Changes for page POC Requirements (POC1 & POC2)

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

From 2.2 to 2.1

From version 2.1

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

Change comment: Imported from XAR

To version 1.1

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 (POC1 & POC2)
++POC Requirements

Parent

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

Content

@@ -1,14 +1,11 @@
  = POC Requirements =
  **Status:** ✅ Approved for Development
--**Version:** 3.0 (Aligned with Main Requirements)
++**Version:** 2.0 (Updated after Specification Cross-Check)
  **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 ===
@@ -18,523 +18,1345 @@
  **What we're proving:**
  * AI can identify factual claims from text
--* AI can evaluate those claims with structured evidence
--* Quality gates can filter unreliable outputs
--* The core workflow is technically feasible
++* AI can evaluate those claims and produce verdicts
++* Output is comprehensible and useful
++* Fully automated approach is viable
--**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)
++**What we're NOT testing:**
++* Scenario generation (deferred to POC2)
++* Evidence display (deferred to POC2)
++* Production scalability
++* Perfect accuracy
++* Complete feature set
--=== 1.2 Requirements Mapping ===
++---
--POC1 implements a **subset** of the full system requirements defined in [[Main Requirements>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.WebHome]].
++=== 1.2 Scenarios Deferred to POC2 ===
--**Scope Summary:**
--* **In Scope:** 8 requirements (7 FRs + 1 NFR)
--* **Partial:** 3 NFRs (simplified versions)
--* **Out of Scope:** 19 requirements (deferred to later phases)
++**Intentional Simplification:**
++Scenarios are a core component of the full FactHarbor system (Claims → Scenarios → Evidence → Verdicts), but are **deliberately excluded from POC1**.
--== 2. POC1 Scope ==
++**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?
--{{success}}
--**Authoritative Source for Phase Mapping:** [[Requirements Roadmap Matrix>>Test.FactHarbor.Roadmap.Requirements-Roadmap-Matrix.WebHome]]
++**Design Decision:**
--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}}
++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.
--**POC1 implements these formal requirements:**
++**No Risk:**
--|= 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
++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
--**POC1 also implements these workflow components** (detailed as FR1-FR6 in implementation sections below)
++**Full System Workflow (Future):**
++{{code}}
++Claims → Scenarios → Evidence → Verdicts
++{{/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
++**POC1 Simplified Workflow:**
++{{code}}
++Claims → Verdicts (scenarios implicit in reasoning)
++{{/code}}
--**Partial implementations:**
--* NFR1 (Explainability) - Basic only
--* NFR2 (Performance) - Functional but not optimized
--* NFR3 (Transparency) - Basic only
++---
--**Detailed POC1 implementation specifications continue below...**
++== 2. POC Output Specification ==
++=== 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
--== 3. POC Simplifications ==
++**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}}
--=== 3.1 FR1: Claim Extraction (Full Implementation) ===
++---
--**Main Requirement:** AI extracts factual claims from input text
++=== 2.2 Component 2: CLAIMS IDENTIFICATION ===
++**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:**
--* ✅ 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)
++* ✅ At least 2 sources found
++* ✅ Sources accessible (URLs valid)
++* ❌ No whitelist checking
++* ❌ No credential validation
++* ❌ No comprehensive reliability scoring
--**Acceptance Criteria:**
--* Extracts 3-5 claims from typical article
--* Identifies factual vs non-factual claims
--* Quality Gate 1 validates extraction
++**Pass Criteria:** ≥2 accessible sources found
++**Failure Handling:** Display error message, don't generate verdict
--=== 3.2 FR3: Multiple Scenarios (Full Implementation) ===
++---
--**Main Requirement:** Generate multiple interpretation scenarios for ambiguous claims
++=== 6.3 Gate 2: Contradiction Search (Basic) ===
++**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:**
--* ✅ AKEL generates 2-3 scenarios per claim
--* ✅ Scenarios capture different interpretations
--* ✅ Each scenario is evaluated separately
--* ✅ Verdict considers all scenarios
