC2 ===
++POC1 implements a **subset** of the full system requirements defined in [[Main Requirements>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.WebHome]].
--**Intentional Simplification:**
++**Scope Summary:**
++* **In Scope:** 8 requirements (7 FRs + 1 NFR)
++* **Partial:** 3 NFRs (simplified versions)
++* **Out of Scope:** 19 requirements (deferred to later phases)
--Scenarios are a core component of the full FactHarbor system (Claims → Scenarios → Evidence → Verdicts), but are **deliberately excluded from POC1**.
--**Rationale:**
--* **POC1 tests:** Can AI extract claims and generate verdicts?
--* **POC2 will add:** Scenario generation and management
--* **Open questions remain:** Should scenarios be separate entities? How are they sequenced with evidence gathering? What's the optimal workflow?
++== 2. POC1 Scope ==
--**Design Decision:**
++{{success}}
++**Authoritative Source for Phase Mapping:** [[Requirements Roadmap Matrix>>Test.FactHarbor.Roadmap.Requirements-Roadmap-Matrix.WebHome]]
--Prove basic AI capability first, then add scenario complexity based on POC1 learnings. This is good engineering: test the hardest part (AI fact-checking) before adding architectural complexity.
++The Roadmap Matrix is the single source of truth for which requirements are implemented in which phases. This page provides POC1-specific implementation details only.
++{{/success}}
--**No Risk:**
++**POC1 implements these formal requirements:**
--Scenarios are additive complexity, not foundational. Deferring them to POC2 allows:
--* Faster POC1 validation
--* Learning from POC1 to inform scenario design
--* Iterative approach: fail fast if basic AI doesn't work
--* Flexibility to adjust scenario architecture based on POC1 insights
++|= Formal Req |= Implementation in POC1 |= Notes
++| **FR4** | Analysis Summary | Basic format; quality metadata deferred to POC2
++| **FR7** | Automated Verdicts | Full implementation with quality gates (NFR11)
++| **NFR11** | Quality Assurance Framework | 4 quality gates implemented
--**Full System Workflow (Future):**
--{{code}}
--Claims → Scenarios → Evidence → Verdicts
--{{/code}}
++**POC1 also implements these workflow components** (detailed as FR1-FR6 in implementation sections below)
--**POC1 Simplified Workflow:**
--{{code}}
--Claims → Verdicts (scenarios implicit in reasoning)
--{{/code}}
++{{info}}
++**Note:** FR11 (Audit Trail) and FR13 (In-Article Claim Highlighting) are deferred to Beta 0 for production readiness and user experience enhancement.
++{{/info}}:
++* Claim extraction (FR1)
++* Claim context (FR2)
++* Multiple scenarios (FR3)
++* Evidence collection (FR5)
++* Source quality assessment (FR6)
++* Time evolution tracking (FR8) - deferred to POC2
++* Audit trail (FR11) - deferred to Beta 0
++* In-article highlighting (FR13) - deferred to Beta 0
-----
++**Partial implementations:**
++* NFR1 (Explainability) - Basic only
++* NFR2 (Performance) - Functional but not optimized
++* NFR3 (Transparency) - Basic only
--== 2. POC Output Specification ==
++**Detailed POC1 implementation specifications continue below...**
--=== 2.1 Component 1: ANALYSIS SUMMARY ===
--**What:** Brief overview of findings
--**Length:** 3-5 sentences
--**Content:**
--* How many claims found
--* Distribution of verdicts
--* Overall assessment
--**Example:**
--{{code}}
--This article makes 4 claims about coffee's health effects. We found
--2 claims are well-supported, 1 is uncertain, and 1 is refuted.
--Overall assessment: mostly accurate with some exaggeration.
--{{/code}}
++== 3. POC Simplifications ==
-----
++=== 3.1 FR1: Claim Extraction (Full Implementation) ===
--=== 2.2 Component 2: CLAIMS IDENTIFICATION ===
++**Main Requirement:** AI extracts factual claims from input text
--**What:** List of factual claims extracted from article
--**Format:** Numbered list
--**Quantity:** 3-5 claims
--**Requirements:**
--* Factual claims only (not opinions/questions)
--* Clearly stated
--* Automatically extracted by AI
--
--**Example:**
--{{code}}
--CLAIMS IDENTIFIED:
--
--[1] Coffee reduces diabetes risk by 30%
--[2] Coffee improves heart health
--[3] Decaf has same benefits as regular
--[4] Coffee prevents Alzheimer's completely
--{{/code}}
--
-----
--
--=== 2.3 Component 3: CLAIMS VERDICTS ===
--
--**What:** Verdict for each claim identified
--**Format:** Per claim structure
--
--**Required Elements:**
--* **Verdict Label:** WELL-SUPPORTED / PARTIALLY SUPPORTED / UNCERTAIN / REFUTED
--* **Confidence Score:** 0-100%
--* **Brief Reasoning:** 1-3 sentences explaining why
--* **Risk Tier:** A (High) / B (Medium) / C (Low) - for demonstration
--
--**Example:**
--{{code}}
--VERDICTS:
--
--[1] WELL-SUPPORTED (85%) [Risk: C]
--Multiple studies confirm 25-30% risk reduction with regular consumption.
--
--[2] UNCERTAIN (65%) [Risk: B]
--Evidence is mixed. Some studies show benefits, others show no effect.
--
--[3] PARTIALLY SUPPORTED (60%) [Risk: C]
--Some benefits overlap, but caffeine-related benefits are reduced in decaf.
--
--[4] REFUTED (90%) [Risk: B]
--No evidence for complete prevention. Claim is significantly overstated.
--{{/code}}
--
--**Risk Tier Display:**
--* **Tier A (Red):** High Risk - Medical/Legal/Safety/Elections
--* **Tier B (Yellow):** Medium Risk - Policy/Science/Causality
--* **Tier C (Green):** Low Risk - Facts/Definitions/History
--
--**Note:** Risk tier shown for demonstration purposes in POC. Full system uses risk tiers to determine review workflow.
--
-----
--
--=== 2.4 Component 4: ARTICLE SUMMARY (Optional) ===
--
--**What:** Brief summary of original article content
--**Length:** 3-5 sentences
--**Tone:** Neutral (article's position, not FactHarbor's analysis)
--
--**Example:**
--{{code}}
--ARTICLE SUMMARY:
--
--Health News Today article discusses coffee benefits, citing studies
--on diabetes and Alzheimer's. Author highlights research linking coffee
--to disease prevention. Recommends 2-3 cups daily for optimal health.
