Wiki source code of Requirements
Version 1.16 by Robert Schaub on 2026/02/08 08:27
Hide last authors
| author | version | line-number | content |
|---|---|---|---|
 |
1.5 | 1 | = Requirements = |
| 2 | |||
| |
1.15 | 3 | **This page defines Roles, Content States, Rules, and System Requirements for FactHarbor.** **Core Philosophy:** Invest in system improvement, not manual data correction. When AI makes errors, improve the algorithm and re-process automatically. == Navigation == * **[[User Needs>>Archive.FactHarbor 2026\.01\.20.Specification.Requirements.User Needs.WebHome]]** - What users need from FactHarbor (drives these requirements) |
| |
1.5 | 4 | |
| |
1.1 | 5 | * **This page** - How we fulfill those needs through system design (% class="box infomessage" %) |
| 6 | ((( | ||
| |
1.15 | 7 | **How to read this page:** 1. **User Needs drive Requirements**: See [[User Needs>>Archive.FactHarbor 2026\.01\.20.Specification.Requirements.User Needs.WebHome]] for what users need |
| |
1.1 | 8 | 2. **Requirements define implementation**: This page shows how we fulfill those needs |
| 9 | 3. **Functional Requirements (FR)**: Specific features and capabilities | ||
| 10 | 4. **Non-Functional Requirements (NFR)**: Quality attributes (performance, security, etc.) Each requirement references which User Needs it fulfills. | ||
| |
1.5 | 11 | )))== 1. Roles == **Fulfills**: UN-12 (Submit claims), UN-13 (Cite verdicts), UN-14 (API access) FactHarbor uses three simple roles plus a reputation system. === 1.1 Reader === **Who**: Anyone (no login required) **Can**: |
| |
1.1 | 12 | * Browse and search claims |
| 13 | * View scenarios, evidence, verdicts, and confidence scores | ||
| 14 | * Flag issues or errors | ||
| 15 | * Use filters, search, and visualization tools | ||
| 16 | * Submit claims automatically (new claims added if not duplicates) **Cannot**: | ||
| 17 | * Modify content | ||
| 18 | * Access edit history details **User Needs served**: UN-1 (Trust assessment), UN-2 (Claim verification), UN-3 (Article summary with FactHarbor analysis summary), UN-4 (Social media fact-checking), UN-5 (Source tracing), UN-7 (Evidence transparency), UN-8 (Understanding disagreement), UN-12 (Submit claims), UN-17 (In-article highlighting) === 1.2 Contributor === **Who**: Registered users (earns reputation through contributions) **Can**: | ||
| 19 | * Everything a Reader can do | ||
| 20 | * Edit claims, evidence, and scenarios | ||
| 21 | * Add sources and citations | ||
| 22 | * Suggest improvements to AI-generated content | ||
| 23 | * Participate in discussions | ||
| 24 | * Earn reputation points for quality contributions **Reputation System**: | ||
| 25 | * New contributors: Limited edit privileges | ||
| 26 | * Established contributors (established reputation): Full edit access | ||
| 27 | * Trusted contributors (substantial reputation): Can approve certain changes | ||
| 28 | * Reputation earned through: Accepted edits, helpful flags, quality contributions | ||
| 29 | * Reputation lost through: Reverted edits, invalid flags, abuse **Cannot**: | ||
| 30 | * Delete or hide content (only moderators) | ||
| 31 | * Override moderation decisions **User Needs served**: UN-13 (Cite and contribute) === 1.3 Moderator === **Who**: Trusted community members with proven track record, appointed by governance board **Can**: | ||
| 32 | * Review flagged content | ||
| 33 | * Hide harmful or abusive content | ||
| 34 | * Resolve disputes between contributors | ||
| 35 | * Issue warnings or temporary bans | ||
| 36 | * Make final decisions on content disputes | ||
| 37 | * Access full audit logs **Cannot**: | ||
| 38 | * Change governance rules | ||
| 39 | * Permanently ban users without board approval | ||
| 40 | * Override technical quality gates **Note**: Small team (3-5 initially), supported by automated moderation tools. === 1.4 Domain Trusted Contributors (Optional, Task-Specific) === **Who**: Subject matter specialists invited for specific high-stakes disputes **Not a permanent role**: Contacted externally when needed for contested claims in their domain **When used**: | ||
| 41 | * Medical claims with life/safety implications | ||
| 42 | * Legal interpretations with significant impact | ||
| 43 | * Scientific claims with high controversy | ||
| 44 | * Technical claims requiring specialized knowledge **Process**: | ||
| 45 | * Moderator identifies need for expert input | ||
| 46 | * Contact expert externally (don't require them to be users) | ||
| 47 | * Trusted Contributor provides written opinion with sources | ||
| 48 | * Opinion added to claim record | ||
| 49 | * Trusted Contributor acknowledged in claim **User Needs served**: UN-16 (Expert validation status) == 2. Content States == **Fulfills**: UN-1 (Trust indicators), UN-16 (Review status transparency) FactHarbor uses two content states. Focus is on transparency and confidence scoring, not gatekeeping. === 2.1 Published === **Status**: Visible to all users **Includes**: | ||
| 50 | * AI-generated analyses (default state) | ||
| 51 | * User-contributed content | ||
| 52 | * Edited/improved content **Quality Indicators** (displayed with content): | ||
| 53 | * **Confidence Score**: 0-100% (AI's confidence in analysis) | ||
| 54 | * **Source Quality Score**: 0-100% (based on source track record) | ||
| 55 | * **Controversy Flag**: If high dispute/edit activity | ||
| 56 | * **Completeness Score**: % of expected fields filled | ||
| 57 | * **Last Updated**: Date of most recent change | ||
| 58 | * **Edit Count**: Number of revisions | ||
| 59 | * **Review Status**: AI-generated / Human-reviewed / Expert-validated **Automatic Warnings**: | ||
| 60 | * Confidence < 60%: "Low confidence - use caution" | ||
| 61 | * Source quality < 40%: "Sources may be unreliable" | ||
| 62 | * High controversy: "Disputed - multiple interpretations exist" | ||