++* ✅ Basic search for counter-evidence
++* ✅ Identify obvious contradictions
++* ❌ No comprehensive academic search
++* ❌ No bubble detection
++* ❌ No systematic alternative interpretation search
++* ❌ No international perspective verification
--**Acceptance Criteria:**
--* Generates 2+ scenarios for ambiguous claims
--* Scenarios are meaningfully different
--* All scenarios are evaluated
++**Pass Criteria:** Basic contradiction search attempted
++**Failure Handling:** Note "limited contradiction search" in output
--=== 3.3 FR4: Analysis Summary (Basic Implementation) ===
++---
--**Main Requirement:** Provide user-friendly summary of analysis
++=== 6.4 Gate 3: Uncertainty Quantification (Basic) ===
++**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:**
--* ✅ 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)
++* ✅ Confidence scores (0-100%)
++* ✅ Basic uncertainty acknowledgment
++* ❌ No detailed limitation disclosure
++* ❌ No data gap identification
++* ❌ No alternative scenario consideration (deferred to POC2)
--**POC Format:**
--```
--Claim: [extracted claim]
--Scenarios: [list of scenarios]
--Evidence: [supporting/opposing evidence]
--Verdict: [probability with uncertainty]
--```
++**Pass Criteria:** Confidence score assigned
++**Failure Handling:** Show "Confidence: Unknown" if calculation fails
--=== 3.4 FR5-FR6: Evidence Collection & Evaluation (Full Implementation) ===
++---
--**Main Requirements:**
--* FR5: Collect supporting and opposing evidence
--* FR6: Evaluate evidence source reliability
++=== 6.5 Gate 4: Structural Integrity (Basic) ===
++**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:**
--* ✅ 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)
++* ✅ Basic coherence check
++* ✅ References accessible
++* ❌ No comprehensive hallucination detection
++* ❌ No formal logic validation
++* ❌ No premise extraction and verification
++**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:**
--* Finds 2+ supporting evidence items
--* Finds 1+ opposing evidence (if exists)
--* Sources scored for reliability
++* User can paste text from article
++* User can paste URL of article
++* System accepts input and triggers analysis
++---
--=== 3.5 FR7: Automated Verdicts (Full Implementation) ===
++=== FR-POC-2: Claim Extraction (Fully Automated) ===
--**Main Requirement:** AI computes verdicts with uncertainty quantification
++**Requirement:** AI automatically extracts 3-5 factual claims
--**POC Implementation:**
--* ✅ Probabilistic verdicts (0-100% confidence)
--* ✅ Uncertainty explicitly stated
--* ✅ Reasoning chain provided
--* ✅ Quality Gate 4 validates verdict confidence
++**Functionality:**
++* AI reads article text
++* AI identifies factual claims (not opinions/questions)
++* AI extracts 3-5 most important claims
++* System displays numbered list
--**POC Output:**
--```
--Verdict: 70% likely true
--Uncertainty: ±15% (moderate confidence)
--Reasoning: Based on 3 high-quality sources...
--Confidence Level: MEDIUM
--```
++**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
++**Error Handling:**
++* If extraction fails: Display error message
++* User can retry with different input
++* No manual intervention to fix extraction
++
  **Acceptance Criteria:**
--* Verdicts include probability (0-100%)
--* Uncertainty explicitly quantified
--* Reasoning chain explains verdict
++* AI extracts 3-5 claims automatically
++* Claims are factual (not opinions)
++* Claims are clearly stated
++* No manual editing required
++---
--=== 3.6 NFR11: Quality Assurance Framework (LITE VERSION) ===
++=== FR-POC-3: Verdict Generation (Fully Automated) ===
--**Main Requirement:** Complete quality assurance with 7 quality gates
++**Requirement:** AI automatically generates verdict for each claim
--**POC Implementation:** **2 gates only**
++**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
--**Quality Gate 1: Claim Validation**
--* ✅ Validates claim is factual and verifiable
--* ✅ Blocks non-factual claims (opinion/prediction/ambiguous)
--* ✅ Provides clear rejection reason
++**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 4: Verdict Confidence Assessment**
--* ✅ Validates ≥2 sources found
--* ✅ Validates quality score ≥0.6
--* ✅ Blocks low-confidence verdicts
--* ✅ Provides clear rejection reason
++**Error Handling:**
++* If verdict generation fails: Display error message
++* User can retry
++* No manual intervention to adjust verdicts