--{{/code}}
--
-----
--
--=== 2.5 Total Output Size ===
--
--**Combined:** ~200-300 words
--* Analysis Summary: 50-70 words
--* Claims Identification: 30-50 words
--* Claims Verdicts: 100-150 words
--* Article Summary: 30-50 words (optional)
--
-----
--
--== 3. What's NOT in POC Scope ==
--
--=== 3.1 Feature Exclusions ===
--
--The following are **explicitly excluded** from POC:
--
--**Content Features:**
--* ❌ Scenarios (deferred to POC2)
--* ❌ Evidence display (supporting/opposing lists)
--* ❌ Source links (clickable references)
--* ❌ Detailed reasoning chains
--* ❌ Source quality ratings (shown but not detailed)
--* ❌ Contradiction detection (basic only)
--* ❌ Risk assessment (shown but not workflow-integrated)
--
--**Platform Features:**
--* ❌ User accounts / authentication
--* ❌ Saved history
--* ❌ Search functionality
--* ❌ Claim comparison
--* ❌ User contributions
--* ❌ Commenting system
--* ❌ Social sharing
--
--**Technical Features:**
--* ❌ Browser extensions
--* ❌ Mobile apps
--* ❌ API endpoints
--* ❌ Webhooks
--* ❌ Export features (PDF, CSV)
--
--**Quality Features:**
--* ❌ Accessibility (WCAG compliance)
--* ❌ Multilingual support
--* ❌ Mobile optimization
--* ❌ Media verification (images/videos)
--
--**Production Features:**
--* ❌ Security hardening
--* ❌ Privacy compliance (GDPR)
--* ❌ Terms of service
--* ❌ Monitoring/logging
--* ❌ Error tracking
--* ❌ Analytics
--* ❌ A/B testing
--
-----
--
--== 4. POC Simplifications vs. Full System ==
--
--=== 4.1 Architecture Comparison ===
--
--**POC Architecture (Simplified):**
--{{code}}
--User Input → Single AKEL Call → Output Display
--           (all processing)
--{{/code}}
--
--**Full System Architecture:**
--{{code}}
--User Input → Claim Extractor → Claim Classifier → Scenario Generator
--→ Evidence Summarizer → Contradiction Detector → Verdict Generator
--→ Quality Gates → Publication → Output Display
--{{/code}}
--
--**Key Differences:**
--
--|=Aspect|=POC1|=Full System
--|Processing|Single API call|Multi-component pipeline
--|Scenarios|None (implicit)|Explicit entities with versioning
--|Evidence|Basic retrieval|Comprehensive with quality scoring
--|Quality Gates|Simplified (4 basic checks)|Full validation infrastructure
--|Workflow|3 steps (input/process/output)|6 phases with gates
--|Data Model|Stateless (no database)|PostgreSQL + Redis + S3
--|Architecture|Single prompt to Claude|AKEL Orchestrator + Components
--
-----
--
--=== 4.2 Workflow Comparison ===
--
--**POC1 Workflow:**
--1. User submits text/URL
--2. Single AKEL call (all processing in one prompt)
--3. Display results
--**Total: 3 steps, ~10-18 seconds**
--
--**Full System Workflow:**
--1. **Claim Submission** (extraction, normalization, clustering)
--2. **Scenario Building** (definitions, assumptions, boundaries)
--3. **Evidence Handling** (retrieval, assessment, linking)
--4. **Verdict Creation** (synthesis, reasoning, approval)
--5. **Public Presentation** (summaries, landscapes, deep dives)
--6. **Time Evolution** (versioning, re-evaluation triggers)
--**Total: 6 phases with quality gates, ~10-30 seconds**
--
-----
--
--=== 4.3 Why POC is Simplified ===
--
--**Engineering Rationale:**
--
--1. **Test core capability first:** Can AI do basic fact-checking without humans?
--2. **Fail fast:** If AI can't generate reasonable verdicts, pivot early
--3. **Learn before building:** POC1 insights inform full architecture
--4. **Iterative approach:** Add complexity only after validating foundations
--5. **Resource efficiency:** Don't build full system if core concept fails
--
--**Acceptable Trade-offs:**
--
--* ✅ POC proves AI capability (most risky assumption)
--* ✅ POC validates user comprehension (can people understand output?)
--* ❌ POC doesn't validate full workflow (test in Beta)
--* ❌ POC doesn't validate scale (test in Beta)
--* ❌ POC doesn't validate scenario architecture (design in POC2)
--
-----
--
--=== 4.4 Gap Between POC1 and POC2/Beta ===
--
--**What needs to be built for POC2:**
--* Scenario generation component
--* Evidence Model structure (full)
--* Scenario-evidence linking
--* Multi-interpretation comparison
--* Truth landscape visualization
--
--**What needs to be built for Beta:**
--* Multi-component AKEL pipeline
--* Quality gate infrastructure
--* Review workflow system
--* Audit sampling framework
--* Production data model
--* Federation architecture (Release 1.0)
--
--**POC1 → POC2 is significant architectural expansion.**
--
-----
--
--== 5. Publication Mode & Labeling ==
--
--=== 5.1 POC Publication Mode ===
--
--**Mode:** Mode 2 (AI-Generated, No Prior Human Review)
--
--Per FactHarbor Specification Section 11 "POC v1 Behavior":
--* Produces public AI-generated output
--* No human approval gate
--* Clear AI-Generated labeling
--* All quality gates active (simplified)
--* Risk tier classification shown (demo)
--
-----
--
--=== 5.2 User-Facing Labels ===
--
--**Primary Label (top of analysis):**
--{{code}}
--╔════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
--║  [AI-GENERATED - POC/DEMO]                                ║
--║                                                            ║
--║  This analysis was produced entirely by AI and has not    ║
--║  been human-reviewed. Use for demonstration purposes.     ║
--║                                                            ║
--║  Source: AI/AKEL v1.0 (POC)                               ║
--║  Review Status: Not Reviewed (Proof-of-Concept)          ║
--║  Quality Gates: 4/4 Passed (Simplified)                  ║
--║  Last Updated: [timestamp]                                ║
--╚════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
--{{/code}}
--
--**Per-Claim Risk Labels:**
--* **[Risk: A]** 🔴 High Risk (Medical/Legal/Safety)
--* **[Risk: B]** 🟡 Medium Risk (Policy/Science)
--* **[Risk: C]** 🟢 Low Risk (Facts/Definitions)
--
-----
--
--=== 5.3 Display Requirements ===
--
--**Must Show:**
--* AI-Generated status (prominent)
--* POC/Demo disclaimer
--* Risk tier per claim
--* Confidence scores (0-100%)
--* Quality gate status (passed/failed)
--* Timestamp
--
--**Must NOT Claim:**
--* Human review
--* Production quality
--* Medical/legal advice
--* Authoritative verdicts
--* Complete accuracy
--
-----
--
--=== 5.4 Mode 2 vs. Full System Publication ===
--
--|=Element|=POC Mode 2|=Full System Mode 2|=Full System Mode 3
--|Label|AI-Generated (POC)|AI-Generated|AKEL-Generated
--|Review|None|None|Human-Reviewed
--|Quality Gates|4 (simplified)|6 (full)|6 (full) + Human
--|Audit|None (POC)|Sampling (5-50%)|Pre-publication
--|Risk Display|Demo only|Workflow-integrated|Validated
--|User Actions|View only|Flag for review|Trust rating
--
-----
--
--== 6. Quality Gates (Simplified Implementation) ==
--
--=== 6.1 Overview ===
--
--Per FactHarbor Specification Section 6, all AI-generated content must pass quality gates before publication. POC implements **simplified versions** of the 4 mandatory gates.
