Workflows

 Version: 0.9.70 Last Updated: December 21, 2025 Status: CORRECTED - Automation Philosophy Consistent This page describes FactHarbor's core workflows with the automation-first philosophy. == 1. Core Workflow Principles == * Automation First: 90%+ content published automatically

• No Approval Bottlenecks: No centralized review queues
• Quality Gates: Automated validation before publication
• Sampling Audits: Pattern analysis for system improvement
• Transparent Confidence: All outputs labeled with confidence scores == 2. Claim Submission Workflow == === 2.1 Claim Extraction === When users submit content (text, articles, web pages), FactHarbor first extracts individual verifiable claims: Input Types:
• Single claim: "The Earth is flat"
• Text with multiple claims: "Climate change is accelerating. Sea levels rose 3mm in 2023. Arctic ice decreased 13% annually."
• URLs: Web pages analyzed for factual claims Extraction Process:
• LLM analyzes submitted content
• Identifies distinct, verifiable factual claims
• Separates claims from opinions, questions, or commentary
• Each claim becomes independent for processing Output:
• List of claims with context
• Each claim assigned unique ID
• Original context preserved for reference This extraction ensures:
• Each claim receives focused analysis
• Multiple claims in one submission are all processed
• Claims are properly isolated for independent verification
• Context is preserved for accurate interpretation Flow:
  ```
  User submits → Duplicate detection → Categorization → Processing queue → User receives ID
  ``` Timeline: Seconds No approval needed: Instant processing == 3. Automated Analysis Workflow == Complete Pipeline: ```
  Claim from queue
  ↓
  Evidence gathering (AKEL)
  ↓
  Source evaluation (track record check)
  ↓
  Scenario generation
  ↓
  Verdict synthesis
  ↓
  Risk assessment
  ↓
  Quality gates validation
  ↓
  Decision: PUBLISH or BLOCK
  ``` Timeline: 10-30 seconds Automation Rate: 90%+ published automatically === 3.1 Quality Gates Decision == Gate Validation:

1. Gate 1: Source Quality ✓
   2. Gate 2: Contradiction Search ✓
   3. Gate 3: Uncertainty Quantification ✓
   4. Gate 4: Structural Integrity ✓ If ALL gates PASS:
   → Publish immediately (Mode 2: AI-Generated)
   → Apply appropriate risk tier label
   → Display confidence score
   → Make available for sampling audit If ANY gate FAILS:
   → Block publication (Mode 1: Draft-Only)
   → Log failure reason
   → Analyze failure pattern
   → Queue system improvement task
   → May re-process after improvements CRITICAL: No human approval step - gates are automated. == 4. Publication Workflow == V0.9.70 CLARIFIED: Risk tiers affect LABELS and AUDIT FREQUENCY, NOT approval requirements. === Standard Flow (90%+) === ```
   Pass quality gates
   ↓
   Determine risk tier (A/B/C)
   ↓
   Apply appropriate labels
   ↓
   PUBLISH IMMEDIATELY
   ↓
   Add to audit sampling pool
   ``` No delays, no approval queues === High-Risk Content (Tier A - <10%) === V0.9.70 CORRECTION: ```
   Pass quality gates
   ↓
   Identified as Tier A (medical/legal/safety)
   ↓
   PUBLISH IMMEDIATELY with prominent warnings
   ↓
   Higher sampling audit frequency (50%)
   ``` What changed from V0.9.69:
   - ❌ REMOVED: "Risk > 80% → Moderator review"
   - ✅ ADDED: "Risk > 80% → Publish with WARNING labels" Philosophy: Publish with strong warnings, monitor closely through sampling. Warning Labels for Tier A:
   ```
   ⚠️ HIGH-IMPACT TOPIC
   AI-Generated Analysis This claim involves [medical/legal/financial/safety] topics.