--**Out of Scope (POC2+):**
--* ❌ Gate 2: Evidence Relevance
--* ❌ Gate 3: Scenario Coherence
--* ❌ Gate 5: Source Diversity
--* ❌ Gate 6: Reasoning Validity
--* ❌ Gate 7: Output Completeness
++**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
--**Rationale:** Prove gate concept works. Add remaining gates in POC2 after validating approach.
++---
++=== FR-POC-4: Analysis Summary (Fully Automated) ===
--=== 3.7 NFR1-3: Performance, Scalability, Reliability (Basic) ===
++**Requirement:** AI generates brief summary of analysis
--**Main Requirements:**
--* NFR1: Response time < 30 seconds
--* NFR2: Handle 1000+ concurrent users
--* NFR3: 99.9% uptime
++**Functionality:**
++* AI summarizes findings in 3-5 sentences:
++  * How many claims found
++  * Distribution of verdicts
++  * Overall assessment
++* System displays at top of results
--**POC Implementation:**
--* ⚠️ **Response time monitored** (not optimized)
--* ⚠️ **Single-threaded processing** (no concurrency)
--* ⚠️ **Basic error handling** (no advanced retry logic)
++**Critical:** NO MANUAL EDITING ALLOWED
--**Rationale:** POC proves functionality. Performance optimization happens in POC2.
++**Acceptance Criteria:**
++* Summary is coherent
++* Accurately reflects analysis
++* 3-5 sentences
++* Automatically generated
--**POC Acceptance:**
--* Analysis completes (no timeout requirement)
--* Errors don't crash system
--* Basic logging in place
++---
++=== FR-POC-5: Article Summary (Fully Automated, Optional) ===
--== 4. What's NOT in POC Scope ==
++**Requirement:** AI generates brief summary of original article
--=== 4.1 User-Facing Features (Beta 0+) ===
++**Functionality:**
++* AI summarizes article content (not FactHarbor's analysis)
++* 3-5 sentences
++* System displays
--{{warning}}
--**Deferred to Beta 0:**
--{{/warning}}
++**Note:** Optional - can skip if time limited
--**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)
++**Critical:** NO MANUAL EDITING ALLOWED
--**Rationale:** POC validates AI capabilities. User features added in Beta 0.
++**Acceptance Criteria:**
++* Summary is neutral (article's position)
++* Accurately reflects article content
++* 3-5 sentences
++* Automatically generated
++---
--=== 4.2 Advanced Features (V1.0+) ===
++=== FR-POC-6: Publication Mode Display ===
--**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)
++**Requirement:** Clear labeling of AI-generated content
--**Rationale:** Advanced features require proven platform. Added post-V1.0.
++**Functionality:**
++* Display Mode 2 publication label
++* Show POC/Demo disclaimer
++* Display risk tiers per claim
++* Show quality gate status
++* Display timestamp
++**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) ===
++---
--**Out of Scope:**
--* ❌ Security controls (NFR4, NFR12)
--* ❌ Code maintainability (NFR5)
--* ❌ System monitoring (NFR13)
--* ❌ Evidence deduplication
--* ❌ Advanced source verification
--* ❌ Full 7-gate quality framework
++=== FR-POC-7: Quality Gate Execution ===
--**Rationale:** POC proves concept. Production hardening happens in POC2 and Beta 0.
++**Requirement:** Execute simplified quality gates
++**Functionality:**
++* Check source quality (basic)
++* Attempt contradiction search (basic)
++* Calculate confidence scores
++* Verify structural integrity (basic)
++* Display gate results
--== 5. POC Output Specification ==
++**Acceptance Criteria:**
++* All 4 gates attempted
++* Pass/fail status displayed
++* Failures explained to user
++* Gates don't block publication (POC mode)
--=== 5.1 Required Output Elements ===
++---
--For each analyzed claim, POC must produce:
++== 9. Non-Functional Requirements ==
--**1. Claim**
--* Original text
--* Classification (factual/non-factual/ambiguous)
--* If non-factual: Clear reason why
++=== NFR-POC-1: Fully Automated Processing ===
--**2. Scenarios** (if factual)
--* 2-3 interpretation scenarios
--* Each scenario clearly described
++**Requirement:** Complete AI automation with zero manual intervention
--**3. Evidence** (if factual)
--* Supporting evidence (2+ items)
--* Opposing evidence (if exists)
--* Source URLs and reliability scores
++**Critical Rule:** NO MANUAL EDITING AT ANY STAGE
--**4. Verdict** (if factual)
--* Probability (0-100%)
--* Uncertainty quantification
--* Confidence level (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH)
--* Reasoning chain
++**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)
