[ { "id": "01", "slug": "scripture-and-interpretation", "title": "Scripture and interpretation stay distinct", "topic": "reading", "summary": "Make original text, editorial material and generated explanation recognisable.", "problem": "In a reader or chat, a quotation and a fluent explanation can look like one authoritative block. Readers may mistake a paraphrase for their chosen translation.", "solution": "Render Scripture from a verified, licensed source. Keep reference and edition beside the text. Present commentary, paraphrase and AI explanation in separately labelled layers. Copying preserves the distinction and attribution.", "failure": "Replacing unavailable source text with model output; modifying a quotation when users choose a shorter explanation; presenting AI text as a publisher note.", "test": "Ask readers to identify the original text, its edition and who wrote each explanation. Test copied and shared output as well as the screen.", "sources": [ "usfm", "shape", "playground" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Reading view", "caption": "Keep the passage central and explanation secondary.", "items": [ "tag|Mark 1:1–5 · Translation A", "heading|Read the passage", "card|Scripture text|Verified edition text appears here.", "button|Explore context", "button|Copy with attribution" ], "when": "Sustained passage reading is the main task", "tradeoff": "Explanation takes a secondary surface" }, { "title": "B · Conversation card", "caption": "A quotation remains a source object inside a conversation.", "items": [ "tag|AI explanation", "text|A short explanation appears here.", "card|Mark 1:1 · Translation A|Original verse text from the edition.", "button|Read the surrounding passage" ], "when": "A verse supports a specific chat answer", "tradeoff": "Cards can fragment larger context" }, { "title": "C · Source unavailable", "caption": "An honest missing state preserves the distinction.", "items": [ "notice|This translation is unavailable.", "button|Choose an available edition", "card|Explanation only|This is not a quotation of Scripture." ], "when": "The selected edition cannot be retrieved", "tradeoff": "Explain the gap without silently substituting text" } ], "faith": "Translation rights and attribution vary by edition. A source citation does not turn interpretation into divine authority.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "claim-source-inspection", "ai-involvement-disclosure" ], "takeaway": "Render Scripture from a verified, licensed source.", "principles": [ "rootedness", "honesty" ] }, { "id": "02", "slug": "reading-context", "title": "Context before application", "topic": "reading", "summary": "Carry the passage and question together when moving into explanation or reflection.", "problem": "A verse selected from a larger argument can receive an application that ignores its speaker, audience, genre or surrounding passage.", "solution": "Keep the selected reference visible and offer adjacent text before personal application. Let people choose textual explanation, comparison or reflection. Returning to reading restores the same translation and anchor.", "failure": "Treating every verse as a direct instruction to the current user; losing the passage when opening chat; requiring personal disclosure to explain a text.", "test": "Can readers move from a selection to its wider passage and back? Can they tell historical explanation from a suggested present-day reflection?", "sources": [ "usfm", "intent", "placement" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Selected passage", "caption": "The question stays bound to its source.", "items": [ "tag|Mark 1:18 · Translation A", "highlight|Selected verse", "input|Ask about this passage", "button|Explain its context" ], "when": "The question concerns a selected verse", "tradeoff": "A narrow selection may conceal the wider argument" }, { "title": "B · Wider context", "caption": "Expand the reading range without replacing the question.", "items": [ "heading|Mark 1:16–20", "card|Surrounding passage|Read before and after the selected verse.", "button|Return to my question" ], "when": "Context materially affects interpretation", "tradeoff": "Extra text increases reading effort" }, { "title": "C · Optional reflection", "caption": "Application is a separate, voluntary step.", "items": [ "card|Textual explanation|Speaker, setting and literary context.", "button|Consider a personal reflection", "button|Continue reading" ], "when": "The person wants a personal reflection", "tradeoff": "Application is optional and must not outrun context" } ], "faith": "Different traditions may approach application differently. Name the interpretive approach instead of assuming one universal reading.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Keep the selected reference visible and offer adjacent text before personal application.", "principles": [ "hospitality" ] }, { "id": "03", "slug": "footnotes", "title": "Footnotes without losing place", "topic": "reading", "summary": "Inspect a note and return to the exact reading anchor.", "problem": "Opening a note can displace the passage, cover it or return the reader to the top of a chapter.", "solution": "Attach the note to its text anchor and preserve its parts: origin reference, quoted phrase, explanatory text and alternative reading where supplied. Choose inline expansion, a mobile sheet or a study panel by note length and available space.", "failure": "Hover-only access; a modal with no usable close control; merging quoted wording and editorial explanation; closing to a different reading position.", "test": "Test opening and closing with touch, keyboard and screen reader at large text sizes. Confirm focus and the visible reading position return to the note anchor.", "sources": [ "footnote", "dialog" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Inline expansion", "caption": "Useful for a short note; check how expansion shifts the passage.", "items": [ "tag|Mark 1:1 · Note a", "card|Passage paragraph|The note marker is attached to this text.", "notice|Note a|Quoted phrase and edition explanation.", "button|Collapse note" ], "when": "The note is brief and local", "tradeoff": "Expansion moves text below it" }, { "title": "B · Bottom sheet", "caption": "Keep the origin visible above a dismissible note.", "items": [ "tag|Mark 1:1 · Note a", "highlight|Origin text remains selected", "sheet|Edition footnote|Origin reference / Quoted phrase / Note text", "button|Close and return" ], "when": "Mobile space is limited and the note is longer", "tradeoff": "A sheet can cover the verse and needs focus return" }, { "title": "C · Study panel", "caption": "A longer note can sit alongside the text.", "items": [ "card|Main reader|Mark 1:1 remains the anchor.", "card|Study note|Edition, author and complete note.", "button|Return focus to the passage" ], "when": "Sustained study benefits from seeing both surfaces", "tradeoff": "A panel costs reading width and needs a visible anchor" } ], "faith": "Do not label translation footnotes as AI commentary. Publisher material and personal notes have different ownership and permissions.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Attach the note to its text anchor and preserve its parts: origin reference, quoted phrase, explanatory text and alternative reading where supplied.", "principles": [ "rootedness" ] }, { "id": "04", "slug": "cross-references", "title": "Peek, compare and return", "topic": "reading", "summary": "Follow a cross reference without losing the source passage.", "problem": "A list of references can become a trail of navigation with no clear route back. Multiple groups may also lose their original context.", "solution": "Start with a target preview that names both origin and destination. Offer comparison or deliberate navigation, and keep a return trail. Retain grouped references rather than flattening everything into an unrelated list.", "failure": "Automatic navigation on first tap; an endless stack of sheets; links without target excerpts or a remembered origin.", "test": "Can readers identify why a passage was opened, compare it and return to the exact origin after multiple steps?", "sources": [ "crossref", "appleton" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Preview", "caption": "A quick inspection does not commit to navigation.", "items": [ "tag|From Mark 1:2", "card|Related passage|Reference and short edition excerpt.", "button|Compare passages", "button|Close preview" ], "when": "The reader wants a quick check", "tradeoff": "A preview can omit important context" }, { "title": "B · Comparison", "caption": "Both references and translations remain named.", "items": [ "card|Origin · Mark 1:2|Original selected passage.", "card|Target passage|Related text from the chosen edition.", "button|Open target in reader" ], "when": "Both passages need close comparison", "tradeoff": "More content and edition labels require space" }, { "title": "C · Return trail", "caption": "A study journey has a readable history.", "items": [ "heading|Your reading trail", "card|Started at Mark 1:2|Then opened the related passage.", "button|Return to Mark 1:2" ], "when": "Several references have been followed", "tradeoff": "A trail adds navigation but enables exact return" } ], "faith": "A cross reference indicates an editorial relationship, not necessarily agreement, proof or a single interpretation.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Start with a target preview that names both origin and destination.", "principles": [ "rootedness" ] }, { "id": "05", "slug": "text-structure", "title": "Editorial distinctions survive reflow", "topic": "reading", "summary": "Preserve poetry, headings and translation additions without forcing a rigid layout.", "problem": "Small screens and enlarged text can flatten meaningful structure or turn editorial headings into apparent verse content.", "solution": "Reflow paragraphs and preserve relative poetic structure. Distinguish section headings from Scripture. Explain translator-supplied words when the edition marks them. Verse navigation can coexist with continuous prose.", "failure": "Shrinking text to preserve a desktop layout; treating each verse as an unrelated box; calling translation additions AI-generated text.", "test": "Test narrow screens, enlarged fonts and spoken output. Can readers recognise a heading, poetic grouping and a translation addition without relying only on colour?", "sources": [ "add", "poetry", "usfm", "reflow" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Translation addition", "caption": "An explanation names the editorial role.", "items": [ "tag|Translation A", "highlight|Words marked by this edition", "notice|Translation addition|Words supplied by translators to clarify meaning.", "button|About this edition" ], "when": "The edition marks supplied translation wording", "tradeoff": "Explain the convention without cluttering every word" }, { "title": "B · Poetry", "caption": "Indentation follows meaning at larger text sizes.", "items": [ "tag|Poetic passage", "poem|First poetic line / Second related line / Next poetic line", "button|Increase text size" ], "when": "Line grouping contributes to poetic meaning", "tradeoff": "Indentation must survive narrow widths" }, { "title": "C · Continuous passage", "caption": "Headings and verse labels support, rather than fragment, reading.", "items": [ "tag|Editorial section heading", "heading|Passage title", "card|Continuous Scripture paragraph|Verse references remain navigable.", "button|Show verse labels" ], "when": "The goal is continuous reading", "tradeoff": "Verse labels must remain discoverable" } ], "faith": "Preserve the chosen edition’s conventions. A structure standard informs meaning; it does not prescribe one screen component.