| 63 | * Medical/Legal/Safety domain: "Seek professional advice" **User Needs served**: UN-1 (Trust score), UN-9 (Methodology transparency), UN-15 (Evolution timeline), UN-16 (Review status) === 2.2 Hidden === **Status**: Not visible to regular users (only to moderators) **Reasons**: | ||
| 64 | * Spam or advertising | ||
| 65 | * Personal attacks or harassment | ||
| 66 | * Illegal content | ||
| 67 | * Privacy violations | ||
| 68 | * Deliberate misinformation (verified) | ||
| 69 | * Abuse or harmful content **Process**: | ||
| 70 | * Automated detection flags for moderator review | ||
| 71 | * Moderator confirms and hides | ||
| 72 | * Original author notified with reason | ||
| 73 | * Can appeal to board if disputes moderator decision **Note**: Content is hidden, not deleted (for audit trail) == 3. Contribution Rules == === 3.1 All Contributors Must === * Provide sources for factual claims | ||
| 74 | * Use clear, neutral language in FactHarbor's own summaries | ||
| 75 | * Respect others and maintain civil discourse | ||
| 76 | * Accept community feedback constructively | ||
| 77 | * Focus on improving quality, not protecting ego === 3.2 AKEL (AI System) === **AKEL is the primary system**. Human contributions supplement and train AKEL. **AKEL Must**: | ||
| 78 | * Mark all outputs as AI-generated | ||
| 79 | * Display confidence scores prominently | ||
| 80 | * Provide source citations | ||
| 81 | * Flag uncertainty clearly | ||
| 82 | * Identify contradictions in evidence | ||
| 83 | * Learn from human corrections **When AKEL Makes Errors**: | ||
| |
1.5 | 84 | |
| |
1.1 | 85 | 1. Capture the error pattern (what, why, how common) |
| 86 | 2. Improve the system (better prompt, model, validation) | ||
| 87 | 3. Re-process affected claims automatically | ||
| 88 | 4. Measure improvement (did quality increase?) **Human Role**: Train AKEL through corrections, not replace AKEL === 3.3 Contributors Should === * Improve clarity and structure | ||
| |
1.5 | 89 | |
| |
1.1 | 90 | * Add missing sources |
| 91 | * Flag errors for system improvement | ||
| 92 | * Suggest better ways to present information | ||
| 93 | * Participate in quality discussions === 3.4 Moderators Must === * Be impartial | ||
| 94 | * Document moderation decisions | ||
| 95 | * Respond to appeals promptly | ||
| 96 | * Use automated tools to scale efforts | ||
| 97 | * Focus on abuse/harm, not routine quality control == 4. Quality Standards == **Fulfills**: UN-5 (Source reliability), UN-6 (Publisher track records), UN-7 (Evidence transparency), UN-9 (Methodology transparency) === 4.1 Source Requirements === **Track Record Over Credentials**: | ||
| 98 | * Sources evaluated by historical accuracy | ||
| 99 | * Correction policy matters | ||
| 100 | * Independence from conflicts of interest | ||
| 101 | * Methodology transparency **Source Quality Database**: | ||
| 102 | * Automated tracking of source accuracy | ||
| 103 | * Correction frequency | ||
| 104 | * Reliability score (updated continuously) | ||
| 105 | * Users can see source track record **No automatic trust** for government, academia, or media - all evaluated by track record. **User Needs served**: UN-5 (Source provenance), UN-6 (Publisher reliability) === 4.2 Claim Requirements === * Clear subject and assertion | ||
| 106 | * Verifiable with available information | ||
| 107 | * Sourced (or explicitly marked as needing sources) | ||
| 108 | * Neutral language in FactHarbor summaries | ||
| 109 | * Appropriate context provided **User Needs served**: UN-2 (Claim extraction and verification) === 4.3 Evidence Requirements === * Publicly accessible (or explain why not) | ||
| 110 | * Properly cited with attribution | ||
| 111 | * Relevant to claim being evaluated | ||
| 112 | * Original source preferred over secondary **User Needs served**: UN-7 (Evidence transparency) === 4.4 Confidence Scoring === **Automated confidence calculation based on**: | ||
| 113 | * Source quality scores | ||
| 114 | * Evidence consistency | ||
| 115 | * Contradiction detection | ||
| 116 | * Completeness of analysis | ||
| 117 | * Historical accuracy of similar claims **Thresholds**: | ||
| 118 | * < 40%: Too low to publish (needs improvement) | ||
| 119 | * 40-60%: Published with "Low confidence" warning | ||
| 120 | * 60-80%: Published as standard | ||
| 121 | * 80-100%: Published as "High confidence" **User Needs served**: UN-1 (Trust assessment), UN-9 (Methodology transparency) == 5. Automated Risk Scoring == **Fulfills**: UN-10 (Manipulation detection), UN-16 (Appropriate review level) **Replace manual risk tiers with continuous automated scoring**. === 5.1 Risk Score Calculation === **Factors** (weighted algorithm): | ||
| 122 | * **Domain sensitivity**: Medical, legal, safety auto-flagged higher | ||
| 123 | * **Potential impact**: Views, citations, spread | ||
| 124 | * **Controversy level**: Flags, disputes, edit wars | ||
| 125 | * **Uncertainty**: Low confidence, contradictory evidence | ||
| 126 | * **Source reliability**: Track record of sources used **Score**: 0-100 (higher = more risk) === 5.2 Automated Actions === * **Score > 80**: Flag for moderator review before publication | ||
| 127 | * **Score 60-80**: Publish with prominent warnings | ||
| 128 | * **Score 40-60**: Publish with standard warnings | ||
| 129 | * **Score < 40**: Publish normally **Continuous monitoring**: Risk score recalculated as new information emerges **User Needs served**: UN-10 (Detect manipulation tactics), UN-16 (Review status) == 6. System Improvement Process == **Core principle**: Fix the system, not just the data. === 6.1 Error Capture === **When users flag errors or make corrections**: | ||
| |
1.5 | 130 | |
| |
1.1 | 131 | 1. What was wrong? (categorize) |
| 132 | 2. What should it have been? | ||
| 133 | 3. Why did the system fail? (root cause) | ||
| 134 | 4. How common is this pattern? | ||
| 135 | 5. Store in ErrorPattern table (improvement queue) === 6.2 Weekly Improvement Cycle === 1. **Review**: Analyze top error patterns | ||
| 136 | 2. **Develop**: Create fix (prompt, model, validation) | ||