--
--**Full System Has 4 Gates:**
--1. Source Quality
--2. Contradiction Search (MANDATORY)
--3. Uncertainty Quantification
--4. Structural Integrity
--
--**POC Implements Simplified Versions:**
--* Focus on demonstrating concept
--* Basic implementations sufficient
--* Failures displayed to user (not blocking)
--* Full system has comprehensive validation
--
-----
--
--=== 6.2 Gate 1: Source Quality (Basic) ===
--
--**Full System Requirements:**
--* Primary sources identified and accessible
--* Source reliability scored against whitelist
--* Citation completeness verified
--* Publication dates checked
--* Author credentials validated
--
  **POC Implementation:**
--* ✅ At least 2 sources found
--* ✅ Sources accessible (URLs valid)
--* ❌ No whitelist checking
--* ❌ No credential validation
--* ❌ No comprehensive reliability scoring
++* ✅ AKEL extracts claims using LLM
++* ✅ Each claim includes original text reference
++* ✅ Claims are identified as factual/non-factual
++* ❌ No advanced claim parsing (added in POC2)
--**Pass Criteria:** ≥2 accessible sources found
++**Acceptance Criteria:**
++* Extracts 3-5 claims from typical article
++* Identifies factual vs non-factual claims
++* Quality Gate 1 validates extraction
--**Failure Handling:** Display error message, don't generate verdict
-----
++=== 3.2 FR3: Multiple Scenarios (Full Implementation) ===
--=== 6.3 Gate 2: Contradiction Search (Basic) ===
++**Main Requirement:** Generate multiple interpretation scenarios for ambiguous claims
--**Full System Requirements:**
--* Counter-evidence actively searched
--* Reservations and limitations identified
--* Alternative interpretations explored
--* Bubble detection (echo chambers, conspiracy theories)
--* Cross-cultural and international perspectives
--* Academic literature (supporting AND opposing)
--
  **POC Implementation:**
--* ✅ Basic search for counter-evidence
--* ✅ Identify obvious contradictions
--* ❌ No comprehensive academic search
--* ❌ No bubble detection
--* ❌ No systematic alternative interpretation search
--* ❌ No international perspective verification
++* ✅ AKEL generates 2-3 scenarios per claim
++* ✅ Scenarios capture different interpretations
++* ✅ Each scenario is evaluated separately
++* ✅ Verdict considers all scenarios
--**Pass Criteria:** Basic contradiction search attempted
++**Acceptance Criteria:**
++* Generates 2+ scenarios for ambiguous claims
++* Scenarios are meaningfully different
++* All scenarios are evaluated
--**Failure Handling:** Note "limited contradiction search" in output
-----
++=== 3.3 FR4: Analysis Summary (Basic Implementation) ===
--=== 6.4 Gate 3: Uncertainty Quantification (Basic) ===
++**Main Requirement:** Provide user-friendly summary of analysis
--**Full System Requirements:**
--* Confidence scores calculated for all claims/verdicts
--* Limitations explicitly stated
--* Data gaps identified and disclosed
--* Strength of evidence assessed
--* Alternative scenarios considered
--
  **POC Implementation:**
--* ✅ Confidence scores (0-100%)
--* ✅ Basic uncertainty acknowledgment
--* ❌ No detailed limitation disclosure
--* ❌ No data gap identification
--* ❌ No alternative scenario consideration (deferred to POC2)
++* ✅ Simple text summary generated
++* ❌ No rich formatting (added in Beta 0)
++* ❌ No visual elements (added in Beta 0)
++* ❌ No interactive features (added in Beta 0)
--**Pass Criteria:** Confidence score assigned
++**POC Format:**
++```
++Claim: [extracted claim]
++Scenarios: [list of scenarios]
++Evidence: [supporting/opposing evidence]
++Verdict: [probability with uncertainty]
++```
--**Failure Handling:** Show "Confidence: Unknown" if calculation fails
-----
++=== 3.4 FR5-FR6: Evidence Collection & Evaluation (Full Implementation) ===
--=== 6.5 Gate 4: Structural Integrity (Basic) ===
++**Main Requirements:**
++* FR5: Collect supporting and opposing evidence
++* FR6: Evaluate evidence source reliability
--**Full System Requirements:**
--* No hallucinations detected (fact-checking against sources)
--* Logic chain valid and traceable
--* References accessible and verifiable
--* No circular reasoning
--* Premises clearly stated
--
  **POC Implementation:**
--* ✅ Basic coherence check
--* ✅ References accessible
--* ❌ No comprehensive hallucination detection
--* ❌ No formal logic validation
--* ❌ No premise extraction and verification
++* ✅ AKEL searches for evidence (web/knowledge base)
++* ✅ **Mandatory contradiction search** (finds opposing evidence)
++* ✅ Source reliability scoring
++* ❌ No evidence deduplication (added in POC2)
++* ❌ No advanced source verification (added in POC2)
--**Pass Criteria:** Output is coherent and references are accessible
--
--**Failure Handling:** Display error message
--
-----
--
--=== 6.6 Quality Gate Display ===
--
--**POC shows simplified status:**
--{{code}}
--Quality Gates: 4/4 Passed (Simplified)
--✓ Source Quality: 3 sources found
--✓ Contradiction Search: Basic search completed
--✓ Uncertainty: Confidence scores assigned
--✓ Structural Integrity: Output coherent
--{{/code}}
--
--**If any gate fails:**
--{{code}}
--Quality Gates: 3/4 Passed (Simplified)
--✓ Source Quality: 3 sources found
--✗ Contradiction Search: Search failed - limited evidence
--✓ Uncertainty: Confidence scores assigned
--✓ Structural Integrity: Output coherent
--
--Note: This analysis has limited evidence. Use with caution.
--{{/code}}
--
-----
--
--=== 6.7 Simplified vs. Full System ===
--
--|=Gate|=POC (Simplified)|=Full System
--|Source Quality|≥2 sources accessible|Whitelist scoring, credentials, comprehensiveness
--|Contradiction|Basic search|Systematic academic + media + international
--|Uncertainty|Confidence % assigned|Detailed limitations, data gaps, alternatives
--|Structural|Coherence check|Hallucination detection, logic validation, premise check
--
--**POC Goal:** Demonstrate that quality gates are possible, not perfect implementation.
--
-----
--
--== 7. AKEL Architecture Comparison ==
--
--=== 7.1 POC AKEL (Simplified) ===
--
--**Implementation:**
--* Single Claude API call (Sonnet 4.5)
--* One comprehensive prompt
--* All processing in single request
--* No separate components
--* No orchestration layer
--
--**Prompt Structure:**
--{{code}}
--Task: Analyze this article and provide:
--
--1. Extract 3-5 factual claims
--2. For each claim:
--   - Determine verdict (WELL-SUPPORTED/PARTIALLY/UNCERTAIN/REFUTED)
--   - Assign confidence score (0-100%)
--   - Assign risk tier (A/B/C)
--   - Write brief reasoning (1-3 sentences)
--3. Generate analysis summary (3-5 sentences)
--4. Generate article summary (3-5 sentences)
--5. Run basic quality checks
--
--Return as structured JSON.