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Reflow paragraphs and preserve relative poetic structure.", "principles": [ "rootedness" ] }, { "id": "06", "slug": "content-layers", "title": "Content layers have owners", "topic": "reading", "summary": "Separate publisher content, private annotations and internal editorial records.", "problem": "The word “comment” can describe a study note, internal translation remark, personal reflection or generated interpretation. Showing them as the same object confuses trust and visibility.", "solution": "Give each layer an origin, audience and appropriate rights. Publisher notes and study excursions have provenance. Internal remarks remain internal. Unknown imported structures are reported for review instead of silently discarded.", "failure": "Publishing internal translation remarks; displaying a personal note as a publisher annotation; losing unsupported content during import without reporting it.", "test": "Use an import corpus containing study notes, sidebars, internal remarks and unknown structures. Check public output, copy, search and audio for unintended disclosure.", "sources": [ "study-note", "sidebar", "internal-remark", "usfm" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Publisher material", "caption": "The study layer names its source.", "items": [ "tag|Publisher study note", "card|Commentary excerpt|Edition and author.", "button|Read the complete note" ], "when": "Content comes from a publisher", "tradeoff": "Name authorship and edition rights" }, { "title": "B · Private reflection", "caption": "Personal work remains a separate layer.", "items": [ "tag|Private · My note", "card|Personal reflection|Attached to this passage.", "button|Edit my note" ], "when": "The user records a private reflection", "tradeoff": "Saving requires a clear visibility state" }, { "title": "C · Editorial review", "caption": "Internal records never become reader-facing commentary.", "items": [ "tag|Editorial workspace", "notice|Internal remark|Not included in the reader.", "card|Import review|An unsupported structure needs inspection." ], "when": "Imported editorial material needs review", "tradeoff": "Unsupported or internal data must not leak" } ], "faith": "Import, licence and publishing rules belong in the content pipeline as well as the interface.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Give each layer an origin, audience and appropriate rights.", "principles": [ "rootedness", "costliness" ] }, { "id": "07", "slug": "translation-comparison", "title": "Compare without flattening", "topic": "study", "summary": "Show differences while keeping edition and reference identity intact.", "problem": "Side-by-side passages can imply that every word and verse aligns exactly across translations or canon conventions.", "solution": "Name each edition and its passage range. Use reliable reference mappings; explain discrepancies and unknown mappings. Move large comparisons out of a narrow chat bubble into a responsive workspace. Layout, verse grouping and linked scrolling are separate decisions: compare the dedicated parallel-reading, verse-by-verse and linked-scroll patterns. Interlinear views need token alignment beyond a shared verse reference.", "failure": "Invented word alignment; silently moving a note onto different wording; tiny multi-column text on mobile.", "test": "Test verse bridges, different numbering and missing mappings. Can readers identify each edition and understand when a comparison is approximate?", "sources": [ "usfm", "logos-notes", "placement", "reflow" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Two editions", "caption": "Each passage retains its provenance.", "items": [ "card|Translation A · Mark 1:1|Edition text.", "card|Translation B · Mark 1:1|Edition text.", "button|Explore differences" ], "when": "A brief comparison is enough", "tradeoff": "Matching verse labels do not prove word alignment" }, { "title": "B · Full comparison", "caption": "A wider workspace supports sustained study.", "items": [ "heading|Compare this passage", "card|Edition A|Full selected passage.", "card|Edition B|Full selected passage.", "button|Return to conversation" ], "when": "Comparison becomes a sustained study task", "tradeoff": "A separate workspace requires a return route" }, { "title": "C · Mapping differs", "caption": "Uncertainty is visible before navigation.", "items": [ "notice|Verse numbering differs.", "card|Reference mapping|Original reference and mapped range.", "button|Inspect both contexts" ], "when": "Numbering or mapping differs", "tradeoff": "An honest gap interrupts seamless comparison" } ], "faith": "A reference anchor can travel across editions when mapping is reliable; an exact text selection usually requires edition-specific handling.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "parallel-reading-layout", "verse-by-verse-comparison", "interlinear-reading" ], "takeaway": "Name each edition and its passage range.", "principles": [ "rootedness" ] }, { "id": "08", "slug": "media-evidence", "title": "Original media before synthesis", "topic": "study", "summary": "Let readers inspect the source behind an explanation.", "problem": "A video excerpt or AI summary can sound convincing while hiding who said it and where the statement occurs.", "solution": "Use media cards with creator, original source, duration and relevant time range. Link supported claims to precise excerpts. Offer transcript and original context; playback starts deliberately and failure leaves the conversation readable.", "failure": "Autoplay; incorrect time windows; edited clips that reverse meaning; source opinions presented as consensus; a missing video hidden behind a confident synthesis.", "test": "Check whether every evidence claim is supported at the linked position. Test unavailable media, captions, returning from playback and the context before and after an excerpt.", "sources": [ "playground-citations", "shape", "audio-trust" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Original clip", "caption": "An explicit time range makes the evidence inspectable.", "items": [ "tag|Publisher · Video title", "video|Original excerpt · 02:10–03:05", "button|Play excerpt", "button|Open original context" ], "when": "The original clip is available", "tradeoff": "Playback takes time and needs accessible alternatives" }, { "title": "B · Evidence and explanation", "caption": "Source words and synthesis have different roles.", "items": [ "card|Source excerpt|Transcript with time reference.", "card|AI synthesis|Explanation linked to the excerpt.", "button|Check the claim" ], "when": "Explanation depends on a particular source", "tradeoff": "Separate the quotation from the synthesis" }, { "title": "C · Media unavailable", "caption": "The failure state does not erase the source identity.", "items": [ "notice|Video cannot be played here.", "card|Source record|Title, creator and original address.", "button|Read available transcript" ], "when": "Media cannot load or cannot be embedded", "tradeoff": "A link or transcript may be the only permitted alternative" } ], "faith": "This applies to sermons, teaching videos, podcasts and courses. Association with a verse is not proof of a particular interpretation.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "claim-source-inspection" ], "takeaway": "Use media cards with creator, original source, duration and relevant time range.", "principles": [ "honesty" ] }, { "id": "09", "slug": "bounded-interpretation", "title": "Evidence sets the limits of the answer", "topic": "study", "summary": "Name sources, perspectives and gaps without manufacturing certainty.", "problem": "AI may fuse a passage, a commentary and its own extrapolation into an answer that overstates the available evidence.", "solution": "Distinguish direct evidence, interpretation and related material. Name the interpretive lens where it matters. Offer alternative readings when sourced, and clearly state when no supporting resource is available.", "failure": "A citation attached to an unsupported claim; an invented confidence percentage; claiming divine authority; treating a missing resource as agreement.", "test": "Give reviewers a disputed passage and incomplete sources. Can they trace each claim and identify unsupported extrapolation or tradition-specific assumptions?", "sources": [ "playground-citations", "shape", "appleton", "agentic" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Bounded claim", "caption": "The explanation stays within what the cited source supports.", "items": [ "card|Source-supported observation|Claim with a precise citation.", "card|Interpretation|A separate proposed reading.", "button|Open evidence" ], "when": "The source supports a limited claim", "tradeoff": "An incomplete answer may be more honest" }, { "title": "B · Named perspectives", "caption": "Different readings are attributed.", "items": [ "card|Perspective A|Named tradition and source.", "card|Perspective B|Named tradition and source.", "button|Compare sources" ], "when": "Relevant traditions differ", "tradeoff": "Multiple perspectives need attribution and careful scope" }, { "title": "C · Evidence gap", "caption": "An honest gap is more useful than invented agreement.", "items": [ "notice|No supporting resource was found.", "button|Read the passage in context", "button|Choose another source" ], "when": "Supporting evidence is missing", "tradeoff": "Do not fill the gap with confident prose" } ], "faith": "A faith assistant should not speak as God, pronounce personal spiritual standing or claim access to divine intentions.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Distinguish direct evidence, interpretation and related material.", "principles": [ "rootedness", "honesty" ] }, { "id": "10", "slug": "answer-depth", "title": "Answer first, expand by need", "topic": "conversation", "summary": "Give orientation before inviting deeper study.", "problem": "A long generated answer can bury its main point and overwhelm readers who wanted a short explanation.", "solution": "Lead with a concise answer, then offer meaningful sections and depth controls. Let people expand evidence or interpretation separately. A shorter explanation does not alter any quoted Scripture.", "failure": "A wall of text with no navigation; hiding the answer behind repetitive disclaimers; shortening original Scripture when only the commentary length was changed.", "test": "Ask people with brief and detailed tasks to find the answer and its evidence. Test that expansion remains understandable at enlarged text sizes.", "sources": [ "playground-depth", "nng-chat", "genai" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Brief answer", "caption": "Orientation appears before detail.", "items": [ "tag|Explanation · Brief", "text|A direct answer to the question.", "button|Show supporting sources", "button|Explore in depth" ], "when": "The user needs orientation", "tradeoff": "Brevity can hide necessary qualifications" }, { "title": "B · Structured depth", "caption": "Headings let readers choose the relevant layer.", "items": [ "heading|Detailed explanation", "card|Textual context|First layer of explanation.", "card|Interpretive perspectives|Further sourced detail.", "card|Questions for reflection|Optional next step." ], "when": "Several layers matter to the question", "tradeoff": "Structure takes space but aids scanning" }, { "title": "C · Reader control", "caption": "Length is a preference rather than a fixed word count.", "items": [ "label|Explanation depth", "button|Brief", "button|Standard", "button|Detailed", "notice|Quoted Scripture remains unchanged." ], "when": "Users differ in desired depth", "tradeoff": "Depth settings must not alter quoted Scripture" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Lead with a concise answer, then offer meaningful sections and depth controls.", "principles": [ "hospitality" ] }, { "id": "11", "slug": "long-passages", "title": "Passage preview opens a full reader", "topic": "conversation", "summary": "Keep long Scripture readable without flooding the conversation.", "problem": "A full chapter inside a small chat card can create nested scrolling. Aggressive truncation can hide what the user asked to read.", "solution": "Choose among an excerpt card opening a full reader, complete inline expansion for manageable passages, and a dedicated reading surface for sustained reading. Name the requested range, edition and visible range. Inline expansion uses the main conversation scroll rather than a nested text scroll; provide Collapse and retain an anchor when collapsing. A full reader can be a sheet on small screens or a side panel on wider screens, with an explicit return to the same conversation place. For cross-chapter ranges, preserve every boundary and continuation. If complete text is requested, provide a clearly labelled route to it rather than silently summarising. If edition rights or availability prevent full display, explain the limit and offer a permitted destination.", "failure": "Unmarked omissions; two competing scroll regions; a summary