| 137 | 3. **Test**: Validate fix on sample claims | ||
| 138 | 4. **Deploy**: Roll out if quality improves | ||
| 139 | 5. **Re-process**: Automatically update affected claims | ||
| 140 | 6. **Monitor**: Track quality metrics === 6.3 Quality Metrics Dashboard === **Track continuously**: | ||
| |
1.5 | 141 | |
| |
1.1 | 142 | * Error rate by category |
| 143 | * Source quality distribution | ||
| 144 | * Confidence score trends | ||
| 145 | * User flag rate (issues found) | ||
| 146 | * Correction acceptance rate | ||
| 147 | * Re-work rate | ||
| 148 | * Claims processed per hour **Goal**: 10% monthly improvement in error rate == 7. Automated Quality Monitoring == **Replace manual audit sampling with automated monitoring**. === 7.1 Continuous Metrics === * **Source quality**: Track record database | ||
| 149 | * **Consistency**: Contradiction detection | ||
| 150 | * **Clarity**: Readability scores | ||
| 151 | * **Completeness**: Field validation | ||
| 152 | * **Accuracy**: User corrections tracked === 7.2 Anomaly Detection === **Automated alerts for**: | ||
| 153 | * Sudden quality drops | ||
| 154 | * Unusual patterns | ||
| 155 | * Contradiction clusters | ||
| 156 | * Source reliability changes | ||
| 157 | * User behavior anomalies === 7.3 Targeted Review === * Review only flagged items | ||
| 158 | * Random sampling for calibration (not quotas) | ||
| 159 | * Learn from corrections to improve automation == 8. Functional Requirements == This section defines specific features that fulfill user needs. === 8.1 Claim Intake & Normalization === ==== FR1 — Claim Intake ==== **Fulfills**: UN-2 (Claim extraction), UN-4 (Quick fact-checking), UN-12 (Submit claims) * Users submit claims via simple form or API | ||
| 160 | * Claims can be text, URL, or image | ||
| 161 | * Duplicate detection (semantic similarity) | ||
| 162 | * Auto-categorization by domain ==== FR2 — Claim Normalization ==== **Fulfills**: UN-2 (Claim verification) * Standardize to clear assertion format | ||
| 163 | * Extract key entities (who, what, when, where) | ||
| 164 | * Identify claim type (factual, predictive, evaluative) | ||
| 165 | * Link to existing similar claims ==== FR3 — Claim Classification ==== **Fulfills**: UN-11 (Filtered research) * Domain: Politics, Science, Health, etc. | ||
| 166 | * Type: Historical fact, current stat, prediction, etc. | ||
| 167 | * Risk score: Automated calculation | ||
| 168 | * Complexity: Simple, moderate, complex === 8.2 Scenario System === ==== FR4 — Scenario Generation ==== **Fulfills**: UN-2 (Context-dependent verification), UN-3 (Article summary with FactHarbor analysis summary), UN-8 (Understanding disagreement) **Automated scenario creation**: | ||
| 169 | * AKEL analyzes claim and generates likely scenarios (use-cases and contexts) | ||
| 170 | * Each scenario includes: assumptions, definitions, boundaries, evidence context | ||
| 171 | * Users can flag incorrect scenarios | ||
| 172 | * System learns from corrections **Key Concept**: Scenarios represent different interpretations or contexts (e.g., "Clinical trials with healthy adults" vs. "Real-world data with diverse populations") ==== FR5 — Evidence Linking ==== **Fulfills**: UN-5 (Source tracing), UN-7 (Evidence transparency) * Automated evidence discovery from sources | ||
| 173 | * Relevance scoring | ||
| 174 | * Contradiction detection | ||
| 175 | * Source quality assessment ==== FR6 — Scenario Comparison ==== **Fulfills**: UN-3 (Article summary with FactHarbor analysis summary), UN-8 (Understanding disagreement) * Side-by-side comparison interface | ||
| 176 | * Highlight key differences between scenarios | ||
| 177 | * Show evidence supporting each scenario | ||
| 178 | * Display confidence scores per scenario === 8.3 Verdicts & Analysis === ==== FR7 — Automated Verdicts ==== **Fulfills**: UN-1 (Trust score), UN-2 (Verification verdicts), UN-3 (Article summary with FactHarbor analysis summary), UN-13 (Cite verdicts) * AKEL generates verdict based on evidence within each scenario | ||
| 179 | * **Likelihood range** displayed (e.g., "0.70-0.85 (likely true)") - NOT binary true/false | ||
| 180 | * **Uncertainty factors** explicitly listed (e.g., "Small sample sizes", "Long-term effects unknown") | ||
| 181 | * Confidence score displayed prominently | ||
| 182 | * Source quality indicators shown | ||
| 183 | * Contradictions noted | ||
| 184 | * Uncertainty acknowledged **Key Innovation**: Detailed probabilistic verdicts with explicit uncertainty, not binary judgments ==== FR8 — Time Evolution ==== **Fulfills**: UN-15 (Verdict evolution timeline) * Claims and verdicts update as new evidence emerges | ||
| 185 | * Version history maintained for all verdicts | ||
| 186 | * Changes highlighted | ||
| 187 | * Confidence score trends visible | ||
| 188 | * Users can see "as of date X, what did we know?" === 8.4 User Interface & Presentation === ==== FR12 — Two-Panel Summary View (Article Summary with FactHarbor Analysis Summary) ==== **Fulfills**: UN-3 (Article Summary with FactHarbor Analysis Summary) **Purpose**: Provide side-by-side comparison of what a document claims vs. FactHarbor's complete analysis of its credibility **Left Panel: Article Summary**: | ||
| 189 | * Document title, source, and claimed credibility | ||
| 190 | * "The Big Picture" - main thesis or position change | ||
| 191 | * "Key Findings" - structured summary of document's main claims | ||
| 192 | * "Reasoning" - document's explanation for positions | ||
| 193 | * "Conclusion" - document's bottom line **Right Panel: FactHarbor Analysis Summary**: | ||
| 194 | * FactHarbor's independent source credibility assessment | ||
| 195 | * Claim-by-claim verdicts with confidence scores | ||
| 196 | * Methodology assessment (strengths, limitations) | ||
| 197 | * Overall verdict on document quality | ||
| 198 | * Analysis ID for reference **Design Principles**: | ||
| 199 | * No scrolling required - both panels visible simultaneously | ||