--{{/code}}
--
--**Processing Time:** 10-18 seconds (estimate)
--
-----
--
--=== 7.2 Full System AKEL (Production) ===
--
--**Architecture:**
--{{code}}
--AKEL Orchestrator
--├── Claim Extractor
--├── Claim Classifier (with risk tier assignment)
--├── Scenario Generator
--├── Evidence Summarizer
--├── Contradiction Detector
--├── Quality Gate Validator
--├── Audit Sampling Scheduler
--└── Federation Sync Adapter (Release 1.0+)
--{{/code}}
--
--**Processing:**
--* Parallel processing where possible
--* Separate component calls
--* Quality gates between phases
--* Audit sampling selection
--* Cross-node coordination (federated mode)
--
--**Processing Time:** 10-30 seconds (full pipeline)
--
-----
--
--=== 7.3 Why POC Uses Single Call ===
--
--**Advantages:**
--* ✅ Simpler to implement
--* ✅ Faster POC development
--* ✅ Easier to debug
--* ✅ Proves AI capability
--* ✅ Good enough for concept validation
--
--**Limitations:**
--* ❌ No component reusability
--* ❌ No parallel processing
--* ❌ All-or-nothing (can't partially succeed)
--* ❌ Harder to improve individual components
--* ❌ No audit sampling
--
--**Acceptable Trade-off:**
--
--POC tests "Can AI do this?" not "How should we architect it?"
--
--Full component architecture comes in Beta after POC validates concept.
--
-----
--
--=== 7.4 Evolution Path ===
--
--**POC1:** Single prompt → Prove concept
--**POC2:** Add scenario component → Test full pipeline
--**Beta:** Multi-component AKEL → Production architecture
--**Release 1.0:** Full AKEL + Federation → Scale
--
-----
--
--== 8. Functional Requirements ==
--
--=== FR-POC-1: Article Input ===
--
--**Requirement:** User can submit article for analysis
--
--**Functionality:**
--* Text input field (paste article text, up to 5000 characters)
--* URL input field (paste article URL)
--* "Analyze" button to trigger processing
--* Loading indicator during analysis
--
--**Excluded:**
--* No user authentication
--* No claim history
--* No search functionality
--* No saved templates
--
  **Acceptance Criteria:**
--* User can paste text from article
--* User can paste URL of article
--* System accepts input and triggers analysis
++* Finds 2+ supporting evidence items
++* Finds 1+ opposing evidence (if exists)
++* Sources scored for reliability
-----
--=== FR-POC-2: Claim Extraction (Fully Automated) ===
++=== 3.5 FR7: Automated Verdicts (Full Implementation) ===
--**Requirement:** AI automatically extracts 3-5 factual claims
++**Main Requirement:** AI computes verdicts with uncertainty quantification
--**Functionality:**
--* AI reads article text
--* AI identifies factual claims (not opinions/questions)
--* AI extracts 3-5 most important claims
--* System displays numbered list
++**POC Implementation:**
++* ✅ Probabilistic verdicts (0-100% confidence)
++* ✅ Uncertainty explicitly stated
++* ✅ Reasoning chain provided
++* ✅ Quality Gate 4 validates verdict confidence
--**Critical:** NO MANUAL EDITING ALLOWED
--* AI selects which claims to extract
--* AI identifies factual vs. non-factual
--* System processes claims as extracted
--* No human curation or correction
++**POC Output:**
++```
++Verdict: 70% likely true
++Uncertainty: ±15% (moderate confidence)
++Reasoning: Based on 3 high-quality sources...
++Confidence Level: MEDIUM
++```
--**Error Handling:**
--* If extraction fails: Display error message
--* User can retry with different input
--* No manual intervention to fix extraction
--
  **Acceptance Criteria:**
--* AI extracts 3-5 claims automatically
--* Claims are factual (not opinions)
--* Claims are clearly stated
--* No manual editing required
++* Verdicts include probability (0-100%)
++* Uncertainty explicitly quantified
++* Reasoning chain explains verdict
-----
--=== FR-POC-3: Verdict Generation (Fully Automated) ===
++=== 3.6 NFR11: Quality Assurance Framework (LITE VERSION) ===
--**Requirement:** AI automatically generates verdict for each claim
++**Main Requirement:** Complete quality assurance with 7 quality gates
--**Functionality:**
--* For each claim, AI:
--  * Evaluates claim based on available evidence/knowledge
--  * Determines verdict: WELL-SUPPORTED / PARTIALLY SUPPORTED / UNCERTAIN / REFUTED
--  * Assigns confidence score (0-100%)
--  * Assigns risk tier (A/B/C)
--  * Writes brief reasoning (1-3 sentences)
--* System displays verdict for each claim
++**POC Implementation:** **2 gates only**
--**Critical:** NO MANUAL EDITING ALLOWED
--* AI computes verdicts based on evidence
--* AI generates confidence scores
--* AI writes reasoning
--* No human review or adjustment
++**Quality Gate 1: Claim Validation**
++* ✅ Validates claim is factual and verifiable
++* ✅ Blocks non-factual claims (opinion/prediction/ambiguous)
++* ✅ Provides clear rejection reason
--**Error Handling:**
--* If verdict generation fails: Display error message
--* User can retry
--* No manual intervention to adjust verdicts
++**Quality Gate 4: Verdict Confidence Assessment**
++* ✅ Validates ≥2 sources found
++* ✅ Validates quality score ≥0.6
++* ✅ Blocks low-confidence verdicts
++* ✅ Provides clear rejection reason
--**Acceptance Criteria:**
--* Each claim has a verdict
--* Confidence score is displayed (0-100%)
--* Risk tier is displayed (A/B/C)
--* Reasoning is understandable (1-3 sentences)
--* Verdict is defensible given reasoning
--* All generated automatically by AI
++**Out of Scope (POC2+):**
++* ❌ Gate 2: Evidence Relevance
++* ❌ Gate 3: Scenario Coherence
++* ❌ Gate 5: Source Diversity
++* ❌ Gate 6: Reasoning Validity
++* ❌ Gate 7: Output Completeness
-----
++**Rationale:** Prove gate concept works. Add remaining gates in POC2 after validating approach.
--=== FR-POC-4: Analysis Summary (Fully Automated) ===
--**Requirement:** AI generates brief summary of analysis
++=== 3.7 NFR1-3: Performance, Scalability, Reliability (Basic) ===
--**Functionality:**
--* AI summarizes findings in 3-5 sentences:
--  * How many claims found
--  * Distribution of verdicts
--  * Overall assessment
--* System displays at top of results
++**Main Requirements:**
++* NFR1: Response time < 30 seconds
++* NFR2: Handle 1000+ concurrent users
++* NFR3: 99.9% uptime
--**Critical:** NO MANUAL EDITING ALLOWED
++**POC Implementation:**
++* ⚠️ **Response time monitored** (not optimized)
++* ⚠️ **Single-threaded processing** (no concurrency)
++* ⚠️ **Basic error handling** (no advanced retry logic)
--**Acceptance Criteria:**
--* Summary is coherent
--* Accurately reflects analysis
--* 3-5 sentences
--* Automatically generated
++**Rationale:** POC proves functionality. Performance optimization happens in POC2.