presented as the original passage; returning to the top of the chat.", "test": "Test a short verse, long passage, complete chapter request and large text. Can readers recognise omissions, reach the whole text and return to the same conversation position? Test inline expansion and collapse, cross-chapter ranges, sheet and panel return, multiple passage cards, unavailable editions and the final verse at large text size.", "sources": [ "nng-chat", "playground-depth", "usfm" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Passage preview", "caption": "Name exactly what is visible and what continues.", "items": [ "tag|Mark 1:1–15 · Translation A", "card|Excerpt · verses 1–3|Original edition text.", "notice|The passage continues through verse 15.", "button|Read the full passage" ], "when": "The passage supports a conversation", "tradeoff": "Excerpt boundaries and a full-text route are essential" }, { "title": "B · Dedicated reader", "caption": "A sustained reading task gets enough space.", "items": [ "heading|Mark 1:1–15", "tag|Translation A · Complete passage", "lines|7", "button|Return to my conversation" ], "when": "The user wants sustained or complete reading", "tradeoff": "Moving surfaces requires conversation-position restoration" }, { "title": "C · Complete inline passage", "caption": "Suitable when the full text remains manageable in the main chat scroll.", "items": [ "tag|Mark 1:1–15 · Translation A", "card|Complete passage · Expanded|All requested verses, in order.", "lines|5", "button|Collapse to preview", "notice|No inner scroll region; return position is retained." ], "when": "The complete passage remains manageable inline", "tradeoff": "Expansion and collapse must preserve the main scroll anchor" } ], "faith": "Choose preview thresholds by viewport, text size and passage structure. There is no universal verse count that solves overflow.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "chat-content-objects", "reading-position", "readable-overflow" ], "takeaway": "Choose among an excerpt card opening a full reader, complete inline expansion for manageable passages, and a dedicated reading surface for sustained reading.", "principles": [ "hospitality" ] }, { "id": "12", "slug": "reading-position", "title": "The reader controls the scroll", "topic": "conversation", "summary": "Let new content arrive without moving text someone is already reading.", "problem": "Streaming, card expansion and late-arriving evidence can push the current paragraph out of view.", "solution": "Follow new content only while the reader remains at the live end. After manual scrolling, preserve position and offer a return-to-latest control. Anchor expansions and returning from external content to the original reading place.", "failure": "Forced scrolling after every token; citations causing surprise jumps; collapsing content above the current viewport without retaining an anchor.", "test": "During a long stream, scroll upward, expand a card and open a source. Verify that the reader keeps control and can deliberately return to the latest answer.", "sources": [ "nng-chat", "playground-interrupt", "appleton" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · At the live end", "caption": "Following is appropriate while the reader stays at the latest output.", "items": [ "tag|Answer generating", "lines|5", "button|Stop generation" ], "when": "The user remains at the live end", "tradeoff": "Following output must stop after manual exploration" }, { "title": "B · Reading earlier text", "caption": "New output does not take over the viewport.", "items": [ "tag|Earlier answer · Reading here", "highlight|Current reading paragraph", "notice|New content is available below.", "button|Go to latest answer" ], "when": "The user is reading earlier content", "tradeoff": "New output needs an unobtrusive return-to-latest action" }, { "title": "C · Return from a source", "caption": "Recover the same passage and conversation position.", "items": [ "card|Returned to your question|The source link remains attached.", "highlight|Previous reading position", "button|Continue reading" ], "when": "The user returns from an external source", "tradeoff": "Restore the prior anchor rather than forcing the latest message" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Follow new content only while the reader remains at the live end.", "principles": [ "fruit" ] }, { "id": "13", "slug": "partial-and-missing-context", "title": "Partial is not complete", "topic": "conversation", "summary": "Separate interrupted output from missing source or conversation context.", "problem": "A stopped answer may look finished. A long visible conversation may also imply that the model still has access to every earlier message.", "solution": "Label an interrupted generation and offer continuation or retry. Identify relevant unavailable context and ask for the missing information. Keep confirmed memories, source text and conversation summaries distinct.", "failure": "Calling a partial result final; invented recall; a generated summary silently replacing verified text or user-approved memory.", "test": "Interrupt generation and remove an earlier source from active context. Does recovery avoid duplication, disclose gaps and retain the user’s original intent?", "sources": [ "playground-interrupt", "ai-course", "interaction-atlas" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Interrupted answer", "caption": "An unfinished result has an explicit state.", "items": [ "notice|Generation stopped. This answer is incomplete.", "lines|3", "button|Continue from here", "button|Start again" ], "when": "Generation stopped before completion", "tradeoff": "Continuation may duplicate text unless recovery is anchored" }, { "title": "B · Missing source", "caption": "The assistant does not invent access to a document.", "items": [ "notice|The earlier source is no longer available.", "button|Select the source again", "button|Continue without it" ], "when": "An earlier source is outside active context", "tradeoff": "Ask for it rather than inventing recall" }, { "title": "C · Context review", "caption": "A summary can be checked rather than treated as perfect memory.", "items": [ "card|Conversation summary|What the assistant currently understands.", "button|Correct this summary", "button|Add missing context" ], "when": "A summary is used as current context", "tradeoff": "The person must be able to inspect and correct it" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Label an interrupted generation and offer continuation or retry.", "principles": [ "hospitality", "honesty", "costliness" ] }, { "id": "14", "slug": "many-results", "title": "Results grow without flooding", "topic": "conversation", "summary": "Make large result sets navigable and deliberate.", "problem": "Search, cross references or media retrieval can insert dozens of cards and make the answer hard to follow.", "solution": "Show the result scope, a useful initial set and an explicit way to load more. Keep ordering and previous selection stable. Explain whether the count is total, currently loaded or estimated.", "failure": "An unbounded stream of media; a misleading exact count; losing a selection when loading the next group.", "test": "Test zero, one and many results, loading failure and return navigation. Can readers find a relevant item without losing the original question?", "sources": [ "playground", "intent", "aiverse" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Initial set", "caption": "A bounded list makes scope understandable.", "items": [ "tag|Showing 3 of 24 results", "card|Result 1|Reference and source.", "card|Result 2|Reference and source.", "button|Show more results" ], "when": "A broad result set is useful", "tradeoff": "A bounded initial set can conceal unshown items" }, { "title": "B · Refine scope", "caption": "Refinement changes retrieval rather than the source content.", "items": [ "label|Search within", "button|This book", "button|Selected sources", "input|Refine the question" ], "when": "The scope is too broad for the task", "tradeoff": "Refinement changes retrieval and needs clear filters" }, { "title": "C · Loading fails", "caption": "Existing results remain usable.", "items": [ "card|Loaded result|Still available.", "notice|The next group could not be loaded.", "button|Try loading more again" ], "when": "Loading the next group fails", "tradeoff": "Existing results and selections should remain usable" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Show the result scope, a useful initial set and an explicit way to load more.", "principles": [ "hospitality" ] }, { "id": "15", "slug": "readable-overflow", "title": "Reflow before shrinking", "topic": "conversation", "summary": "Keep references, text and controls usable when space becomes scarce.", "problem": "Long identifiers, enlarged text, a keyboard or a persistent player can hide the reading target or its next action.", "solution": "Wrap long labels and move comparisons into a stacked layout. Preserve accessible full references. Account for safe areas, keyboard and player space so the final passage and confirmation remain reachable.", "failure": "Tiny text to fit a card; clipped actions; essential information available only through horizontal scrolling; inaccessible abbreviated references.", "test": "Check narrow viewports, 200% text enlargement, screen readers and keyboard-open states. Test very long titles and references.", "sources": [ "reflow", "dialog", "audio-trust" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Large text", "caption": "Content flows within the available width.", "items": [ "heading|A readable passage", "card|Long source title wraps|Full reference stays accessible.", "button|Read surrounding text" ], "when": "Text size or narrow width limits space", "tradeoff": "More vertical reading is preferable to unreadable type" }, { "title": "B · Stacked comparison", "caption": "A narrow screen does not require tiny columns.", "items": [ "card|Translation A|Readable text.", "card|Translation B|Readable text.", "button|Compare the selected range" ], "when": "A comparison cannot fit beside itself", "tradeoff": "Stacking makes correspondence harder to scan" }, { "title": "C · Controls stay reachable", "caption": "Persistent playback does not cover the final action.", "items": [ "card|Last passage paragraph|The reading target remains visible.", "button|Save my note", "play|Pause · 02:10 / 06:45" ], "when": "Fixed controls consume usable space", "tradeoff": "Safe areas and final actions need explicit clearance" } ], "faith": "WCAG web reflow guidance supports the accessibility requirement; native apps also need platform-specific accessibility checks.