| 200 | * Visual distinction between "what they say" and "FactHarbor's analysis" | ||
| 201 | * Color coding for verdicts (supported, uncertain, refuted) | ||
| 202 | * Confidence percentages clearly visible | ||
| 203 | * Mobile responsive (panels stack vertically on small screens) **Implementation Notes**: | ||
| 204 | * Generated automatically by AKEL for every analyzed document | ||
| 205 | * Updates when verdict evolves (maintains version history) | ||
| 206 | * Exportable as standalone summary report | ||
| 207 | * Shareable via permanent URL ==== FR13 — In-Article Claim Highlighting ==== **Fulfills**: UN-17 (In-article claim highlighting) **Purpose**: Enable readers to quickly assess claim credibility while reading by visually highlighting factual claims with color-coded indicators ==== Visual Example: Article with Highlighted Claims ==== (% class="box" %) | ||
| 208 | ((( | ||
| |
1.5 | 209 | **Article: "New Study Shows Benefits of Mediterranean Diet"** A recent study published in the Journal of Nutrition has revealed new findings about the Mediterranean diet. |
| 210 | |||
| 211 | (% class="box successmessage" style="margin:10px 0;" %) | ||
| |
1.1 | 212 | ((( |
| 213 | 🟢 **Researchers found that Mediterranean diet followers had a 25% lower risk of heart disease compared to control groups** (% style="font-size:0.9em; color:#666;" %) | ||
| 214 | ↑ WELL SUPPORTED • 87% confidence | ||
| 215 | [[Click for evidence details →]] | ||
| |
1.5 | 216 | |
| 217 | |||
| 218 | ))) | ||
| 219 | |||
| 220 | The study, which followed 10,000 participants over five years, showed significant improvements in cardiovascular health markers. | ||
| 221 | |||
| 222 | (% class="box warningmessage" style="margin:10px 0;" %) | ||
| |
1.1 | 223 | ((( |
| 224 | 🟡 **Some experts believe this diet can completely prevent heart attacks** (% style="font-size:0.9em; color:#666;" %) | ||
| 225 | ↑ UNCERTAIN • 45% confidence | ||
| 226 | Overstated - evidence shows risk reduction, not prevention | ||
| 227 | [[Click for details →]] | ||
| |
1.5 | 228 | |
| 229 | |||
| 230 | ))) | ||
| 231 | |||
| 232 | Dr. Maria Rodriguez, lead researcher, recommends incorporating more olive oil, fish, and vegetables into daily meals. | ||
| 233 | |||
| 234 | (% class="box errormessage" style="margin:10px 0;" %) | ||
| |
1.1 | 235 | ((( |
| 236 | 🔴 **The study proves that saturated fats cause heart disease** (% style="font-size:0.9em; color:#666;" %) | ||
| 237 | ↑ REFUTED • 15% confidence | ||
| 238 | Claim not supported by study design; correlation ≠ causation | ||
| 239 | [[Click for counter-evidence →]] | ||
| |
1.5 | 240 | |
| 241 | |||
| 242 | ))) | ||
| 243 | |||
| 244 | Participants also reported feeling more energetic and experiencing better sleep quality, though these were secondary measures. | ||
| 245 | )))**Legend:** | ||
| |
1.1 | 246 | * 🟢 = Well-supported claim (confidence ≥75%) |
| 247 | * 🟡 = Uncertain claim (confidence 40-74%) | ||
| 248 | * 🔴 = Refuted/unsupported claim (confidence <40%) | ||
| 249 | * Plain text = Non-factual content (context, opinions, recommendations) ==== Tooltip on Hover/Click ==== (% class="box infomessage" %) | ||
| 250 | ((( | ||
| 251 | **FactHarbor Analysis** **Claim:** | ||
| 252 | "Researchers found that Mediterranean diet followers had a 25% lower risk of heart disease" **Verdict:** WELL SUPPORTED | ||
| 253 | **Confidence:** 87% **Evidence Summary:** | ||
| |
1.5 | 254 | |
| |
1.1 | 255 | * Meta-analysis of 12 RCTs confirms 23-28% risk reduction |
| 256 | * Consistent findings across multiple populations | ||
| 257 | * Published in peer-reviewed journal (high credibility) **Uncertainty Factors:** | ||
| 258 | * Exact percentage varies by study (20-30% range) [[View Full Analysis →]] | ||
| |
1.5 | 259 | )))**Color-Coding System**: |
| |
1.1 | 260 | * **Green**: Well-supported claims (confidence ≥75%, strong evidence) |
| 261 | * **Yellow/Orange**: Uncertain claims (confidence 40-74%, conflicting or limited evidence) | ||
| 262 | * **Red**: Refuted or unsupported claims (confidence <40%, contradicted by evidence) | ||
| |
1.5 | 263 | * **Gray/Neutral**: Non-factual content (opinions, questions, procedural text) ==== Interactive Highlighting Example (Detailed View) ==== |
| 264 | |||
| |
1.1 | 265 | |=**Article Text**|=**Status**|=**Analysis** |
| |
1.5 | 266 | |((( |
| 267 | A recent study published in the Journal of Nutrition has revealed new findings about the Mediterranean diet. | ||
| 268 | )))|(% style="text-align:center;" %)Plain text|(% style="font-style:italic; color:#888;" %)Context - no highlighting | ||
| 269 | |((( | ||
| 270 | //Researchers found that Mediterranean diet followers had a 25% lower risk of heart disease compared to control groups// | ||
| 271 | )))|(% style="background-color:#D4EDDA; text-align:center; padding:8px;" %)🟢 **WELL SUPPORTED**|((( | ||
| |
1.1 | 272 | **87% confidence** Meta-analysis of 12 RCTs confirms 23-28% risk reduction [[View Full Analysis]] |
| 273 | ))) | ||
| |
1.5 | 274 | |((( |
| 275 | The study, which followed 10,000 participants over five years, showed significant improvements in cardiovascular health markers. | ||
| 276 | )))|(% style="text-align:center;" %)Plain text|(% style="font-style:italic; color:#888;" %)Methodology - no highlighting | ||
| 277 | |((( | ||
| 278 | //Some experts believe this diet can completely prevent heart attacks// | ||
| 279 | )))|(% style="background-color:#FFF3CD; text-align:center; padding:8px;" %)🟡 **UNCERTAIN**|((( | ||
| |
1.1 | 280 | **45% confidence** Overstated - evidence shows risk reduction, not prevention [[View Details]] |
| 281 | ))) | ||
| |
1.5 | 282 | |((( |
| 283 | Dr. Rodriguez recommends incorporating more olive oil, fish, and vegetables into daily meals. | ||
| 284 | )))|(% style="text-align:center;" %)Plain text|(% style="font-style:italic; color:#888;" %)Recommendation - no highlighting | ||
| 285 | |((( | ||
| 286 | //The study proves that saturated fats cause heart disease// | ||