   - Confidence: [X]%
   - Last Updated: [timestamp]
   - This is NOT professional advice
   - Consult qualified professionals for decisions [View Evidence] [See Methodology] [Report Issue]
   ``` === Low Quality Content (<10%) === ```
   FAIL quality gates
   ↓
   Confidence < threshold OR structural issues
   ↓
   BLOCK (Mode 1: Draft-Only)
   ↓
   Log failure patterns
   ↓
   Queue for system improvement
   ``` NOT: Send for human review IS: Improve prompts/algorithms based on failure patterns == 5. User Contribution Workflow == Philosophy: Wikipedia-style immediate application + audit trail ```
   Contributor edits published content
   ↓
   System validates (basic checks)
   ↓
   Applied IMMEDIATELY
   ↓
   Logged in version history
   ↓
   Reputation earned
   ↓
   May be selected for sampling audit
   ``` No approval required: Changes apply instantly Quality control: Through sampling audits and reputation system New contributors (<50 reputation): Limited to minor edits == 6. Sampling Audit Workflow == Purpose: Improve system quality through pattern analysis === 6.1 Selection Process === ```
   Published content
   ↓
   Stratified sampling (by risk tier, confidence, traffic)
   ↓
   Selected for audit (Tier A: 50%, B: 20%, C: 5%)
   ↓
   Added to audit queue
   ``` === 6.2 Audit Execution === ```
   Auditor receives sample
   ↓
   Reviews against quality standards
   ↓
   Identifies issues/patterns
   ↓
   Logs findings
   ↓
   System improvement tasks created
   ``` What auditors DO:

• ✅ Analyze patterns across multiple outputs
• ✅ Identify systematic issues
• ✅ Recommend algorithm/prompt improvements
• ✅ Track accuracy trends What auditors DON'T DO:
• ❌ Approve individual outputs before publication
• ❌ Manually fix individual outputs
• ❌ Act as gatekeepers
• ❌ Override quality gates === 6.3 Improvement Loop === ```
  Audit findings aggregated
  ↓
  Patterns identified
  ↓
  System improvements proposed
  ↓
  Implemented and tested
  ↓
  Deployed
  ↓
  Metrics monitored
  ``` Examples of Improvements:
• Refine evidence search queries
• Adjust source reliability weights
• Enhance contradiction detection
• Improve claim extraction prompts
• Recalibrate risk tier thresholds == 7. Flagging Workflow == Two types of flags: === 7.1 Quality Issues === ```
  User flags quality issue
  ↓
  Categorized automatically
  ↓
  Added to sampling audit pool (priority)
  ↓
  Pattern analysis
  ↓
  System improvement if pattern found
  ``` NOT: Manual correction of individual claim IS: Improve system to prevent similar issues === 7.2 Abuse/Spam === ```
  User flags abuse/spam
  ↓
  Automated pre-moderation check
  ↓
  Moderator review (if needed)
  ↓
  Action taken (hide/ban)
  ``` Moderator role: Handle abuse/spam, NOT content quality == 8. Moderation Workflow == V0.9.70 CLARIFIED: Moderators handle ABUSE, not content quality === 8.1 Content Moderation (Abuse/Spam) === Moderator Queue Contains:
• Flagged abusive content
• Spam detection alerts
• Harassment reports
• Privacy violations
• Terms of service violations Moderator Actions:
• Hide abusive content
• Ban repeat offenders
• Handle appeals
• Escalate to governing team Moderators DO NOT:
• ❌ Approve content for publication
• ❌ Review content quality before publication
• ❌ Act as editorial gatekeepers
• ❌ Manually fix AI outputs === 8.2 Appeal Process === ```
  User disagrees with moderation
  ↓
  Appeals to different moderator
  ↓
  If still disagrees, escalates to Governing Team
  ↓
  Governing Team decision (final)
  ``` == 9. Time Evolution Workflow == Automatic Re-evaluation: ```
  Published claim
  ↓
  Monitoring for triggers: - New evidence published - Source retractions - Significant events - Scheduled review ↓
  Trigger detected
  ↓
  AKEL re-processes claim
  ↓
  Quality gates validate
  ↓
  If verdict changes: Correction workflow
  ↓
  If passes: Update published analysis
  ``` Correction Workflow (New in V0.9.70): ```
  Verdict changed significantly
  ↓
  Generate correction notice
  ↓
  Publish correction banner (30 days)
  ↓
  Update corrections log
  ↓
  Notify users (email, RSS, API)
  ↓
  Update ClaimReview schema
  ``` == 10. Contributor Journey == 1. Visitor – Explores platform, reads documentation
  2. New Contributor – Submits first improvements (typo fixes, clarifications)
  3. Contributor – Contributes regularly, follows conventions
  4. Trusted Contributor – Track record of quality work
  5. Reviewer – Participates in sampling audits (pattern analysis)
  6. Moderator – Handles abuse/spam (not content quality)
  7. Expert (optional) – Provides domain expertise for contested claims All contributions apply immediately - no approval workflow == 11. Related Pages == * AKEL - AI processing system
• Architecture - System architecture
• Requirements - Requirements and roles
• Decision Processes - Governance V0.9.70 CHANGES: REMOVED:
  - ❌ "High Risk → Moderator review" (was approval workflow)
  - ❌ "Review queue" language for publication
  - ❌ Any implication that moderators approve content quality ADDED/CLARIFIED:
  - ✅ Risk tiers affect warnings and audit frequency, NOT approval
  - ✅ High-risk content publishes immediately with prominent warnings
  - ✅ Quality gate failures → Block + improve system (not human review)
  - ✅ Clear distinction: Sampling audits (improvement) vs. Content moderation (abuse)
  - ✅ Moderator role clarified: Abuse only, NOT content quality
  - ✅ User contributions apply immediately (Wikipedia model)
  - ✅ Correction workflow for significant verdict changes
  - ✅ Time evolution and re-evaluation workflow