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Wrap long labels and move comparisons into a stacked layout.", "principles": [ "hospitality" ] }, { "id": "16", "slug": "reading-artifacts", "title": "Conversation can produce a reading artifact", "topic": "conversation", "summary": "Move sustained work into an editable document without losing its origin.", "problem": "A long study note or plan becomes hard to revise when it remains buried inside a sequence of chat bubbles.", "solution": "Offer an explicit transition into a document or workspace. Preserve the originating question and references. Keep the user’s writing distinct from AI suggestions, with review before replacing or saving text.", "failure": "Silently rewriting a personal reflection; automatic publication; a generated document without source links or a route back to the conversation.", "test": "Can people edit, compare changes and return to the original question? Does rejecting a suggestion leave their own wording intact?", "sources": [ "playground", "bennis", "appleton" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Draft in conversation", "caption": "Creating an artifact is a deliberate transition.", "items": [ "card|Study note draft|Sections and source references.", "button|Open as a document", "button|Continue discussing" ], "when": "The output is a short conversational draft", "tradeoff": "Editing inside chat may be limited" }, { "title": "B · Editable document", "caption": "The reading artifact has its own structure.", "items": [ "heading|My study note", "input|My original reflection", "card|References|Linked Scripture and commentary.", "button|Save privately" ], "when": "The output needs sustained revision", "tradeoff": "A document adds another surface and return state" }, { "title": "C · Review a suggestion", "caption": "Proposed changes do not overwrite the user’s voice.", "items": [ "card|My wording|Original text.", "card|AI suggestion|Proposed revision.", "button|Accept or edit", "button|Keep my wording" ], "when": "AI suggests an edit to existing work", "tradeoff": "Review and rejection must remain possible" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Offer an explicit transition into a document or workspace.", "principles": [ "bridge" ] }, { "id": "17", "slug": "audio-first", "title": "The player works without the screen", "topic": "audio", "summary": "Support listening as a complete mode of use.", "problem": "An audio Bible may depend on a visual reader for basic navigation and lose usefulness when the device is locked.", "solution": "Make current passage, playback, interruption and resumption available through suitable device and accessibility controls. Offer speed and sleep options where supported. Preserve the last listening position and a route into reading.", "failure": "Voice-only stopping; a hidden player; resuming at the wrong chapter; treating listening as microphone consent.", "test": "Test lock-screen use, interruptions, headphones, connectivity loss and switching to text. Confirm what the selected edition actually supports.", "sources": [ "youversion-audio", "audio-trust", "voice-patterns" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Listening player", "caption": "The essential actions fit a listening task.", "items": [ "heading|Mark 1 · Audio", "tag|Edition and narrator", "play|Pause · 02:10 / 06:45", "button|Previous or next passage", "button|Playback speed" ], "when": "Listening is the primary activity", "tradeoff": "The screen still needs clear edition and position" }, { "title": "B · Screen-free controls", "caption": "The device surface retains passage identity.", "items": [ "tag|Device playback controls", "card|Now playing|Mark 1 · Edition and narrator.", "button|Pause", "button|Resume" ], "when": "The user is screen-free", "tradeoff": "Device controls may expose fewer settings" }, { "title": "C · Resume in text", "caption": "Listening and reading share a reliable anchor.", "items": [ "card|Last heard passage|Reference and playback position.", "button|Continue listening", "button|Read from this passage" ], "when": "Listening leads back to reading", "tradeoff": "Playback and reading positions must not be conflated" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Make current passage, playback, interruption and resumption available through suitable device and accessibility controls.", "principles": [ "hospitality" ] }, { "id": "18", "slug": "read-along", "title": "Playback and reading positions can differ", "topic": "audio", "summary": "Follow the narration without forcing the reader to follow every movement.", "problem": "Someone may scroll ahead or revisit an earlier verse while playback continues. Automatic following can repeatedly pull them back.", "solution": "Show the current playback anchor separately from the viewport. Let users follow or explore freely, then deliberately return to the spoken passage. Use continuous text where the task is sustained reading.", "failure": "Automatic recentering after manual scroll; stopping playback whenever someone explores; treating the visible paragraph as the actual playback position.", "test": "Scroll away during playback, change text size and return to the spoken verse. Does each position remain understandable?", "sources": [ "dwell", "dwell-position", "youversion-audio" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Follow narration", "caption": "The playing passage has a temporary marker.", "items": [ "tag|Read-along enabled", "card|Previous paragraph|Edition text.", "highlight|Currently spoken passage", "play|Pause · 02:10 / 06:45" ], "when": "The reader wants to follow narration", "tradeoff": "Automatic following should yield to manual scrolling" }, { "title": "B · Explore freely", "caption": "Reading elsewhere does not silently change playback.", "items": [ "tag|Reading earlier in the chapter", "card|Earlier passage|Edition text.", "notice|Audio continues at Mark 1:8.", "button|Return to spoken passage" ], "when": "The reader explores elsewhere while listening", "tradeoff": "The audio anchor needs a separate label" }, { "title": "C · Rejoin playback", "caption": "Following resumes only after the reader chooses it.", "items": [ "highlight|Current audio anchor", "button|Follow narration again", "button|Keep exploring independently" ], "when": "The reader chooses to return to playback", "tradeoff": "Rejoining must not silently save a personal mark" } ], "faith": "This pattern separates playback position from reading position. Karaoke granularity is covered by Timing has an honest granularity; styling and no highlighting by Playback cues are a reader preference. Translation switching must preserve the reading anchor and reassess audio alignment.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "honest-synchronisation", "playback-highlight-style", "translation-position" ], "takeaway": "Show the current playback anchor separately from the viewport.", "principles": [ "hospitality", "honesty", "costliness" ] }, { "id": "19", "slug": "honest-synchronisation", "title": "Timing has an honest granularity", "topic": "audio", "summary": "Match visual following to the timing data that actually exists.", "problem": "Word highlighting can look precise even when the source contains only verse-level or approximate timing.", "solution": "Use word-level karaoke only with reliable word timing for the exact recording and edition. Sentence or phrase cues require corresponding boundaries; verse cues require verse timing. If only chapter timing exists, show a chapter-level Now playing state. If no alignment exists, offer listening without synchronised cues. The finest available timing is a capability, not a requirement: readers may prefer coarser cues or no highlighting. Do not distribute verse duration evenly across words and present it as accurate. Treat generated alignment as estimated until evaluated. Granularity, cue style and automatic following are separate decisions.", "failure": "Invented word timing; highlighting the wrong text after changing translation; saving the playback highlight as a personal annotation.", "test": "Compare markers with audio over varied speeds, long verses and interruptions. Check what happens when timing is absent or inaccurate.", "sources": [ "epub", "youversion-audio" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Word timing", "caption": "Only the active word receives the karaoke cue.", "items": [ "tag|Reliable word alignment", "karaoke|", "button|Prefer verse-level cues" ], "when": "Exact word alignment exists for this recording", "tradeoff": "Word cues can distract and require evaluation" }, { "title": "B · Sentence timing", "caption": "A sentence or phrase may span verse boundaries.", "items": [ "tag|Sentence boundaries available", "cueunderline|Current sentence · Illustrative text", "card|Next sentence|No active cue.", "button|Choose highlighting style" ], "when": "Reliable sentence or phrase boundaries exist", "tradeoff": "A sentence can span several verses" }, { "title": "C · Verse timing", "caption": "Verse-level timing does not imply word precision.", "items": [ "tag|Verse boundaries available", "cuefill|Currently spoken verse", "card|Next verse|No active cue.", "play|Pause · 00:12 / 03:20" ], "when": "Only verse timing exists", "tradeoff": "Verse cues cannot honestly show the spoken word" } ], "faith": "Timing is specific to the recording, edition and text alignment. Supported granularity can differ between editions and books. With no usable alignment, keep the Now playing reference and manual reading available; do not fake synchronisation.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "playback-highlight-style", "read-along", "translation-position" ], "takeaway": "Use word-level karaoke only with reliable word timing for the exact recording and edition.", "principles": [ "hospitality", "honesty", "costliness" ] }, { "id": "20", "slug": "guided-sequence", "title": "One step with a clear whole", "topic": "audio", "summary": "Make a devotional story or guided session understandable as a sequence.", "problem": "A swipe-based story can hide its length or force unwanted audio, prayer or disclosure before allowing progress.", "solution": "Name the phases and show current position. Provide explicit next, previous, skip, pause and exit options suited to the medium. Let participants know whether audio starts and which steps are optional.", "failure": "Unknown session length; mandatory disclosure; auto-advancing while someone is reading; an exit that begins another conversation.", "test": "Can people understand the whole session, navigate nonlinearly and stop without losing their choice? Test with audio muted and screen reader navigation.", "sources": [ "youversion-guided", "hallow" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Story sequence", "caption": "A short visual sequence names its scope.", "items": [ "tag|Step 2 of 5 · Scripture", "card|Passage|Selected edition and reference.", "button|Previous step", "button|Next step" ], "when": "A short visual sequence aids orientation", "tradeoff": "Slides can fragment a continuous text" }, { "title": "B · Guided session", "caption": "Phases make the practice predictable.", "items": [ "heading|A short devotional", "steps|Read / Reflect / Pray / Rest", "button|Start reading", "button|Skip a phase" ], "when": "A narrated practice has multiple phases", "tradeoff": "Duration and phase boundaries must remain understandable" }, { "title": "C · Pause or leave", "caption": "Stopping is a complete and legitimate action.", "items": [ "notice|Session paused.", "button|Resume this phase", "button|Finish for now" ], "when": "The person needs to pause or leave", "tradeoff": "Ending must not require disclosure or another prompt" } ], "faith": "Lectio Divina is one tradition-specific example, not a universal template for every faith practice.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Name the phases and show current position.", "principles": [ "rootedness" ] }, { "id": "21", "slug": "narration-provenance", "title": "Narration style has provenance", "topic": "audio", "summary": "Distinguish an audio edition from an adaptation or generated retelling.", "problem": "Music, dramatisation or synthetic voices can change perceived meaning and authority without telling listeners what kind of content they hear.", "solution": "Identify the text basis, narrator or synthetic voice, adaptation status and relevant rights. Keep verbatim audio, dramatized edition and retelling separately selectable. Do not use voice likeness without the required permission.", "failure": "A generated retelling labelled Scripture; unnamed editorial additions; impersonating a trusted religious figure; unsupported claims that a voice is human.", "test": "Can listeners identify content type and origin before playback, including on audio-only surfaces? Does switching styles preserve accurate labels?", "sources": [ "audio-trust", "voice-patterns" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Verbatim reading", "caption": "The audio edition and narrator are named.", "items": [ "tag|Audio Bible · Verbatim edition", "card|Source|Translation, publisher and narrator.", "button|Listen to this edition" ], "when": "Verified edition text is read verbatim", "tradeoff": "The recording must match the displayed edition" }, { "title": "B · Dramatized edition", "caption": "Production choices are transparent.", "items": [ "tag|Dramatized audio edition", "card|Production information|Voices, music and edition basis.", "button|Read the production notes" ], "when": "The edition is performed or dramatized", "tradeoff": "Performance needs a label distinct from commentary" }, { "title": "C · Retelling", "caption": "An adaptation is labelled before listening.", "items": [ "notice|Adapted retelling, not a verbatim Bible reading.", "card|Basis and creator|Original passage and adaptation details.", "button|Open the original passage" ], "when": "The audio retells the passage", "tradeoff": "A retelling is not the original Bible wording" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "ai-involvement-disclosure" ], "takeaway": "Identify the text basis, narrator or synthetic