| 287 | )))|(% style="background-color:#F8D7DA; text-align:center; padding:8px;" %)🔴 **REFUTED**|((( | ||
| |
1.1 | 288 | **15% confidence** Claim not supported by study; correlation ≠ causation [[View Counter-Evidence]] |
| |
1.5 | 289 | )))**Design Notes:** |
| 290 | |||
| |
1.1 | 291 | * Highlighted claims use italics to distinguish from plain text |
| 292 | * Color backgrounds match XWiki message box colors (success/warning/error) | ||
| 293 | * Status column shows verdict prominently | ||
| 294 | * Analysis column provides quick summary with link to details **User Actions**: | ||
| 295 | * **Hover** over highlighted claim → Tooltip appears | ||
| 296 | * **Click** highlighted claim → Detailed analysis modal/panel | ||
| 297 | * **Toggle** button to turn highlighting on/off | ||
| 298 | * **Keyboard**: Tab through highlighted claims **Interaction Design**: | ||
| 299 | * Hover/click on highlighted claim → Show tooltip with: * Claim text * Verdict (e.g., "WELL SUPPORTED") * Confidence score (e.g., "85%") * Brief evidence summary * Link to detailed analysis | ||
| 300 | * Toggle highlighting on/off (user preference) | ||
| 301 | * Adjustable color intensity for accessibility **Technical Requirements**: | ||
| 302 | * Real-time highlighting as page loads (non-blocking) | ||
| 303 | * Claim boundary detection (start/end of assertion) | ||
| 304 | * Handle nested or overlapping claims | ||
| 305 | * Preserve original article formatting | ||
| 306 | * Work with various content formats (HTML, plain text, PDFs) **Performance Requirements**: | ||
| 307 | * Highlighting renders within 500ms of page load | ||
| 308 | * No perceptible delay in reading experience | ||
| 309 | * Efficient DOM manipulation (avoid reflows) **Accessibility**: | ||
| 310 | * Color-blind friendly palette (use patterns/icons in addition to color) | ||
| 311 | * Screen reader compatible (ARIA labels for claim credibility) | ||
| 312 | * Keyboard navigation to highlighted claims **Implementation Notes**: | ||
| 313 | * Claims extracted and analyzed by AKEL during initial processing | ||
| 314 | * Highlighting data stored as annotations with byte offsets | ||
| 315 | * Client-side rendering of highlights based on verdict data | ||
| 316 | * Mobile responsive (tap instead of hover) === 8.5 Workflow & Moderation === ==== FR9 — Publication Workflow ==== **Fulfills**: UN-1 (Fast access to verified content), UN-16 (Clear review status) **Simple flow**: | ||
| |
1.5 | 317 | |
| |
1.1 | 318 | 1. Claim submitted |
| 319 | 2. AKEL processes (automated) | ||
| 320 | 3. If confidence > threshold: Publish (labeled as AI-generated) | ||
| 321 | 4. If confidence < threshold: Flag for improvement | ||
| 322 | 5. If risk score > threshold: Flag for moderator **No multi-stage approval process** ==== FR10 — Moderation ==== **Focus on abuse, not routine quality**: | ||
| |
1.5 | 323 | |
| |
1.1 | 324 | * Automated abuse detection |
| 325 | * Moderators handle flags | ||
| 326 | * Quick response to harmful content | ||
| 327 | * Minimal involvement in routine content ==== FR11 — Audit Trail ==== **Fulfills**: UN-14 (API access to histories), UN-15 (Evolution tracking) * All edits logged | ||
| 328 | * Version history public | ||
| 329 | * Moderation decisions documented | ||
| 330 | * System improvements tracked == 9. Non-Functional Requirements == === 9.1 NFR1 — Performance === **Fulfills**: UN-4 (Fast fact-checking), UN-11 (Responsive filtering) * Claim processing: < 30 seconds | ||
| 331 | * Search response: < 2 seconds | ||
| 332 | * Page load: < 3 seconds | ||
| 333 | * 99% uptime === 9.2 NFR2 — Scalability === **Fulfills**: UN-14 (API access at scale) * Handle 10,000 claims initially | ||
| 334 | * Scale to 1M+ claims | ||
| 335 | * Support 100K+ concurrent users | ||
| 336 | * Automated processing scales linearly === 9.3 NFR3 — Transparency === **Fulfills**: UN-7 (Evidence transparency), UN-9 (Methodology transparency), UN-13 (Citable verdicts), UN-15 (Evolution visibility) * All algorithms open source | ||
| 337 | * All data exportable | ||
| 338 | * All decisions documented | ||
| 339 | * Quality metrics public === 9.4 NFR4 — Security & Privacy === * Follow [[Privacy Policy>>FactHarbor.Organisation.How-We-Work-Together.Privacy-Policy]] | ||
| 340 | * Secure authentication | ||
| 341 | * Data encryption | ||
| 342 | * Regular security audits === 9.5 NFR5 — Maintainability === * Modular architecture | ||
| 343 | * Automated testing | ||
| 344 | * Continuous integration | ||
| 345 | * Comprehensive documentation === NFR11: AKEL Quality Assurance Framework === **Fulfills:** AI safety, IFCN methodology transparency **Specification:** Multi-layer AI quality gates to detect hallucinations, low-confidence results, and logical inconsistencies. ==== Quality Gate 1: Claim Extraction Validation ==== **Purpose:** Ensure extracted claims are factual assertions (not opinions/predictions) **Checks:** | ||
| |
1.5 | 346 | |
| |
1.1 | 347 | 1. **Factual Statement Test:** Is this verifiable? (Yes/No) |
| 348 | 2. **Opinion Detection:** Contains hedging language? ("I think", "probably", "best") | ||
| 349 | 3. **Future Prediction Test:** Makes claims about future events? | ||
| 350 | 4. **Specificity Score:** Contains specific entities, numbers, dates? **Thresholds:** | ||
| |
1.5 | 351 | |
| |
1.1 | 352 | * Factual: Must be "Yes" |
| 353 | * Opinion markers: <2 hedging phrases | ||
| 354 | * Specificity: ≥3 specific elements **Action if Failed:** Flag as "Non-verifiable", do NOT generate verdict ==== Quality Gate 2: Evidence Relevance Validation ==== **Purpose:** Ensure AI-linked evidence actually relates to claim **Checks:** | ||
| |
1.5 | 355 | |
| |
1.1 | 356 | 1. **Semantic Similarity Score:** Evidence vs. claim (embeddings) |
| 357 | 2. **Entity Overlap:** Shared people/places/things? | ||
| 358 | 3. **Topic Relevance:** Discusses claim subject? **Thresholds:** | ||
| |
1.5 | 359 | |
| |
1.1 | 360 | * Similarity: ≥0.6 (cosine similarity) |