-----
++**POC Acceptance:**
++* Analysis completes (no timeout requirement)
++* Errors don't crash system
++* Basic logging in place
--=== FR-POC-5: Article Summary (Fully Automated, Optional) ===
--**Requirement:** AI generates brief summary of original article
++== 4. What's NOT in POC Scope ==
--**Functionality:**
--* AI summarizes article content (not FactHarbor's analysis)
--* 3-5 sentences
--* System displays
++=== 4.1 User-Facing Features (Beta 0+) ===
--**Note:** Optional - can skip if time limited
++{{warning}}
++**Deferred to Beta 0:**
++{{/warning}}
--**Critical:** NO MANUAL EDITING ALLOWED
++**Out of Scope:**
++* ❌ User accounts and authentication (FR8)
++* ❌ User corrections system (FR9, FR45-46)
++* ❌ Public publishing interface (FR10)
++* ❌ Social sharing (FR11)
++* ❌ Email notifications (FR12)
++* ❌ API access (FR13)
--**Acceptance Criteria:**
--* Summary is neutral (article's position)
--* Accurately reflects article content
--* 3-5 sentences
--* Automatically generated
++**Rationale:** POC validates AI capabilities. User features added in Beta 0.
-----
--=== FR-POC-6: Publication Mode Display ===
++=== 4.2 Advanced Features (V1.0+) ===
--**Requirement:** Clear labeling of AI-generated content
++**Out of Scope:**
++* ❌ IFCN compliance (FR47)
++* ❌ ClaimReview schema (FR48)
++* ❌ Archive.org integration (FR49)
++* ❌ OSINT toolkit (FR50)
++* ❌ Video verification (FR51)
++* ❌ Deepfake detection (FR52)
++* ❌ Cross-org sharing (FR53)
--**Functionality:**
--* Display Mode 2 publication label
--* Show POC/Demo disclaimer
--* Display risk tiers per claim
--* Show quality gate status
--* Display timestamp
++**Rationale:** Advanced features require proven platform. Added post-V1.0.
--**Acceptance Criteria:**
--* Label is prominent and clear
--* User understands this is AI-generated POC output
--* Risk tiers are color-coded
--* Quality gate status is visible
-----
++=== 4.3 Production Requirements (POC2, Beta 0) ===
--=== FR-POC-7: Quality Gate Execution ===
++**Out of Scope:**
++* ❌ Security controls (NFR4, NFR12)
++* ❌ Code maintainability (NFR5)
++* ❌ System monitoring (NFR13)
++* ❌ Evidence deduplication
++* ❌ Advanced source verification
++* ❌ Full 7-gate quality framework
--**Requirement:** Execute simplified quality gates
++**Rationale:** POC proves concept. Production hardening happens in POC2 and Beta 0.
--**Functionality:**
--* Check source quality (basic)
--* Attempt contradiction search (basic)
--* Calculate confidence scores
--* Verify structural integrity (basic)
--* Display gate results
--**Acceptance Criteria:**
--* All 4 gates attempted
--* Pass/fail status displayed
--* Failures explained to user
--* Gates don't block publication (POC mode)
++== 5. POC Output Specification ==
-----
++=== 5.1 Required Output Elements ===
--== 9. Non-Functional Requirements ==
++For each analyzed claim, POC must produce:
--=== NFR-POC-1: Fully Automated Processing ===
++**1. Claim**
++* Original text
++* Classification (factual/non-factual/ambiguous)
++* If non-factual: Clear reason why
--**Requirement:** Complete AI automation with zero manual intervention
++**2. Scenarios** (if factual)
++* 2-3 interpretation scenarios
++* Each scenario clearly described
--**Critical Rule:** NO MANUAL EDITING AT ANY STAGE
++**3. Evidence** (if factual)
++* Supporting evidence (2+ items)
++* Opposing evidence (if exists)
++* Source URLs and reliability scores
--**What this means:**
--* Claims: AI selects (no human curation)
--* Scenarios: N/A (deferred to POC2)
--* Evidence: AI evaluates (no human selection)
--* Verdicts: AI determines (no human adjustment)
--* Summaries: AI writes (no human editing)
++**4. Verdict** (if factual)
++* Probability (0-100%)
++* Uncertainty quantification
++* Confidence level (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH)
++* Reasoning chain
--**Pipeline:**
--{{code}}
--User Input → AKEL Processing → Output Display
--           ↓
--     ZERO human editing
--{{/code}}
++**5. Quality Status**
++* Which gates passed/failed
++* If failed: Clear explanation why
--**If AI output is poor:**
--* ❌ Do NOT manually fix it
--* ✅ Document the failure
--* ✅ Improve prompts and retry
--* ✅ Accept that POC might fail
--**Why this matters:**
--* Tests whether AI can do this without humans
--* Validates scalability (humans can't review every analysis)
--* Honest test of technical feasibility
++=== 5.2 Example POC Output ===
-----
--
--=== NFR-POC-2: Performance ===
--
--**Requirement:** Analysis completes in reasonable time
--
--**Acceptable Performance:**
--* Processing time: 1-5 minutes (acceptable for POC)
--* Display loading indicator to user
--* Show progress if possible ("Extracting claims...", "Generating verdicts...")
--
--**Not Required:**
--* Production-level speed (< 30 seconds)
--* Optimization for scale
--* Caching
--
--**Acceptance Criteria:**
--* Analysis completes within 5 minutes
--* User sees loading indicator
--* No timeout errors
--
-----
--
--=== NFR-POC-3: Reliability ===
--
--**Requirement:** System works for manual testing sessions
--
--**Acceptable:**
--* Occasional errors (< 20% failure rate)
--* Manual restart if needed
--* Display error messages clearly
--
--**Not Required:**
--* 99.9% uptime
--* Automatic error recovery
--* Production monitoring
--
--**Acceptance Criteria:**
--* System works for test demonstrations
--* Errors are handled gracefully
--* User receives clear error messages
--
-----
--
--=== NFR-POC-4: Environment ===
--
--**Requirement:** Runs on simple infrastructure
--
--**Acceptable:**
--* Single machine or simple cloud setup
--* No distributed architecture
--* No load balancing
--* No redundancy
--* Local development environment viable
--
--**Not Required:**
--* Production infrastructure
--* Multi-region deployment
--* Auto-scaling
--* Disaster recovery
--
-----
--
--== 10. Technical Architecture ==
--
--=== 10.1 System Components ===
--
--**Frontend:**
--* Simple HTML form (text input + URL input + button)
--* Loading indicator
--* Results display page (single page, no tabs/navigation)
--
--**Backend:**
--* Single API endpoint
--* Calls Claude API (Sonnet 4.5 or latest)
--* Parses response
--* Returns JSON to frontend
--
--**Data Storage:**
--* None required (stateless POC)
--* Optional: Simple file storage or SQLite for demo examples
--
--**External Services:**
--* Claude API (Anthropic) - required
--* Optional: URL fetch service for article text extraction
--
-----
--
--=== 10.2 Processing Flow ===
--
--{{code}}
--1. User submits text or URL
--   ↓
--2. Backend receives request
--   ↓
--3. If URL: Fetch article text
--   ↓
--4. Call Claude API with single prompt:
--   "Extract claims, evaluate each, provide verdicts"
--   ↓
--5. Claude API returns:
--   - Analysis summary
--   - Claims list
--   - Verdicts for each claim (with risk tiers)
--   - Article summary (optional)
--   - Quality gate results
--   ↓
--6. Backend parses response
--   ↓
--7. Frontend displays results with Mode 2 labeling
++{{code language="json"}}
++{
++  "claim": {
++    "text": "Switzerland has the highest life expectancy in Europe",
++    "type": "factual",
++    "gate1_status": "PASS"
++  },
++  "scenarios": [
++    "Switzerland's overall life expectancy is highest",
++    "Switzerland ranks highest for specific age groups"
++  ],
++  "evidence": {
++    "supporting": [
++      {
++        "source": "WHO Report 2023",
++        "reliability": 0.95,
++        "excerpt": "Switzerland: 83.4 years average..."