voice, adaptation status and relevant rights.", "principles": [ "honesty" ] }, { "id": "22", "slug": "silence-and-ending", "title": "Silence belongs in the timeline", "topic": "audio", "summary": "Support pauses, repetition and a deliberate ending.", "problem": "A guided audio experience may fill every pause, rush reflection or loop into more content after the practice has ended.", "solution": "Treat silence as a named phase with a known recording state. Offer passage repetition for study and optional handling of footnotes. End the session clearly, with further listening as a choice.", "failure": "Repeated “Are you still there?” during contemplation; mandatory autoplay; reading notes without warning; voice recording during a listening-only phase.", "test": "Test pauses of different lengths, interruptions, looping and session ending. Can users distinguish intentional silence from a playback failure?", "sources": [ "hallow", "youversion-audio", "voice-of-ai" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Contemplative pause", "caption": "Intentional silence has visible state and controls.", "items": [ "tag|Quiet reflection · Microphone off", "text|Stay here as long as you wish.", "button|Continue", "button|End this session" ], "when": "The goal is quiet contemplation", "tradeoff": "Intentional silence needs an explicit state" }, { "title": "B · Study repetition", "caption": "A loop names its passage boundaries.", "items": [ "card|Loop selection|Mark 1:1–5.", "button|Repeat the selected passage", "button|Include edition footnotes: off" ], "when": "The goal is returning to a passage", "tradeoff": "Repeat scope and stopping behaviour need controls" }, { "title": "C · Clear ending", "caption": "A complete session does not demand another one.", "items": [ "heading|This session is complete", "button|Finish for now", "button|Choose another passage" ], "when": "The chosen practice is finished", "tradeoff": "Further listening should remain a choice" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "contemplative-pause", "passage-repetition", "audio-mix" ], "takeaway": "Treat silence as a named phase with a known recording state.", "principles": [ "hospitality", "bridge" ] }, { "id": "23", "slug": "graceful-return", "title": "Resume without catch-up pressure", "topic": "formation", "summary": "Offer a manageable return after a pause.", "problem": "A missed day can turn a voluntary reading plan into an intimidating backlog or an implied moral failure.", "solution": "Preserve useful progress while offering reschedule, resume or a fresh session. Completion closes the activity; further practice remains optional. Let users choose factual progress displays without equating them with faithfulness.", "failure": "A lost “faith streak”; punitive backlog; a guilt-based notification; an intentionally incomplete ending designed to keep someone in the app.", "test": "Ask people returning after a break how they interpret the options. Measure perceived autonomy and burden rather than treating return rate alone as success.", "sources": [ "formation-agenda" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Return after a break", "caption": "Today’s options do not imply a debt.", "items": [ "heading|Welcome back", "button|Continue where I stopped", "button|Choose something for today", "button|Adjust my plan" ], "when": "The person returns after a break", "tradeoff": "Resume and a fresh task may both be useful" }, { "title": "B · Change the rhythm", "caption": "Rescheduling is available without punishment.", "items": [ "card|Current plan|Saved progress is retained.", "button|Shift upcoming sessions", "button|Pause the plan" ], "when": "The prior plan no longer fits", "tradeoff": "Changing the rhythm should retain useful progress" }, { "title": "C · Complete and leave", "caption": "The finish state gives permission to stop.", "items": [ "heading|Finished for today", "text|Your place is saved.", "button|Close this session", "button|Explore another practice" ], "when": "The session has reached its endpoint", "tradeoff": "Completion should permit leaving rather than create debt" } ], "faith": "This is an ethical design proposal. Evidence on actual reading habits and long-term formation remains a research task.", "status": "Proposed hypothesis", "takeaway": "Preserve useful progress while offering reschedule, resume or a fresh session.", "principles": [ "grace" ] }, { "id": "24", "slug": "voice-and-recording", "title": "Listening is not microphone consent", "topic": "audio", "summary": "Make playback, capture and AI conversation different states.", "problem": "Users may assume they are only hearing a devotional while the product also listens, stores speech or enters a dialogue.", "solution": "Identify the current role and microphone state. Starting voice input is separate from starting playback. Provide clear stop and text alternatives, explain processing and retention, and avoid human or spiritual authority claims.", "failure": "Always-on recording disguised as reflection; ambiguous listening animations; a stop action that is available only by voice.", "test": "Can people tell whether they are being recorded without looking at the screen? Test interruption, permission denial and switching to text.", "sources": [ "voice-patterns", "voice-of-ai", "audio-trust", "shape" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Audio playback", "caption": "No recording is implied by listening.", "items": [ "tag|Playing audio · Microphone off", "play|Pause · 01:10 / 05:30", "button|Pause playback", "button|Read instead" ], "when": "The person only wants playback", "tradeoff": "No microphone permission is needed" }, { "title": "B · Voice input", "caption": "Capture starts through an explicit action.", "items": [ "notice|Voice input is active.", "wave|", "button|Stop recording", "button|Use text instead" ], "when": "The person deliberately supplies spoken input", "tradeoff": "Capture needs separate consent and a stop action" }, { "title": "C · Spoken AI conversation", "caption": "Role and data behaviour are stated clearly.", "items": [ "tag|AI assistant · Voice conversation", "card|Before you begin|What is processed and what is saved.", "button|Start voice conversation", "button|Continue without voice" ], "when": "The person chooses a spoken AI exchange", "tradeoff": "Role, processing and recording state need stronger clarity" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Identify the current role and microphone state.", "principles": [ "reverence" ] }, { "id": "25", "slug": "choose-help", "title": "Choose the kind of help", "topic": "conversation", "summary": "Support a goal without diagnosing it from a prompt.", "problem": "An open input can leave people unsure what to ask, while an assistant may assume they want study, prayer or emotional support.", "solution": "Offer a small set of concrete tasks and a free-text route. Ask one useful clarification when it materially changes the response. Practices name purpose and approximate duration and remain skippable.", "failure": "A diagnostic-looking questionnaire; inferring a condition or belief from a task choice; a mandatory prayer flow for every personal question.", "test": "Can users select a useful path without learning prompting jargon or disclosing more than needed? Does free text remain a complete route?", "sources": [ "intent", "bennis", "shape", "genai" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Task choices", "caption": "Concrete options help people start.", "items": [ "heading|What would help?", "button|Read a passage", "button|Understand a text", "button|Reflect or talk", "input|Something else" ], "when": "Several task types are available", "tradeoff": "Choices must not restrict the free-text route" }, { "title": "B · One clarification", "caption": "Only context needed for the next step is requested.", "items": [ "text|Would you prefer a brief explanation or a closer study?", "button|Brief explanation", "button|Closer study", "button|Continue without choosing" ], "when": "One ambiguity changes the next response", "tradeoff": "Too many questions become a barrier" }, { "title": "C · Practice preview", "caption": "A suggested activity is voluntary.", "items": [ "card|Quiet reflection|Purpose, source and approximate duration.", "button|Start this practice", "button|Choose another approach" ], "when": "A practice is being suggested", "tradeoff": "Purpose and duration should be previewed before starting" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Offer a small set of concrete tasks and a free-text route.", "principles": [ "reverence" ] }, { "id": "26", "slug": "permission-and-repair", "title": "Listen, ask permission and repair", "topic": "conversation", "summary": "Make correction and refusal normal parts of a conversation.", "problem": "A personal disclosure may receive an unwanted verse, prayer or interpretation. A mistaken assumption can persist because correcting the assistant is difficult.", "solution": "Reflect cautiously, let people correct the understanding and ask permission before adding Scripture or prayer in sensitive contexts. A refusal leads to a useful alternative. Repair updates the conversation without defensive explanation.", "failure": "“God is teaching you…” before listening; prayer despite refusal; arguing with a correction; requiring the user to restart the whole exchange.", "test": "Test refusal, “that is not what I meant”, and changes in preference over several turns. Does the system update context and respect the new choice?", "sources": [ "genai", "shape", "samhsa", "who" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Reflect first", "caption": "Understanding is offered as tentative.", "items": [ "text|It sounds as though this has been difficult. Have I understood you?", "button|Yes", "button|Not quite", "input|What I mean is…" ], "when": "The assistant may have misunderstood", "tradeoff": "Tentative reflection must invite correction" }, { "title": "B · Ask permission", "caption": "Spiritual content is a choice in a sensitive moment.", "items": [ "text|Would a passage or prayer be helpful right now?", "button|A passage", "button|A prayer", "button|Neither, please" ], "when": "Scripture or prayer would be added to a personal disclosure", "tradeoff": "A refusal needs a useful alternative" }, { "title": "C · Repair", "caption": "A correction changes the next response.", "items": [ "text|Thank you for clarifying. I will follow that preference.", "card|Updated understanding|Your corrected meaning.", "button|Continue" ], "when": "The user corrects an assumption", "tradeoff": "Update the context instead of defending the earlier response" } ], "faith": "Warm wording does not make a system trauma-informed. Predictability, data practices, accountability and expert review also matter.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Reflect cautiously, let people correct the understanding and ask permission before adding Scripture or prayer in sensitive contexts.", "principles": [ "reverence", "costliness" ] }, { "id": "27", "slug": "human-connections", "title": "Support human connections", "topic": "agency", "summary": "Keep quiet, exit and appropriate human support available.", "problem": "A conversational product can encourage exclusive attachment or imply a human handoff that it cannot deliver.", "solution": "Let people stop or remain quiet without being pursued. Offer relevant, maintained human-support options and state whether contact is user-initiated, asynchronous or an actual staffed transfer. Avoid exclusivity or dependency cues.", "failure": "“Only I understand you”; false live monitoring; implying a contacted service has received the conversation when it has not.", "test": "Check every support destination, eligibility and availability. Can users understand who will receive data, whether anyone is responding and how to leave?", "sources": [ "who", "voice-of-ai", "crisis-de" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Quiet or exit", "caption": "Ending does not require another disclosure.", "items": [ "text|You can pause or stop here.", "button|Stay quiet", "button|End the conversation" ], "when": "The person wants quiet or to end", "tradeoff": "Do not pursue them with another disclosure request" }, { "title": "B · Choose a person", "caption": "Real connections remain part of the picture.", "items": [ "card|Someone you trust|Contact is your choice.", "card|Qualified support|Verified options for your location.", "button|Explore support options" ], "when": "A real person could provide useful support", "tradeoff": "The user decides which person is safe" }, { "title": "C · Honest support route", "caption": "A contact card states what will actually happen.", "items": [ "card|Support service|Audience, hours, language and contact method.", "notice|You contact this service yourself.", "button|Open the contact information" ], "when": "A service is offered as a destination", "tradeoff": "A contact card is not a staffed transfer" } ], "faith": "Faith community, pastoral care and clinical care are different forms of support. Choose options appropriate to the person and context.