--**5. Quality Status**
--* Which gates passed/failed
--* If failed: Clear explanation why
++**Pipeline:**
++{{code}}
++User Input → AKEL Processing → Output Display
++           ↓
++     ZERO human editing
++{{/code}}
++**If AI output is poor:**
++* ❌ Do NOT manually fix it
++* ✅ Document the failure
++* ✅ Improve prompts and retry
++* ✅ Accept that POC might fail
--=== 5.2 Example POC Output ===
++**Why this matters:**
++* Tests whether AI can do this without humans
++* Validates scalability (humans can't review every analysis)
++* Honest test of technical feasibility
--{{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"
--  }
--}
++---
++
++=== 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}}
++**Key Simplification:** Single API call does entire analysis
--== 6. Success Criteria ==
++---
--{{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}}
++=== 10.3 AI Prompt Strategy ===
--=== 6.1 Functional Success ===
++**Single Comprehensive Prompt:**
++{{code}}
++Task: Analyze this article and provide:
--POC is successful if:
++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)
--✅ **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
++Return as structured JSON with quality gate results.
++{{/code}}
--✅ **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
++**One prompt generates everything.**
--✅ **NFR11 Met:**
--1. Quality gates reduce hallucination rate
--2. Blocked outputs have clear explanations
--3. Quality metrics are logged
++---
++=== 10.4 Technology Stack Suggestions ===
--=== 6.2 Quality Thresholds ===
++**Frontend:**
++* HTML + CSS + JavaScript (minimal framework)
++* OR: Next.js (if team prefers)
++* Hosted: Local machine OR Vercel/Netlify 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
++**Backend:**
++* Python Flask/FastAPI (simple REST API)
++* OR: Next.js API routes (if using Next.js)
++* Hosted: Local machine OR Railway/Render free tier
--**Target:**
--* ≥80% claims correctly classified
--* ≥75% verdicts are reasonable
--* <10% false positives (blocking good claims)
++**AKEL Integration:**
++* Claude API via Anthropic SDK
++* Model: Claude Sonnet 4.5 or latest available
++**Database:**
++* None (stateless acceptable)
++* OR: SQLite if want to store demo examples
++* OR: JSON files on disk
--=== 6.3 POC Decision Gate ===
++**Deployment:**
++* Local development environment sufficient for POC
++* Optional: Deploy to cloud for remote demos
--**After POC1, we decide:**
++---
--**✅ PROCEED to POC2** if:
--* Success criteria met
--* Quality gates demonstrably improve output
--* Core workflow is technically sound
--* Clear path to production quality
++== 11. Success Criteria ==
--**⚠️ ITERATE POC1** if:
--* Success criteria partially met
--* Gates work but need tuning
--* Core issues identified but fixable
++=== 11.1 Minimum Success (POC Passes) ===
--**❌ PIVOT APPROACH** if:
--* Success criteria not met
--* Fundamental AI limitations discovered
--* Quality gates insufficient
--* Alternative approach needed
++**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)
++**Quality Definition:**
++* "Reasonable verdict" = Defensible given general knowledge
++* "Coherent summary" = Logically structured, grammatically correct
++* "Comprehensible" = Reviewers understand what analysis means
--== 7. Test Cases ==
++---
--=== 7.1 Happy Path ===
++=== 11.2 POC Fails If ===
--**Test 1: Simple Factual Claim**
--* Input: "Paris is the capital of France"
--* Expected: Factual, 1 scenario, verdict ~95% true
++**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 2: Ambiguous Claim**
--* Input: "Switzerland has the highest income in Europe"
--* Expected: Factual, 2-3 scenarios, verdict with uncertainty
++---
--**Test 3: Statistical Claim**
--* Input: "10% of people have condition X"
--* Expected: Factual, evidence with numbers, probabilistic verdict
++=== 11.3 Quality Thresholds ===
++**POC quality expectations:**
--=== 7.2 Edge Cases ===
++|=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
--**Test 4: Opinion**
--* Input: "Paris is the best city"
--* Expected: Non-factual (opinion), blocked by Gate 1
++**Analogy:** "B student" quality (70-80%), not "A+" perfection yet
--**Test 5: Prediction**
--* Input: "Bitcoin will reach $100,000 next year"
--* Expected: Non-factual (prediction), blocked by Gate 1
++**Not expecting:**
++* 100% accuracy
++* Perfect claim coverage
++* Comprehensive evidence gathering