++      }
++    ],
++    "opposing": [
++      {
++        "source": "Eurostat 2024",
++        "reliability": 0.90,
++        "excerpt": "Spain leads at 83.5 years..."
++      }
++    ]
++  },
++  "verdict": {
++    "probability": 0.65,
++    "uncertainty": 0.15,
++    "confidence": "MEDIUM",
++    "reasoning": "WHO and Eurostat show similar but conflicting data...",
++    "gate4_status": "PASS"
++  }
++}
  {{/code}}
--**Key Simplification:** Single API call does entire analysis
-----
++== 6. Success Criteria ==
--=== 10.3 AI Prompt Strategy ===
++{{success}}
++**POC Success Definition:** POC validates that AI can extract claims, find balanced evidence, and compute reasonable verdicts with quality gates improving output quality.
++{{/success}}
--**Single Comprehensive Prompt:**
--{{code}}
--Task: Analyze this article and provide:
++=== 6.1 Functional Success ===
--1. Extract 3-5 factual claims from the article
--2. For each claim:
--   - Determine verdict (WELL-SUPPORTED / PARTIALLY SUPPORTED / UNCERTAIN / REFUTED)
--   - Assign confidence score (0-100%)
--   - Assign risk tier (A: Medical/Legal/Safety, B: Policy/Science, C: Facts/Definitions)
--   - Write brief reasoning (1-3 sentences)
--3. Run quality gates:
--   - Check: ≥2 sources found
--   - Attempt: Basic contradiction search
--   - Calculate: Confidence scores
--   - Verify: Structural integrity
--4. Write analysis summary (3-5 sentences: claims found, verdict distribution, overall assessment)
--5. Write article summary (3-5 sentences: neutral summary of article content)
++POC is successful if:
--Return as structured JSON with quality gate results.
--{{/code}}
++✅ **FR1-FR7 Requirements Met:**
++1. Extracts 3-5 factual claims from test articles
++2. Generates 2-3 scenarios per ambiguous claim
++3. Finds supporting AND opposing evidence
++4. Computes probabilistic verdicts with uncertainty
++5. Provides clear reasoning chains
--**One prompt generates everything.**
++✅ **Quality Gates Work:**
++1. Gate 1 blocks non-factual claims (100% block rate)
++2. Gate 4 blocks low-quality verdicts (blocks if <2 sources or quality <0.6)
++3. Clear rejection reasons provided
-----
++✅ **NFR11 Met:**
++1. Quality gates reduce hallucination rate
++2. Blocked outputs have clear explanations
++3. Quality metrics are logged
--=== 10.4 Technology Stack Suggestions ===
--**Frontend:**
--* HTML + CSS + JavaScript (minimal framework)
--* OR: Next.js (if team prefers)
--* Hosted: Local machine OR Vercel/Netlify free tier
++=== 6.2 Quality Thresholds ===
--**Backend:**
--* Python Flask/FastAPI (simple REST API)
--* OR: Next.js API routes (if using Next.js)
--* Hosted: Local machine OR Railway/Render free tier
++**Minimum Acceptable:**
++* ≥70% of test claims correctly classified (factual/non-factual)
++* ≥60% of verdicts are reasonable (human evaluation)
++* Gate 1 blocks 100% of non-factual claims
++* Gate 4 blocks verdicts with <2 sources
--**AKEL Integration:**
--* Claude API via Anthropic SDK
--* Model: Claude Sonnet 4.5 or latest available
++**Target:**
++* ≥80% claims correctly classified
++* ≥75% verdicts are reasonable
++* <10% false positives (blocking good claims)
--**Database:**
--* None (stateless acceptable)
--* OR: SQLite if want to store demo examples
--* OR: JSON files on disk
--**Deployment:**
--* Local development environment sufficient for POC
--* Optional: Deploy to cloud for remote demos
++=== 6.3 POC Decision Gate ===
-----
++**After POC1, we decide:**
--== 11. Success Criteria ==
++**✅ PROCEED to POC2** if:
++* Success criteria met
++* Quality gates demonstrably improve output
++* Core workflow is technically sound
++* Clear path to production quality
--=== 11.1 Minimum Success (POC Passes) ===
++**⚠️ ITERATE POC1** if:
++* Success criteria partially met
++* Gates work but need tuning
++* Core issues identified but fixable
--**Required for GO decision:**
--* ✅ AI extracts 3-5 factual claims automatically
--* ✅ AI provides verdict for each claim automatically
--* ✅ Verdicts are reasonable (≥70% make logical sense)
--* ✅ Analysis summary is coherent
--* ✅ Output is comprehensible to reviewers
--* ✅ Team/advisors understand the output
--* ✅ Team agrees approach has merit
--* ✅ **Minimal or no manual editing needed** (< 30% of analyses require manual intervention)
++**❌ PIVOT APPROACH** if:
++* Success criteria not met
++* Fundamental AI limitations discovered
++* Quality gates insufficient
++* Alternative approach needed
--**Quality Definition:**
--* "Reasonable verdict" = Defensible given general knowledge
--* "Coherent summary" = Logically structured, grammatically correct
--* "Comprehensible" = Reviewers understand what analysis means
-----
++== 7. Test Cases ==
--=== 11.2 POC Fails If ===
++=== 7.1 Happy Path ===
--**Automatic NO-GO if any of these:**
--* ❌ Claim extraction poor (< 60% accuracy - extracts non-claims or misses obvious ones)
--* ❌ Verdicts nonsensical (< 60% reasonable - contradictory or random)
--* ❌ Output incomprehensible (reviewers can't understand analysis)
--* ❌ **Requires manual editing for most analyses** (> 50% need human correction)
--* ❌ Team loses confidence in AI-automated approach
++**Test 1: Simple Factual Claim**
++* Input: "Paris is the capital of France"
++* Expected: Factual, 1 scenario, verdict ~95% true
-----
++**Test 2: Ambiguous Claim**
++* Input: "Switzerland has the highest income in Europe"
++* Expected: Factual, 2-3 scenarios, verdict with uncertainty
--=== 11.3 Quality Thresholds ===
++**Test 3: Statistical Claim**
++* Input: "10% of people have condition X"
++* Expected: Factual, evidence with numbers, probabilistic verdict