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Let people stop or remain quiet without being pursued.", "principles": [ "bridge", "costliness" ] }, { "id": "28", "slug": "sensitive-memory", "title": "Sensitive memory by permission", "topic": "agency", "summary": "Make persistent memory specific, inspectable and reversible.", "problem": "A personal disclosure can be stored invisibly and later reappear in an unexpected recommendation or opening message.", "solution": "Default to the memory behaviour stated by the product. Before any optional durable memory, show the exact proposed wording and purpose. Offer edit, decline, view and delete. Establish categories the product will not retain and rules for sensitive reuse.", "failure": "Inferring denomination or health status; saving everything as personalisation; bundling memory, training and sharing; surprising users with a past loss.", "test": "Test declining, editing, deleting and later reuse. Verify the interface promise against storage, derived profiles, logs and retention processes.", "sources": [ "playground-memory", "shape", "if", "gdpr" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Continue without saving", "caption": "The current conversation does not require durable memory.", "items": [ "tag|This conversation", "notice|No optional personal memory has been added.", "button|Continue this conversation" ], "when": "Saving is unnecessary or declined", "tradeoff": "Continuity may be lower but participation remains complete" }, { "title": "B · Review proposed memory", "caption": "A specific item and purpose can be accepted or declined.", "items": [ "card|Proposed memory|Exact wording and intended use.", "button|Edit before saving", "button|Save this item", "button|Do not save" ], "when": "A specific memory could help later", "tradeoff": "The exact wording and scope require review" }, { "title": "C · Memory library", "caption": "Saved items remain visible and manageable.", "items": [ "heading|Saved memories", "card|Saved item|Wording, purpose and date.", "button|Edit this memory", "button|Delete this memory" ], "when": "The person reviews stored memory", "tradeoff": "Deletion limits and derived data must be clear" } ], "faith": "Religious beliefs and health information can be special-category data. A toggle alone does not establish a lawful processing basis.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Default to the memory behaviour stated by the product.", "principles": [ "reverence" ] }, { "id": "29", "slug": "confirm-actions", "title": "Suggest, confirm and act", "topic": "agency", "summary": "Separate a generated proposal from a real change.", "problem": "“Make a reading plan” may mean draft one, save it, schedule reminders or share it with a group. Those are different consequences.", "solution": "Show the exact proposed change and its scope before executing an action that needs approval. Separate saving, scheduling and sharing. Respect bounded standing permissions and show actual success, failure and available undo.", "failure": "A request to reflect becomes a shared prayer; a global autopilot permission; duplicate reminders after a retry; a success message before the action succeeds.", "test": "Can users predict the effect before confirming? Test cancellation, revoked permission, partial failure and retry without duplicate changes.", "sources": [ "playground-action", "if-automation", "agentic", "interaction-atlas" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Proposal", "caption": "Drafting has no hidden external effect.", "items": [ "card|Reading plan draft|Seven sessions with references.", "button|Edit the proposal", "button|Save this plan" ], "when": "The assistant proposes an action", "tradeoff": "A suggestion is not permission to execute" }, { "title": "B · Review an action", "caption": "Audience and side effects are concrete.", "items": [ "card|Proposed action|Share this selected item with the chosen group.", "button|Confirm sharing", "button|Cancel" ], "when": "An action affects saved or shared material", "tradeoff": "Review must name the consequence and recipient" }, { "title": "C · Result and recovery", "caption": "The actual outcome closes the action.", "items": [ "notice|The selected plan was saved.", "button|Open saved plan", "button|Undo the save", "card|Reminders|Not scheduled unless separately enabled." ], "when": "An action completed or failed", "tradeoff": "Show actual results and recovery rather than a generic success message" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Show the exact proposed change and its scope before executing an action that needs approval.", "principles": [ "reverence" ] }, { "id": "30", "slug": "contextual-study-panel", "title": "Preview before deep study", "topic": "study", "summary": "Reveal relevant information from a passage without replacing the reader.", "problem": "Selecting text can expose too many actions or open a panel that unexpectedly changes as the reader moves.", "solution": "Offer a small selection action menu, then preview the relevant resource before deeper study. Let a linked panel either follow the passage or remain pinned, with its current anchor visible.", "failure": "A panel silently following a different verse; a resource opened without source context; a crowded selection menu that prevents reading.", "test": "Test moving between verses with a linked and pinned panel. Can readers identify the panel’s anchor and recover the main reading task?", "sources": [ "olivetree", "placement", "shape" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Select an action", "caption": "Selection exposes relevant choices.", "items": [ "highlight|Selected verse", "button|Highlight", "button|Add a note", "button|Explore information", "button|Ask a question" ], "when": "The user has selected text", "tradeoff": "An action menu should stay small" }, { "title": "B · Preview a resource", "caption": "A brief excerpt leads to the complete source.", "items": [ "card|Edition footnote|Short relevant note.", "card|Commentary|Author and excerpt.", "button|Read complete commentary" ], "when": "A resource can be checked quickly", "tradeoff": "A preview may omit details needed for study" }, { "title": "C · Pin the panel", "caption": "Following and pinning are explicit modes.", "items": [ "tag|Panel anchored to Mark 1:18", "notice|Reader is now at Mark 1:19.", "button|Keep panel pinned", "button|Follow the reader again" ], "when": "A reference should remain fixed while reading moves", "tradeoff": "Pinned and following states need distinct anchors" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Offer a small selection action menu, then preview the relevant resource before deeper study.", "principles": [ "rootedness" ] }, { "id": "31", "slug": "word-study", "title": "Word study names its basis", "topic": "study", "summary": "Keep lexical data, translation wording and contextual interpretation separate.", "problem": "A word selection may imply a reliable connection to an original-language lemma when the edition has no such alignment.", "solution": "Identify the selected edition, lexical source and mapping basis. Present lexical senses and usage in this passage as distinct tasks. If alignment is unavailable, offer another resource rather than inventing it.", "failure": "Treating one gloss as the word’s universal meaning; fabricated alignment; hiding which lexicon supplies a claim.", "test": "Use editions with and without word alignment. Can readers distinguish a lexical entry from a claim about the word’s contextual meaning?", "sources": [ "olivetree", "bounded-study" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Selected word", "caption": "The mapping basis is visible.", "items": [ "tag|Word selection · Translation A", "highlight|Selected wording", "card|Data basis|Lemma, mapping and source.", "button|Open lexical entry" ], "when": "A reliable lexical mapping exists", "tradeoff": "The selected edition is not identical to the lexical source" }, { "title": "B · Explore usage", "caption": "Lexical possibilities do not collapse into one automatic answer.", "items": [ "card|Sense 1|Lexicon and entry.", "card|Sense 2|Lexicon and entry.", "button|Explore usage in this passage" ], "when": "The user explores possible senses in context", "tradeoff": "A list of senses does not identify the correct interpretation" }, { "title": "C · No mapping", "caption": "The product names the missing capability.", "items": [ "notice|Reliable word alignment is unavailable for this edition.", "button|Choose another resource", "button|Read the passage in context" ], "when": "Alignment is unavailable", "tradeoff": "Offer another source rather than guess a token match" } ], "faith": "This is a proposed study interaction, not a claim that a particular data format supplies lexical alignment.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Identify the selected edition, lexical source and mapping basis.", "principles": [ "rootedness" ] }, { "id": "32", "slug": "annotation-anchors", "title": "The annotation anchor is explicit", "topic": "study", "summary": "Make exact wording and reference-based notes different personal objects.", "problem": "A highlight on particular words and a note about a verse behave differently when the translation changes.", "solution": "Allow quick marking without forced organisation. Explain whether the annotation targets an exact edition-specific selection or a passage reference. Colours and labels are optional personal conventions.", "failure": "Assuming a colour reveals theology or mood; requiring tags before saving; promising exact word transfer across translations.", "test": "Can users understand where their note will appear after switching editions? Test unlabelled highlights and annotations across verse ranges.", "sources": [ "logos-notes" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Mark first", "caption": "Organisation can wait.", "items": [ "tag|Psalm 23:1 · Selection", "highlight|Selected words", "button|Highlight", "button|Add a note", "notice|A label is optional." ], "when": "The user wants a quick mark", "tradeoff": "Forced categorisation slows a simple task" }, { "title": "B · Choose the anchor", "caption": "Exact text and a passage reference have different scope.", "items": [ "card|Exact selection|Attached to wording in Translation A.", "card|Passage reference|Attached to Psalm 23:1.", "button|Choose anchor type" ], "when": "A note may need to travel across editions", "tradeoff": "Reference anchors and exact wording have different scope" }, { "title": "C · Personal meaning", "caption": "The user defines whether a mark has a meaning.", "items": [ "card|My highlight styles|Important / Question / No label.", "button|Name a style", "button|Use colour only" ], "when": "The user wants personal style meanings", "tradeoff": "Do not infer theology or mood from a colour" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Allow quick marking without forced organisation.", "principles": [ "rootedness" ] }, { "id": "33", "slug": "highlight-overlap", "title": "Overlaps remain legible", "topic": "study", "summary": "Distinguish playback, selection, search and saved highlights.", "problem": "Several states may highlight the same text. After a translation change, a saved word selection may have no reliable equivalent.", "solution": "Use different visual and accessible cues for transient and saved states. Carry reference-based notes through reliable reference mappings. Keep exact selections attached to their original edition when no word alignment exists.", "failure": "Everything represented by background colour; inventing a new selection in another edition; hiding the original annotation when mapping fails.", "test": "Combine