++* Flawless verdicts
++* Production polish
--**Test 6: Insufficient Evidence**
--* Input: Obscure factual claim with no sources
--* Expected: Blocked by Gate 4 (<2 sources)
++**Expecting:**
++* Reasonable claim extraction
++* Defensible verdicts
++* Understandable reasoning
++* Useful output
++---
--=== 7.3 Quality Gate Tests ===
++== 12. Test Cases ==
--**Test 7: Gate 1 Effectiveness**
--* Input: Mix of 10 factual + 10 non-factual claims
--* Expected: Gate 1 blocks all 10 non-factual (100% precision)
++=== 12.1 Test Case 1: Simple Factual Claim ===
--**Test 8: Gate 4 Effectiveness**
--* Input: Claims with varying evidence availability
--* Expected: Gate 4 blocks low-confidence verdicts
++**Input:** "Coffee reduces the risk of type 2 diabetes by 30%"
++**Expected Output:**
++* Extract claim correctly
++* Provide verdict: WELL-SUPPORTED or PARTIALLY SUPPORTED
++* Confidence: 70-90%
++* Risk tier: C (Low)
++* Reasoning: Mentions studies or evidence
--== 8. Technical Architecture (POC) ==
++**Success:** Verdict is reasonable and reasoning makes sense
--=== 8.1 Simplified Architecture ===
++---
--**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
++=== 12.2 Test Case 2: Complex News Article ===
--**Architecture Diagram:** See [[POC1 Specification>>FactHarbor.Specification.POC.Specification]]
++**Input:** News article URL with multiple claims about politics/health/science
++**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
--=== 8.2 AKEL Implementation ===
++**Success:** Claims identified are actually from article, verdicts are reasonable
--**POC AKEL:**
--* Single-threaded processing
--* Synchronous API calls
--* No caching
--* Basic error handling
--* Console logging
++---
--**Full AKEL (POC2+):**
--* Multi-threaded processing
--* Async API calls
--* Evidence caching
--* Advanced error handling with retry
--* Structured logging + monitoring
++=== 12.3 Test Case 3: Controversial Topic ===
++**Input:** Article on contested political or scientific topic
--== 9. POC Philosophy ==
++**Expected Output:**
++* Balanced analysis
++* Acknowledges uncertainty where appropriate
++* Doesn't overstate confidence
++* Reasoning shows awareness of complexity
--{{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}}
++**Success:** Analysis is fair and doesn't show obvious bias
--=== 9.1 Core Principles ===
++---
--**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?"
++=== 12.4 Test Case 4: Clearly False Claim ===
--**2. Implement Subset of Requirements**
--* POC covers FR1-7, NFR11 (lite)
--* All other requirements deferred
--* Clear mapping to [[Main Requirements>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.WebHome]]
++**Input:** Article with obviously false claim (e.g., "The Earth is flat")
--**3. Quality Gates Validate Approach**
--* 2 gates prove the concept
--* Remaining 5 gates added in POC2
--* Gates must demonstrably improve quality
++**Expected Output:**
++* Extract claim
++* Verdict: REFUTED
++* High confidence (> 90%)
++* Risk tier: C (Low - established fact)
++* Clear reasoning
--**4. Iterate Based on Results**
--* POC results determine next steps
--* Decision gate after POC1
--* Flexibility to pivot if needed
++**Success:** AI correctly identifies false claim with high confidence
++---
--=== 9.2 Success = Clear Path Forward ===
++=== 12.5 Test Case 5: Genuinely Uncertain Claim ===
--POC succeeds if we can confidently answer:
++**Input:** Article with claim where evidence is genuinely mixed
--✅ **Technical Feasibility:**
--* Can AI extract claims reliably?
--* Can AI find balanced evidence?
--* Can AI compute reasonable verdicts?
++**Expected Output:**
++* Extract claim
++* Verdict: UNCERTAIN
++* Moderate confidence (40-60%)
++* Reasoning explains why uncertain
--✅ **Quality Approach:**
--* Do quality gates improve output?
--* Can we measure and track quality?
--* Is the gate approach scalable?
++**Success:** AI recognizes uncertainty and doesn't overstate confidence
--✅ **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 ===
--== 10. Related Pages ==
++**Input:** Article making medical claims
--* **[[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)
++**Expected Output:**
++* Extract claim
++* Verdict: [appropriate based on evidence]
++* Risk tier: A (High - medical)
++* Red label displayed
++* Clear disclaimer about not being medical advice
++**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?