--**POC quality expectations:**
--|=Component|=Quality Threshold|=Definition
--|Claim Extraction|(% class="success" %)≥70% accuracy(%%) |Identifies obvious factual claims, may miss some edge cases
--|Verdict Logic|(% class="success" %)≥70% defensible(%%) |Verdicts are logical given reasoning provided
--|Reasoning Clarity|(% class="success" %)≥70% clear(%%) |1-3 sentences are understandable and relevant
--|Overall Analysis|(% class="success" %)≥70% useful(%%) |Output helps user understand article claims
++=== 7.2 Edge Cases ===
--**Analogy:** "B student" quality (70-80%), not "A+" perfection yet
++**Test 4: Opinion**
++* Input: "Paris is the best city"
++* Expected: Non-factual (opinion), blocked by Gate 1
--**Not expecting:**
--* 100% accuracy
--* Perfect claim coverage
--* Comprehensive evidence gathering
--* Flawless verdicts
--* Production polish
++**Test 5: Prediction**
++* Input: "Bitcoin will reach $100,000 next year"
++* Expected: Non-factual (prediction), blocked by Gate 1
--**Expecting:**
--* Reasonable claim extraction
--* Defensible verdicts
--* Understandable reasoning
--* Useful output
++**Test 6: Insufficient Evidence**
++* Input: Obscure factual claim with no sources
++* Expected: Blocked by Gate 4 (<2 sources)
-----
--== 12. Test Cases ==
++=== 7.3 Quality Gate Tests ===
--=== 12.1 Test Case 1: Simple Factual Claim ===
++**Test 7: Gate 1 Effectiveness**
++* Input: Mix of 10 factual + 10 non-factual claims
++* Expected: Gate 1 blocks all 10 non-factual (100% precision)
--**Input:** "Coffee reduces the risk of type 2 diabetes by 30%"
++**Test 8: Gate 4 Effectiveness**
++* Input: Claims with varying evidence availability
++* Expected: Gate 4 blocks low-confidence verdicts
--**Expected Output:**
--* Extract claim correctly
--* Provide verdict: WELL-SUPPORTED or PARTIALLY SUPPORTED
--* Confidence: 70-90%
--* Risk tier: C (Low)
--* Reasoning: Mentions studies or evidence
--**Success:** Verdict is reasonable and reasoning makes sense
++== 8. Technical Architecture (POC) ==
-----
++=== 8.1 Simplified Architecture ===
--=== 12.2 Test Case 2: Complex News Article ===
++**POC Tech Stack:**
++* **Frontend:** Simple web interface (Next.js + TypeScript)
++* **Backend:** Single API endpoint
++* **AI:** Claude API (Sonnet 4.5)
++* **Database:** Local JSON files (no database)
++* **Deployment:** Single server
--**Input:** News article URL with multiple claims about politics/health/science
++**Architecture Diagram:** See [[POC1 Specification>>FactHarbor.Specification.POC.Specification]]
--**Expected Output:**
--* Extract 3-5 key claims
--* Verdict for each (may vary: some supported, some uncertain, some refuted)
--* Coherent analysis summary
--* Article summary
--* Risk tiers assigned appropriately
--**Success:** Claims identified are actually from article, verdicts are reasonable
++=== 8.2 AKEL Implementation ===
-----
++**POC AKEL:**
++* Single-threaded processing
++* Synchronous API calls
++* No caching
++* Basic error handling
++* Console logging
--=== 12.3 Test Case 3: Controversial Topic ===
++**Full AKEL (POC2+):**
++* Multi-threaded processing
++* Async API calls
++* Evidence caching
++* Advanced error handling with retry
++* Structured logging + monitoring
--**Input:** Article on contested political or scientific topic
--**Expected Output:**
--* Balanced analysis
--* Acknowledges uncertainty where appropriate
--* Doesn't overstate confidence
--* Reasoning shows awareness of complexity
++== 9. POC Philosophy ==
--**Success:** Analysis is fair and doesn't show obvious bias
++{{info}}
++**Important:** POC validates concept, not production readiness. Focus is on proving AI can do the job, with production quality coming in later phases.
++{{/info}}
-----
++=== 9.1 Core Principles ===
--=== 12.4 Test Case 4: Clearly False Claim ===
++**1. Prove Concept, Not Production**
++* POC validates AI can do the job
++* Production quality comes in POC2 and Beta 0
++* Focus on "does it work?" not "is it perfect?"
--**Input:** Article with obviously false claim (e.g., "The Earth is flat")
++**2. Implement Subset of Requirements**
++* POC covers FR1-7, NFR11 (lite)
++* All other requirements deferred
++* Clear mapping to [[Main Requirements>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.WebHome]]
--**Expected Output:**
--* Extract claim
--* Verdict: REFUTED
--* High confidence (> 90%)
--* Risk tier: C (Low - established fact)
--* Clear reasoning
++**3. Quality Gates Validate Approach**
++* 2 gates prove the concept
++* Remaining 5 gates added in POC2
++* Gates must demonstrably improve quality
--**Success:** AI correctly identifies false claim with high confidence
++**4. Iterate Based on Results**
++* POC results determine next steps
++* Decision gate after POC1
++* Flexibility to pivot if needed
-----
--=== 12.5 Test Case 5: Genuinely Uncertain Claim ===
++=== 9.2 Success = Clear Path Forward ===
--**Input:** Article with claim where evidence is genuinely mixed
++POC succeeds if we can confidently answer:
--**Expected Output:**
--* Extract claim
--* Verdict: UNCERTAIN
--* Moderate confidence (40-60%)
--* Reasoning explains why uncertain
++✅ **Technical Feasibility:**
++* Can AI extract claims reliably?
++* Can AI find balanced evidence?
++* Can AI compute reasonable verdicts?
--**Success:** AI recognizes uncertainty and doesn't overstate confidence
++✅ **Quality Approach:**
++* Do quality gates improve output?
++* Can we measure and track quality?
++* Is the gate approach scalable?
-----
++✅ **Production Path:**
++* Is the core architecture sound?
++* What needs improvement for production?
++* Is POC2 the right next step?