playback, search and a personal mark on one verse. Switch editions and check that every annotation remains explainable and recoverable.", "sources": [ "logos-notes", "epub", "reflow" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Different states", "caption": "Visual roles are distinguishable beyond colour.", "items": [ "highlight|Audio: currently spoken passage", "card|Saved highlight|Personal annotation.", "label|Selection: outline", "label|Search result: underline" ], "when": "Playback, selection and saved marks overlap", "tradeoff": "Colour alone cannot carry all meanings" }, { "title": "B · Reference note", "caption": "A reliable passage anchor can remain visible.", "items": [ "tag|Translation B", "card|Note on Psalm 23:1|Reference anchor retained.", "button|Open my note" ], "when": "A note attaches to a reliably mapped reference", "tradeoff": "Edition-specific word marks still need separate handling" }, { "title": "C · Original word selection", "caption": "No new wording is invented.", "items": [ "notice|This highlight belongs to Translation A.", "button|Open the original selection", "button|Create a new highlight in B" ], "when": "Exact wording has no reliable equivalent", "tradeoff": "Keep the original mark rather than transferring it silently" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Use different visual and accessible cues for transient and saved states.", "principles": [ "rootedness" ] }, { "id": "34", "slug": "annotation-library", "title": "Notes have a library and an honest save state", "topic": "study", "summary": "Help people find personal work and resolve sync differences.", "problem": "A note may be saved locally but not synced. Conflicting edits or deletion can become invisible data loss.", "solution": "Provide a library by passage, collection and date. Distinguish local save from pending sync. Offer undo where feasible and compare conflicting versions instead of silently overwriting them.", "failure": "“Saved” interpreted as safely synced everywhere; losing offline notes; conflict resolution that deletes one version without review.", "test": "Create a note offline, reconnect and introduce a second edit. Can users find their work and understand each save or conflict state?", "sources": [ "logos-notes", "appleton", "interaction-atlas" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Personal library", "caption": "Saved work is findable outside the original screen.", "items": [ "heading|My notes", "button|By passage", "button|By collection", "card|Psalm 23:1|Note · Yesterday." ], "when": "The person searches saved work", "tradeoff": "Organisation needs more than a chronological stream" }, { "title": "B · Local save", "caption": "Local success and sync are separate states.", "items": [ "notice|Saved on this device.", "card|New note|Sync pending.", "button|Edit", "button|Undo" ], "when": "A save has not yet synced", "tradeoff": "Local success and server sync are different states" }, { "title": "C · Resolve a conflict", "caption": "Both versions remain available for inspection.", "items": [ "heading|Two versions need review", "card|This device|First version.", "card|Other device|Second version.", "button|Compare and merge" ], "when": "Two saved versions conflict", "tradeoff": "Manual comparison costs effort but avoids silent loss" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Provide a library by passage, collection and date.", "principles": [ "honesty", "costliness" ] }, { "id": "35", "slug": "private-sharing", "title": "Private before shared", "topic": "agency", "summary": "Let users inspect audience, content and AI suggestions before committing.", "problem": "A private reflection can leak through a share flow or be transformed into a psychological or religious profile.", "solution": "Keep personal work private until a deliberate share action. Preview the exact content and recipients. Review AI-proposed tags and changes before saving. Do not infer health or spiritual standing from highlights.", "failure": "Sharing notes by default; an ambiguous “send” action; storing AI interpretations as user beliefs; hidden audience expansion.", "test": "Test sharing a verse alone versus a verse with private notes. Can users recognise recipients and reject an AI suggestion without side effects?", "sources": [ "if", "shape", "gdpr", "bennis" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Share preview", "caption": "The content and audience are visible together.", "items": [ "tag|Currently private", "card|Content to share|Verse quotation with edition.", "card|Audience|Selected group.", "button|Confirm sharing", "button|Cancel" ], "when": "The person chooses to share", "tradeoff": "Preview must expose recipient and visibility" }, { "title": "B · Review suggestions", "caption": "An AI suggestion is not a saved user statement.", "items": [ "card|AI suggestion|Add a question label to this passage?", "button|Accept", "button|Edit", "button|Discard" ], "when": "AI proposes wording for shared content", "tradeoff": "A suggestion is not a saved statement by the user" }, { "title": "C · No hidden profiling", "caption": "A personal mark does not authorise a derived profile.", "items": [ "card|My highlight|A personal style with no fixed meaning.", "notice|No health or faith score is inferred.", "button|Define my own label" ], "when": "Private activity could be profiled", "tradeoff": "A hidden inference is not consent to collect or share" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Keep personal work private until a deliberate share action.", "principles": [ "reverence" ] }, { "id": "36", "slug": "sensitive-topics", "title": "Support without spiritual pressure", "topic": "agency", "summary": "Respond to difficult topics with choice, humility and appropriate support.", "problem": "Grief, abuse, guilt or repeated moral reassurance can trigger harmful spiritual explanations or confident clinical assumptions.", "solution": "Acknowledge the concern without imposing an explanation. Make Scripture and prayer optional. Preserve control after religious harm, offer independent help and avoid promises of absolute moral certainty. Repeated reassurance requires specialist-informed handling rather than diagnosis from a chat.", "failure": "Explaining loss as God’s plan; pressuring reconciliation with an abusive community; pathologising identity or doubt; endless certainty promises.", "test": "Use expert-reviewed synthetic multi-turn cases covering grief, religious harm, shame, identity and reassurance. Evaluate correction, refusal and long-term repetition, not only the first answer.", "sources": [ "iocdf", "samhsa", "who", "moore", "wysa" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Acknowledge pain", "caption": "A spiritual interpretation is not imposed.", "items": [ "text|This sounds painful. You do not have to find an explanation right now.", "button|Talk without a Bible passage", "button|Choose a passage", "button|Pause" ], "when": "A disclosure is painful", "tradeoff": "Listening must not impose a spiritual explanation" }, { "title": "B · Preserve control", "caption": "Support is independent and disclosure is voluntary.", "items": [ "text|You can decide what you want to share.", "button|Independent support options", "button|Help me organise my thoughts", "button|End the conversation" ], "when": "The person needs control over disclosure", "tradeoff": "Support should not depend on more personal detail" }, { "title": "C · Repeated certainty seeking", "caption": "Illustrative wording requires specialist review.", "items": [ "text|We are returning to the same distressing question.", "text|I cannot promise absolute moral certainty.", "button|Talk about the distress", "button|Explore qualified support" ], "when": "Repeated certainty seeking is distressing", "tradeoff": "Specialist review is required and ordinary doubt must remain distinct" } ], "faith": "These are illustrative routing and dialogue proposals, not treatment instructions. Do not diagnose OCD, conduct exposure therapy or classify an identity as illness.", "status": "Sensitive design proposal · Specialist review required", "related": [ "possible-abuse", "reassurance-loops", "doubt-and-uncertainty" ], "takeaway": "Acknowledge the concern without imposing an explanation.", "principles": [ "reverence" ] }, { "id": "37", "slug": "contextual-safety", "title": "Safety follows the conversation context", "topic": "agency", "summary": "Distinguish a historical text question from an immediate personal safety concern.", "problem": "Keywords about death, violence or divine commands can occur in Bible study, fiction, past experience or a current emergency. The right route depends on context.", "solution": "Differentiate textual discussion, distressing personal experiences and immediate danger. Acknowledge emotions without affirming unverified dangerous claims. Prioritise brief, locally verified human-help information for immediate danger and state actual monitoring limitations.", "failure": "A crisis card for every historical question; validating a harmful divine command; lengthy exegesis before urgent help; invented contact information.", "test": "Have qualified reviewers assess multi-turn synthetic cases, indirect phrasing, ambiguity and false positives. Maintain contact accuracy by location and audience. Do not claim perfect detection.", "sources": [ "moore", "crisis-de", "who", "therabot" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Textual question", "caption": "Historical analysis is not automatically a current emergency.", "items": [ "tag|Question about a biblical narrative", "text|You are asking about violence described in this passage.", "button|Read the literary context", "button|Explore sourced interpretations" ], "when": "The question is about a historical text", "tradeoff": "A false crisis route disrupts legitimate study" }, { "title": "B · Distressing belief", "caption": "Acknowledge distress without endorsing an unsafe claim.", "items": [ "text|This experience seems very distressing.", "text|I cannot establish that this is a divine instruction.", "button|Explore appropriate human support" ], "when": "A personal belief is distressing or dangerous", "tradeoff": "Validate distress without confirming the unsafe claim" }, { "title": "C · Immediate danger", "caption": "A local example is clearly labelled and kept brief.", "items": [ "tag|Germany · Local example", "notice|In immediate danger, contact emergency services: 112.", "button|Call 112", "text|If possible, involve a trusted person.", "notice|No live human monitoring is promised." ], "when": "There is immediate personal danger", "tradeoff": "Brief verified human-help routes take priority" } ], "faith": "Emergency numbers differ by jurisdiction. This Germany example must be replaced with verified local guidance for each deployment.", "status": "Sensitive design proposal · Specialist review required", "related": [ "suicide-concerns", "health-and-spiritual-practice", "possible-abuse" ], "takeaway": "Differentiate textual discussion, distressing personal experiences and immediate danger.", "principles": [ "reverence" ] }, { "id": "38", "slug": "meaningful-progress", "title": "Progress without moral scoring", "topic": "formation", "summary": "Acknowledge practice without ranking a person’s faith.", "problem": "A completion dashboard can invite people to interpret usage as devotion, worthiness or spiritual standing.", "solution": "Describe observable activity accurately and let users decide whether to see it. Offer space for their own reflection. Keep analytics separate from claims about character, belief or spiritual growth.", "failure": "A faith score; competitive rankings of devotion; an AI judgment about spiritual maturity from app activity.", "test": "Ask users what they think each progress display says about them. Compare usefulness, pressure and unwanted interpretations over time.", "sources": [ "formation-agenda" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Activity summary", "caption": "Facts are descriptive rather than moral.", "items": [ "heading|Your recent practice", "card|This week|Three passages read; one note saved.", "button|Hide activity summary" ], "when": "A factual activity summary is useful", "tradeoff": "Activity is not a spiritual-growth score" }, { "title": "B · Personal reflection", "caption": "Meaning is expressed by the person.", "items": [ "input|What has felt meaningful to