| 361 | * Entity overlap: ≥1 shared entity | ||
| 362 | * Topic relevance: ≥0.5 **Action if Failed:** Discard irrelevant evidence ==== Quality Gate 3: Scenario Coherence Check ==== **Purpose:** Validate scenario assumptions are logical and complete **Checks:** | ||
| |
1.5 | 363 | |
| |
1.1 | 364 | 1. **Completeness:** All required fields populated |
| 365 | 2. **Internal Consistency:** Assumptions don't contradict | ||
| 366 | 3. **Distinguishability:** Scenarios meaningfully different **Thresholds:** | ||
| |
1.5 | 367 | |
| |
1.1 | 368 | * Required fields: 100% |
| 369 | * Contradiction score: <0.3 | ||
| 370 | * Scenario similarity: <0.8 **Action if Failed:** Merge duplicates, reduce confidence -20% ==== Quality Gate 4: Verdict Confidence Assessment ==== **Purpose:** Only publish high-confidence verdicts **Checks:** | ||
| |
1.5 | 371 | |
| |
1.1 | 372 | 1. **Evidence Count:** Minimum 2 sources |
| 373 | 2. **Source Quality:** Average reliability ≥0.6 | ||
| 374 | 3. **Evidence Agreement:** Supporting vs. contradicting ≥0.6 | ||
| 375 | 4. **Uncertainty Factors:** Hedging in reasoning **Confidence Tiers:** | ||
| |
1.5 | 376 | |
| |
1.1 | 377 | * **HIGH (80-100%):** ≥3 sources, ≥0.7 quality, ≥80% agreement |
| 378 | * **MEDIUM (50-79%):** ≥2 sources, ≥0.6 quality, ≥60% agreement | ||
| 379 | * **LOW (0-49%):** <2 sources OR low quality/agreement | ||
| 380 | * **INSUFFICIENT:** <2 sources → DO NOT PUBLISH **Implementation Phases:** | ||
| 381 | * **POC1:** Gates 1 & 4 only (basic validation) | ||
| 382 | * **POC2:** All 4 gates (complete framework) | ||
| 383 | * **V1.0:** Hardened with <5% hallucination rate **Acceptance Criteria:** | ||
| 384 | * ✅ All gates operational | ||
| 385 | * ✅ Hallucination rate <5% | ||
| 386 | * ✅ Quality metrics public === NFR12: Security Controls === **Fulfills:** Production readiness, legal compliance **Requirements:** | ||
| |
1.5 | 387 | |
| |
1.1 | 388 | 1. **Input Validation:** SQL injection, XSS, CSRF prevention |
| 389 | 2. **Rate Limiting:** 5 analyses per minute per IP | ||
| 390 | 3. **Authentication:** Secure sessions, API key rotation | ||
| 391 | 4. **Data Protection:** HTTPS, encryption, backups | ||
| 392 | 5. **Security Audit:** Penetration testing, GDPR compliance **Milestone:** Beta 0 (essential), V1.0 (complete) **BLOCKER** === NFR13: Quality Metrics Transparency === **Fulfills:** IFCN transparency, user trust **Public Metrics:** | ||
| |
1.5 | 393 | |
| |
1.1 | 394 | * Quality gates performance |
| 395 | * Evidence quality stats | ||
| 396 | * Hallucination rate | ||
| 397 | * User feedback **Milestone:** POC2 (internal), Beta 0 (public), V1.0 (real-time) == 10. Requirements Priority Matrix == | ||
| 398 | |||
| 399 | This table shows all functional and non-functional requirements ordered by urgency and priority. | ||
| 400 | |||
| 401 | **Note:** Implementation phases (POC1, POC2, Beta 0, V1.0) are defined in [[POC Requirements>>FactHarbor.Specification.POC.Requirements]] and [[Implementation Roadmap>>FactHarbor.Implementation-Roadmap.WebHome]], not in this priority matrix. | ||
| 402 | |||
| 403 | **Priority Levels:** | ||
| |
1.5 | 404 | |
| |
1.1 | 405 | * **CRITICAL** - System doesn't work without it, or major safety/legal risk |
| 406 | * **HIGH** - Core functionality, essential for success | ||
| 407 | * **MEDIUM** - Important but not blocking | ||
| 408 | * **LOW** - Nice to have, can be deferred | ||
| 409 | |||
| 410 | **Urgency Levels:** | ||
| |
1.5 | 411 | |
| |
1.1 | 412 | * **HIGH** - Immediate need (critical for proof of concept) |
| 413 | * **MEDIUM** - Important but not immediate | ||
| 414 | * **LOW** - Future enhancement | ||
| 415 | |||
| 416 | |= ID |= Title |= Priority |= Urgency |= Reason (for HIGH priority/urgency) | ||
| |
1.5 | 417 | | **HIGH URGENCY** |||||\\ |
| |
1.1 | 418 | | **FR1** | Claim Intake | CRITICAL | HIGH | System entry point - cannot process claims without it |
| 419 | | **FR5** | Evidence Collection | CRITICAL | HIGH | Core fact-checking functionality - no evidence = no verdict | ||
| 420 | | **FR7** | Verdict Computation | CRITICAL | HIGH | The output users see - core value proposition | ||
| 421 | | **NFR11** | Quality Assurance Framework | CRITICAL | HIGH | Prevents AI hallucinations - FactHarbor's key differentiator | ||
| 422 | | **FR2** | Claim Normalization | HIGH | HIGH | Standardizes AI input for reliable processing | ||
| 423 | | **FR3** | Claim Classification | HIGH | HIGH | Identifies factual vs non-factual claims - essential quality gate | ||
| 424 | | **FR4** | Scenario Generation | HIGH | HIGH | Handles ambiguous claims - key methodology innovation | ||
| 425 | | **FR6** | Evidence Evaluation | HIGH | HIGH | Source quality directly impacts verdict credibility | ||
| |
1.5 | 426 | | **MEDIUM URGENCY** |||||\\ |
| |
1.1 | 427 | | **NFR12** | Security Controls | CRITICAL | MEDIUM | — |
| 428 | | **FR9** | Corrections | HIGH | MEDIUM | IFCN requirement - mandatory for credibility | ||
| 429 | | **FR44** | ClaimReview Schema | HIGH | MEDIUM | Search engine visibility - MUST for V1.0 discovery | ||
| 430 | | **FR45** | Corrections Notification | HIGH | MEDIUM | IFCN compliance - required for corrections transparency | ||
| 431 | | **FR48** | Safety Framework | HIGH | MEDIUM | Prevents harm to contributors - legal and ethical requirement | ||
| 432 | | **NFR3** | Transparency | HIGH | MEDIUM | Core principle - essential for trust and credibility | ||
| 433 | | **NFR13** | Quality Metrics | HIGH | MEDIUM | Monitoring and transparency - IFCN compliance | ||
| 434 | | **FR8** | User Contribution | MEDIUM | MEDIUM | — | ||
| 435 | | **FR10** | Publishing | MEDIUM | MEDIUM | — | ||
| 436 | | **FR13** | API | MEDIUM | MEDIUM | — | ||
| 437 | | **FR46** | Image Verification | MEDIUM | MEDIUM | — | ||
| 438 | | **FR47** | Archive.org Integration | MEDIUM | MEDIUM | — | ||
| 439 | | **FR54** | Evidence Deduplication | MEDIUM | MEDIUM | — | ||
| 440 | | **NFR1** | Performance | MEDIUM | MEDIUM | — | ||