--=== 12.6 Test Case 6: High-Risk Medical Claim ===
--**Input:** Article making medical claims
++== 10. Related Pages ==
--**Expected Output:**
--* Extract claim
--* Verdict: [appropriate based on evidence]
--* Risk tier: A (High - medical)
--* Red label displayed
--* Clear disclaimer about not being medical advice
++* **[[Main Requirements>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.WebHome]]** - Full system requirements (this POC implements a subset)
++* **[[POC1 Specification (Detailed)>>FactHarbor.Specification.POC.Specification]]** - Detailed POC1 technical specs
++* **[[POC Summary>>FactHarbor.Specification.POC.Summary]]** - High-level POC overview
++* **[[Implementation Roadmap>>FactHarbor.Roadmap.WebHome]]** - POC1, POC2, Beta 0, V1.0 phases
++* **[[User Needs>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.User Needs.WebHome]]** - What users need (drives requirements)
--**Success:** Risk tier correctly assigned, appropriate warnings shown
-----
++**Document Owner:** Technical Team
++**Review Frequency:** After each POC iteration
++**Version History:**
++* v1.0 - Initial POC requirements
++* v2.0 - Updated after specification cross-check
++* v3.0 - Aligned with Main Requirements (FR/NFR IDs added)
--== 13. POC Decision Gate ==
--
--=== 13.1 Decision Framework ===
--
--After POC testing complete, team makes one of three decisions:
--
--**Option A: GO (Proceed to POC2)**
--
--**Conditions:**
--* AI quality ≥70% without manual editing
--* Basic claim → verdict pipeline validated
--* Internal + advisor feedback positive
--* Technical feasibility confirmed
--* Team confident in direction
--* Clear path to improving AI quality to ≥90%
--
--**Next Steps:**
--* Plan POC2 development (add scenarios)
--* Design scenario architecture
--* Expand to Evidence Model structure
--* Test with more complex articles
--
-----
--
--**Option B: NO-GO (Pivot or Stop)**
--
--**Conditions:**
--* AI quality < 60%
--* Requires manual editing for most analyses (> 50%)
--* Feedback indicates fundamental flaws
--* Cost/effort not justified by value
--* No clear path to improvement
--
--**Next Steps:**
--* **Pivot:** Change to hybrid human-AI approach (accept manual review required)
--* **Stop:** Conclude approach not viable, revisit later
--
-----
--
--**Option C: ITERATE (Improve POC)**
--
--**Conditions:**
--* Concept has merit but execution needs work
--* Specific improvements identified
--* Addressable with better prompts/approach
--* AI quality between 60-70%
--
--**Next Steps:**
--* Improve AI prompts
--* Test different approaches
--* Re-run POC with improvements
--* Then make GO/NO-GO decision
--
-----
--
--=== 13.2 Decision Criteria Summary ===
--
--{{code}}
--AI Quality < 60%  → NO-GO (approach doesn't work)
--AI Quality 60-70% → ITERATE (improve and retry)
--AI Quality ≥70%   → GO (proceed to POC2)
--{{/code}}
--
-----
--
--== 14. Key Risks & Mitigations ==
--
--=== 14.1 Risk: AI Quality Not Good Enough ===
--
--**Likelihood:** Medium-High
--**Impact:** POC fails
--
--**Mitigation:**
--* Extensive prompt engineering and testing
--* Use best available AI models (Sonnet 4.5)
--* Test with diverse article types
--* Iterate on prompts based on results
--
--**Acceptance:** This is what POC tests - be ready for failure
--
-----
--
--=== 14.2 Risk: AI Consistency Issues ===
--
--**Likelihood:** Medium
--**Impact:** Works sometimes, fails other times
--
--**Mitigation:**
--* Test with 10+ diverse articles
--* Measure success rate honestly
--* Improve prompts to increase consistency
--
--**Acceptance:** Some variability OK if average quality ≥70%
--
-----
--
--=== 14.3 Risk: Output Incomprehensible ===
--
--**Likelihood:** Low-Medium
--**Impact:** Users can't understand analysis
--
--**Mitigation:**
--* Create clear explainer document
--* Iterate on output format
--* Test with non-technical reviewers
--* Simplify language if needed
--
--**Acceptance:** Iterate until comprehensible
--
-----
--
--=== 14.4 Risk: API Rate Limits / Costs ===
--
--**Likelihood:** Low
--**Impact:** System slow or expensive
--
--**Mitigation:**
--* Monitor API usage
--* Implement retry logic
--* Estimate costs before scaling
--
--**Acceptance:** POC can be slow and expensive (optimization later)
--
-----
--
--=== 14.5 Risk: Scope Creep ===
--
--**Likelihood:** Medium
--**Impact:** POC becomes too complex
--
--**Mitigation:**
--* Strict scope discipline
--* Say NO to feature additions
--* Keep focus on core question
--
--**Acceptance:** POC is minimal by design
--
-----
--
--== 15. POC Philosophy ==
--
--=== 15.1 Core Principles ===
--
--**1. Build Less, Learn More**
--* Minimum features to test hypothesis
--* Don't build unvalidated features
--* Focus on core question only
--
--**2. Fail Fast**
--* Quick test of hardest part (AI capability)
--* Accept that POC might fail
--* Better to discover issues early
--* Honest assessment over optimistic hope
--
--**3. Test First, Build Second**
--* Validate AI can do this before building platform
--* Don't assume it will work
--* Let results guide decisions
--
--**4. Automation First**
--* No manual editing allowed
--* Tests scalability, not just feasibility
--* Proves approach can work at scale
--
--**5. Honest Assessment**
--* Don't cherry-pick examples
--* Don't manually fix bad outputs
--* Document failures openly
--* Make data-driven decisions
--
-----
--
--=== 15.2 What POC Is ===
--
--✅ Testing AI capability without humans
--✅ Proving core technical concept
--✅ Fast validation of approach
--✅ Honest assessment of feasibility
--
-----
--
--=== 15.3 What POC Is NOT ===
--
--❌ Building a product
--❌ Production-ready system
--❌ Feature-complete platform
--❌ Perfectly accurate analysis
--❌ Polished user experience
--
-----
--
--== 16. Success = Clear Path Forward ==
--
--**If POC succeeds (≥70% AI quality):**
--* ✅ Approach validated
--* ✅ Proceed to POC2 (add scenarios)
--* ✅ Design full Evidence Model structure
--* ✅ Test multi-scenario comparison
--* ✅ Focus on improving AI quality from 70% → 90%
--
--**If POC fails (< 60% AI quality):**
--* ✅ Learn what doesn't work
--* ✅ Pivot to different approach
--* ✅ OR wait for better AI technology
--* ✅ Avoid wasting resources on non-viable approach
--
--**Either way, POC provides clarity.**
--
-----
--
--== 17. Related Pages ==
--
--* [[User Needs>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.User Needs]]
--* [[Requirements>>FactHarbor.Requirements.WebHome]]
--* [[Gap Analysis>>FactHarbor.Analysis.GapAnalysis]]
--* [[Architecture>>FactHarbor.Specification.Architecture.WebHome]]
--* [[AKEL>>FactHarbor.Specification.AI Knowledge Extraction Layer (AKEL).WebHome]]
--* [[Workflows>>FactHarbor.Specification.Workflows.WebHome]]
--
-----
--
--**Document Status:** ✅ Ready for POC Development (Version 2.0 - Updated with Spec Alignment)
--

Changes for page POC Requirements (POC1 & POC2)

Summary

Details

Applications

Navigation

Need help?