| 441 | | **NFR2** | Scalability | MEDIUM | MEDIUM | — | ||
| 442 | | **NFR4** | Security & Privacy | MEDIUM | MEDIUM | — | ||
| 443 | | **NFR5** | Maintainability | MEDIUM | MEDIUM | — | ||
| |
1.5 | 444 | | **LOW URGENCY** |||||\\ |
| |
1.1 | 445 | | **FR11** | Social Sharing | LOW | LOW | — |
| 446 | | **FR12** | Notifications | LOW | LOW | — | ||
| 447 | | **FR49** | A/B Testing | LOW | LOW | — | ||
| 448 | | **FR50** | OSINT Toolkit Integration | LOW | LOW | — | ||
| 449 | | **FR51** | Video Verification System | LOW | LOW | — | ||
| 450 | | **FR52** | Interactive Detection Training | LOW | LOW | — | ||
| 451 | | **FR53** | Cross-Organizational Sharing | LOW | LOW | — | ||
| 452 | |||
| 453 | **Total:** 32 requirements (24 Functional, 8 Non-Functional) | ||
| 454 | |||
| 455 | **Notes:** | ||
| |
1.5 | 456 | |
| |
1.1 | 457 | * Reason column: Only populated for HIGH priority or HIGH urgency items |
| 458 | * MEDIUM and LOW priority items use "—" (no specific reason needed) | ||
| 459 | |||
| 460 | **See also:** | ||
| |
1.5 | 461 | |
| |
1.1 | 462 | * [[POC Requirements>>FactHarbor.Specification.POC.Requirements]] - POC1 scope and simplifications |
| 463 | * [[Implementation Roadmap>>FactHarbor.Implementation-Roadmap.WebHome]] - Phase-by-phase implementation plan | ||
| |
1.15 | 464 | * [[User Needs>>Archive.FactHarbor 2026\.01\.20.Specification.Requirements.User Needs.WebHome]] - Foundation that drives these requirements |
| |
1.1 | 465 | |
| 466 | === 10.1 User Needs Priority === | ||
| 467 | |||
| 468 | User Needs (UN) are the foundation that drives functional and non-functional requirements. They are not independently prioritized; instead, their priority is inherited from the FR/NFR requirements they drive. | ||
| 469 | |||
| 470 | |= ID |= Title |= Drives Requirements | ||
| 471 | | **UN-1** | Trust Assessment at a Glance | Multiple FR/NFR | ||
| 472 | | **UN-2** | Claim Extraction and Verification | FR1-7 | ||
| 473 | | **UN-3** | Article Summary with FactHarbor Analysis Summary | FR4 | ||
| 474 | | **UN-4** | Social Media Fact-Checking | FR1, FR4 | ||
| 475 | | **UN-5** | Source Provenance and Track Records | FR6 | ||
| 476 | | **UN-6** | Publisher Reliability History | FR6 | ||
| 477 | | **UN-7** | Evidence Transparency | NFR3 | ||
| 478 | | **UN-8** | Understanding Disagreement and Consensus | FR4 | ||
| 479 | | **UN-9** | Methodology Transparency | NFR3, NFR11 | ||
| 480 | | **UN-10** | Manipulation Tactics Detection | FR48 | ||
| 481 | | **UN-11** | Filtered Research | FR3 | ||
| 482 | | **UN-12** | Submit Unchecked Claims | FR8 | ||
| 483 | | **UN-13** | Cite FactHarbor Verdicts | FR10 | ||
| 484 | | **UN-14** | API Access for Integration | FR13 | ||
| 485 | | **UN-15** | Verdict Evolution Timeline | FR7 | ||
| 486 | | **UN-16** | AI vs. Human Review Status | FR9 | ||
| 487 | | **UN-17** | In-Article Claim Highlighting | FR1 | ||
| 488 | | **UN-26** | Search Engine Visibility | FR44 | ||
| 489 | | **UN-27** | Visual Claim Verification | FR46 | ||
| 490 | | **UN-28** | Safe Contribution Environment | FR48 | ||
| 491 | |||
| 492 | **Total:** 20 User Needs | ||
| 493 | |||
| 494 | **Note:** Each User Need inherits priority from the requirements it drives. For example, UN-2 (Claim Extraction and Verification) drives FR1-7, which are CRITICAL/HIGH priority, therefore UN-2 is also critical to the project. | ||
| 495 | |||
| |
1.5 | 496 | == 11. MVP Scope == |
| 497 | |||
| 498 | **Phase 1 : Read-Only MVP** Build: | ||
| 499 | |||
| |
1.1 | 500 | * Automated claim analysis |
| 501 | * Confidence scoring | ||
| 502 | * Source evaluation | ||
| 503 | * Browse/search interface | ||
| 504 | * User flagging system **Goal**: Prove AI quality before adding user editing **User Needs fulfilled in Phase 1**: UN-1, UN-2, UN-3, UN-4, UN-5, UN-6, UN-7, UN-8, UN-9, UN-12 **Phase 2 : User Contributions** Add only if needed: | ||
| 505 | * Simple editing (Wikipedia-style) | ||
| 506 | * Reputation system | ||
| 507 | * Basic moderation | ||
| 508 | * In-article claim highlighting (FR13) **Additional User Needs fulfilled**: UN-13, UN-17 **Phase 3 : Refinement** * Continuous quality improvement | ||
| 509 | * Feature additions based on real usage | ||
| 510 | * Scale infrastructure **Additional User Needs fulfilled**: UN-14 (API access), UN-15 (Full evolution tracking) **Deferred**: | ||
| 511 | * Federation (until multiple successful instances exist) | ||
| 512 | * Complex contribution workflows (focus on automation) | ||
| 513 | * Extensive role hierarchy (keep simple) == 12. Success Metrics == **System Quality** (track weekly): | ||
| 514 | * Error rate by category (target: -10%/month) | ||
| 515 | * Average confidence score (target: increase) | ||
| 516 | * Source quality distribution (target: more high-quality) | ||
| 517 | * Contradiction detection rate (target: increase) **Efficiency** (track monthly): | ||
| 518 | * Claims processed per hour (target: increase) | ||
| 519 | * Human hours per claim (target: decrease) | ||
| 520 | * Automation coverage (target: >90%) | ||
| 521 | * Re-work rate (target: <5%) **User Satisfaction** (track quarterly): | ||
| 522 | * User flag rate (issues found) | ||
| 523 | * Correction acceptance rate (flags valid) | ||
| 524 | * Return user rate | ||
| 525 | * Trust indicators (surveys) **User Needs Metrics** (track quarterly): | ||
| 526 | * UN-1: % users who understand trust scores | ||
| 527 | * UN-4: Time to verify social media claim (target: <30s) | ||
| 528 | * UN-7: % users who access evidence details | ||
| 529 | * UN-8: % users who view multiple scenarios | ||
| 530 | * UN-15: % users who check evolution timeline | ||
| |
1.15 | 531 | * UN-17: % users who enable in-article highlighting; avg. time spent on highlighted vs. non-highlighted articles == 13. Requirements Traceability == For full traceability matrix showing which requirements fulfill which user needs, see: * [[User Needs>>Archive.FactHarbor 2026\.01\.20.Specification.Requirements.User Needs.WebHome]] - Section 8 includes comprehensive mapping tables == 14. Related Pages == **Non-Functional Requirements (see Section 9):** |
| |
1.1 | 532 | * [[NFR11 — AKEL Quality Assurance Framework>>#NFR11]] |
| 533 | * [[NFR12 — Security Controls>>#NFR12]] | ||
| 534 | * [[NFR13 — Quality Metrics Transparency>>#NFR13]] **Other Requirements:** | ||
| |
1.15 | 535 | * [[User Needs>>Archive.FactHarbor 2026\.01\.20.Specification.Requirements.User Needs.WebHome]] |
| |
1.5 | 536 | * \\ |
| |
1.15 | 537 | * [[Gap Analysis>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.GapAnalysis]] * **[[User Needs>>Archive.FactHarbor 2026\.01\.20.Specification.Requirements.User Needs.WebHome]]** - What users need (drives these requirements) |
| |
1.13 | 538 | * [[Architecture>>Archive.FactHarbor 2026\.01\.20.Specification.Architecture.WebHome]] - How requirements are implemented |
| |
1.14 | 539 | * [[Data Model>>Archive.FactHarbor 2026\.01\.20.Specification.Data Model.WebHome]] - Data structures supporting requirements |
| |
1.16 | 540 | * [[Workflows>>Archive.FactHarbor 2026\.01\.20.Specification.Workflows.WebHome]] - User interaction workflows |
| |
1.12 | 541 | * [[AKEL>>Archive.FactHarbor 2026\.01\.20.Specification.AI Knowledge Extraction Layer (AKEL).WebHome]] - AI system fulfilling automation requirements |
| |
1.11 | 542 | * [[Global Rules>>Archive.FactHarbor 2026\.01\.20.Organisation.How-We-Work-Together.GlobalRules.WebHome]] |
| |
1.1 | 543 | * [[Privacy Policy>>FactHarbor.Organisation.How-We-Work-Together.Privacy-Policy]] = V0.9.70 Additional Requirements = == Functional Requirements (Additional) == === FR44: ClaimReview Schema Implementation === Generate valid ClaimReview structured data for Google/Bing visibility. **Schema.org Mapping:** |
| 544 | * 80-100% likelihood → 5 (Highly Supported) | ||
| 545 | * 60-79% → 4 (Supported) | ||
| 546 | * 40-59% → 3 (Mixed) | ||
| 547 | * 20-39% → 2 (Questionable) | ||
| 548 | * 0-19% → 1 (Refuted) **Milestone:** V1.0 === FR45: User Corrections Notification System === Notify users when analyses are corrected. **Mechanisms:** | ||
| |
1.5 | 549 | |
| |
1.1 | 550 | 1. In-page banner (30 days) |
| 551 | 2. Public correction log | ||
| 552 | 3. Email notifications (opt-in) | ||
| 553 | 4. RSS/API feed **Milestone:** Beta 0 (basic), V1.0 (complete) **BLOCKER** === FR46: Image Verification System === **Methods:** | ||
| 554 | 1. Reverse image search | ||
| 555 | 2. EXIF metadata analysis | ||
| 556 | 3. Manipulation detection (basic) | ||
| 557 | 4. Context verification **Milestone:** Beta 0 (basic), V1.0 (extended) === FR47: Archive.org Integration === Auto-save evidence sources to Wayback Machine. **Milestone:** Beta 0 === FR48: Safety Framework for Contributors === Protect contributors from harassment and legal threats. **Milestone:** V1.1 === FR49: A/B Testing Framework === Test AKEL approaches and UI designs systematically. **Milestone:** V1.0 === FR50-FR53: Future Enhancements (V2.0+) === * **FR50:** OSINT Toolkit Integration | ||
| |
1.5 | 558 | |
| |
1.1 | 559 | * **FR51:** Video Verification System |
| 560 | * **FR52:** Interactive Detection Training | ||
| 561 | * **FR53:** Cross-Organizational Sharing **Milestone:** V2.0+ (12-18 months post-launch) | ||
| |
1.5 | 562 | |
| |
1.1 | 563 | === FR54: Evidence Deduplication === |
| 564 | |||
| 565 | **Fulfills:** Accurate evidence counting, quality metrics | ||
| 566 | |||
| 567 | **Purpose:** Avoid counting the same source multiple times when it appears in different forms. | ||
| 568 | |||
| 569 | **Specification:** | ||
| 570 | |||
| 571 | **Deduplication Logic:** | ||
| 572 | |||
| 573 | 1. **URL Normalization:** | ||
| 574 | |||
| |
1.5 | 575 | * Remove tracking parameters (?utm_source=...) |
| 576 | * Normalize http/https | ||
| 577 | * Normalize www/non-www | ||
| 578 | * Handle redirects | ||
| 579 | |||
| |
1.1 | 580 | 2. **Content Similarity:** |
| 581 | |||
| |
1.5 | 582 | * If two sources have >90% text similarity → Same source |
| 583 | * If one is subset of other → Same source | ||
| 584 | * Use fuzzy matching for minor differences | ||
| 585 | |||
| |
1.1 | 586 | 3. **Cross-Domain Syndication:** |
| 587 | |||
| |
1.5 | 588 | * Detect wire service content (AP, Reuters) |
| 589 | * Mark as single source if syndicated | ||
| 590 | * Count original publication only | ||
| 591 | |||
| |
1.1 | 592 | **Display:** |
| 593 | |||
| 594 | {{code}} | ||
| 595 | Evidence Sources (3 unique, 5 total): | ||
| 596 | 1. Original Article (NYTimes) | ||
| 597 | - Also appeared in: WashPost, Guardian (syndicated) | ||
| 598 | 2. Research Paper (Nature) | ||
| 599 | 3. Official Statement (WHO) | ||
| 600 | {{/code}} | ||
| 601 | |||
| 602 | **Acceptance Criteria:** | ||
| |
1.5 | 603 | |
| |
1.1 | 604 | * ✅ Duplicate URLs recognized |
| 605 | * ✅ Syndicated content detected | ||
| 606 | * ✅ Evidence count shows "unique" vs "total" | ||
| 607 | |||
| 608 | **Milestone:** POC2, Beta 0 | ||
| 609 | |||
| |
1.5 | 610 | == Enhanced Existing Requirements == |
| 611 | |||
| 612 | ~=== FR7: Automated Verdicts (Enhanced with Quality Gates) === **POC1+ Enhancement:** After AKEL generates verdict, it passes through quality gates: {{code}}Workflow: | ||
| |
1.1 | 613 | 1. Extract claims ↓ |
| 614 | 2. [GATE 1] Validate fact-checkable ↓ | ||
| 615 | 3. Generate scenarios ↓ | ||
| 616 | 4. Generate verdicts ↓ | ||
| 617 | 5. [GATE 4] Validate confidence ↓ | ||
| |
1.5 | 618 | 6. Display to user{{/code}} **Updated Verdict States:** |
| 619 | |||
| |
1.1 | 620 | * PUBLISHED |
| 621 | * INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE | ||
| 622 | * NON_FACTUAL_CLAIM | ||
| 623 | * PROCESSING | ||
| |
1.5 | 624 | * ERROR === FR4: Analysis Summary (Enhanced with Quality Metadata) === **POC1+ Enhancement:** Display quality indicators: {{code}}Analysis Summary: Verifiable Claims: 3/5 High Confidence Verdicts: 1 Medium Confidence: 2 Evidence Sources: 12 Avg Source Quality: 0.73 Quality Score: 8.5/10{{/code}} |