you?", "button|Save privately", "button|Skip reflection" ], "when": "The person wants to reflect on meaning", "tradeoff": "Intimate reflections should not be required for completion" }, { "title": "C · No score", "caption": "A useful library can work without measurement.", "items": [ "heading|Your saved place", "card|Last passage|Resume when you choose.", "button|Continue reading" ], "when": "Measurement does not serve the person’s task", "tradeoff": "No score is a complete product option" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Proposed hypothesis", "takeaway": "Describe observable activity accurately and let users decide whether to see it.", "principles": [ "grace", "fruit" ] }, { "id": "39", "slug": "flexible-rhythm", "title": "A flexible reading rhythm", "topic": "formation", "summary": "Make a plan fit circumstances without turning missed sessions into debt.", "problem": "A rigid daily plan can become unusable when someone’s schedule, ability or life situation changes.", "solution": "Offer calendar-based and sequential approaches, optional reminders and an easy pause. Preserve completed work when rescheduling. Let people choose the pace rather than requiring catch-up.", "failure": "Forced daily goals; erasing progress after rescheduling; presenting missed days as moral failures.", "test": "Study real reading rhythms, including irregular and shared practice. Can users change pace without losing their place or feeling penalised?", "sources": [ "formation-agenda" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Choose a rhythm", "caption": "Daily and sequential plans are distinct options.", "items": [ "button|Read on chosen days", "button|Continue one session at a time", "button|Set my own pace" ], "when": "The person chooses a practice rhythm", "tradeoff": "Daily cadence may not fit their life" }, { "title": "B · Pause", "caption": "A pause has clear effects.", "items": [ "card|Pause this plan|Completed sessions remain saved.", "button|Pause until I return", "button|Choose a return date" ], "when": "A plan needs a deliberate pause", "tradeoff": "Pausing should not imply a debt" }, { "title": "C · Reschedule", "caption": "Upcoming work moves without creating a debt.", "items": [ "card|New rhythm|Two sessions each week.", "button|Preview updated schedule", "button|Keep existing progress" ], "when": "Dates no longer match circumstances", "tradeoff": "Rescheduling needs to retain useful progress" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Proposed hypothesis", "takeaway": "Offer calendar-based and sequential approaches, optional reminders and an easy pause.", "principles": [ "grace" ] }, { "id": "40", "slug": "return-without-shame", "title": "Return without shame", "topic": "formation", "summary": "Welcome returning participants without a retention penalty.", "problem": "A comeback screen may frame absence as failure and discourage a meaningful new session.", "solution": "Offer a fresh, manageable entry and a way to resume. Preserve history without leading with absence or loss. Let people decline analytics and notifications.", "failure": "A guilt message; demanding reasons for absence; “save your streak” payments; escalating reminder frequency after silence.", "test": "Compare returning-user experiences through interviews and longitudinal observation. Does the welcome respect choice rather than merely increase opens?", "sources": [ "formation-agenda" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Fresh entry", "caption": "A new session can be enough.", "items": [ "heading|What fits today?", "button|A short passage", "button|Listen for a few minutes", "button|Continue my plan" ], "when": "A fresh entry is more useful than catching up", "tradeoff": "Do not erase the saved place unnecessarily" }, { "title": "B · Resume", "caption": "The saved anchor remains useful.", "items": [ "card|Your saved place|Passage and session.", "button|Continue from here", "button|Choose a different starting point" ], "when": "The person wants to resume earlier work", "tradeoff": "The former plan may still need adjustment" }, { "title": "C · Reduce pressure", "caption": "Notification control is part of returning.", "items": [ "button|Keep reminders paused", "button|Choose new reminder times", "button|Continue without reminders" ], "when": "A backlog or streak creates burden", "tradeoff": "Reducing pressure can change engagement metrics without reducing usefulness" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Proposed hypothesis", "takeaway": "Offer a fresh, manageable entry and a way to resume.", "principles": [ "grace" ] }, { "id": "41", "slug": "reflection-beyond-completion", "title": "Reflection beyond completion", "topic": "formation", "summary": "Support understanding and meaning as well as finishing a session.", "problem": "Checking a box can become the entire interaction even when the person wants to understand, reflect or practise.", "solution": "Offer an optional reflection, a return to context and a way to record questions. Treat completion as a record of an activity, not proof of transformation. Avoid extracting personal meaning for profiling.", "failure": "Mandatory reflective disclosure; AI grading a prayer or insight; rewarding speed over comprehension.", "test": "Study whether reflection helps the intended practice and whether users feel free to skip. Use context-appropriate qualitative and comprehension measures.", "sources": [ "formation-agenda" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · A question to carry", "caption": "A small reflection can remain private.", "items": [ "card|Optional reflection|What question would you like to keep?", "input|My question", "button|Save privately", "button|Skip" ], "when": "A question is worth carrying beyond the session", "tradeoff": "An unresolved question can be a legitimate ending" }, { "title": "B · Revisit the text", "caption": "Understanding may require returning rather than finishing faster.", "items": [ "button|Read the passage again", "button|Explore its context", "button|Record an unresolved question" ], "when": "The person wants to revisit the passage", "tradeoff": "Repeated reading need not count as stalled progress" }, { "title": "C · Complete without disclosure", "caption": "Finishing does not require an insight to be entered.", "items": [ "heading|Session finished", "text|You can leave your reflection unrecorded.", "button|Close this session" ], "when": "The person declines reflection or sharing", "tradeoff": "Completion remains possible without disclosure" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Proposed hypothesis", "takeaway": "Offer an optional reflection, a return to context and a way to record questions.", "principles": [ "grace", "fruit" ] }, { "id": "42", "slug": "reminder-autonomy", "title": "Reminders under user control", "topic": "formation", "summary": "Give people authority over timing, frequency and pauses.", "problem": "A helpful reminder can become pressure when it ignores life context or uses spiritual guilt to prompt a return.", "solution": "Let users opt into a stated purpose, choose timing and frequency, set quiet periods and pause easily. Use neutral wording and avoid inferred emotional or religious targeting.", "failure": "Default-on escalating nudges; a guilt-based push notification; revealing a private prayer on a shared lock screen.", "test": "Test the full notification lifecycle and shared-device privacy. Ask whether reminders feel helpful, burdensome or revealing.", "sources": [ "formation-agenda", "gdpr" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Explicit setup", "caption": "A reminder has a chosen purpose and rhythm.", "items": [ "card|Reading reminder|For your selected plan.", "button|Choose days and time", "button|Continue without reminders" ], "when": "A reminder supports a chosen plan", "tradeoff": "Set timing and frequency explicitly" }, { "title": "B · Pause or adjust", "caption": "Changing a reminder is straightforward.", "items": [ "button|Pause reminders", "button|Change frequency", "button|Set quiet hours" ], "when": "The reminder no longer fits", "tradeoff": "Pause and cancellation must be easy to find" }, { "title": "C · Private wording", "caption": "A notification does not expose sensitive content.", "items": [ "card|Lock-screen preview|Your chosen neutral reminder text.", "button|Hide preview content", "button|Review before enabling" ], "when": "A device may reveal notification text", "tradeoff": "Neutral wording still does not guarantee privacy" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Proposed hypothesis", "takeaway": "Let users opt into a stated purpose, choose timing and frequency, set quiet periods and pause easily.", "principles": [ "grace" ] }, { "id": "43", "slug": "shared-practice", "title": "Shared practice without comparison", "topic": "formation", "summary": "Use community to support participation without ranking devotion.", "problem": "Group plans and social features can expose private practices or turn participation into a competitive faith signal.", "solution": "Offer voluntary group participation, explicit audience controls and discussion that does not require publishing reading history. Support encouragement without leaderboards or pressure to disclose personal reflections.", "failure": "Default public streaks; ranking prayer frequency; automatically posting a private note to a group.", "test": "Research community norms and privacy expectations. Can people participate, observe or leave without a social or moral penalty?", "sources": [ "formation-agenda", "if" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Join voluntarily", "caption": "Group participation has clear visibility.", "items": [ "card|Reading group|Who can see participation and posts.", "button|Join this practice", "button|Read on my own" ], "when": "The person wants communal participation", "tradeoff": "Joining should not expose private practice history" }, { "title": "B · Share a reflection", "caption": "Posting is independent from finishing a session.", "items": [ "input|A reflection I choose to share", "card|Audience|This group only.", "button|Preview my post" ], "when": "A reflection is intentionally shared", "tradeoff": "Audience and visibility need a review step" }, { "title": "C · Participate quietly", "caption": "Community does not require a performance record.", "items": [ "button|Read without posting", "button|Hide my reading history", "button|Leave the group" ], "when": "The person wants to listen without posting", "tradeoff": "Quiet participation must not be penalised" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Proposed hypothesis", "takeaway": "Offer voluntary group participation, explicit audience controls and discussion that does not require publishing reading history.", "principles": [ "bridge", "fruit" ] }, { "id": "44", "slug": "intent-controls", "title": "Intent controls support the prompt", "topic": "conversation", "summary": "Help people express scope through selections and task choices.", "problem": "A blank box makes users responsible for specifying passage, sources, purpose and output format in every prompt.", "solution": "Pair free text with editable context chips and concrete task controls. Use a passage selection, source scope and desired form to express intent. Confirm material assumptions rather than silently inferring them from private data.", "failure": "Forcing a complex prompt; invisible source filters; inferring belief or distress from a simple search.", "test": "Can novice users ask a scoped question and understand what sources and passage will be used? Test removing a context item and correcting an assumption.", "sources": [ "intent", "bennis", "shape", "playground", "genai" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Start from context", "caption": "A selected passage reduces prompt-writing effort.", "items": [ "tag|Mark 1:1–5 · Translation A", "button|Explain", "button|Compare", "button|Find related sources", "input|My own question" ], "when": "A question begins with a passage selection", "tradeoff": "Context chips should be editable" }, { "title": "B · Editable scope", "caption": "The active sources are visible and removable.", "items": [ "card|Context|Selected passage and two commentaries.", "button|Change source scope", "input|Ask within this context" ], "when": "The person wants to control source scope", "tradeoff": "Removing a source must change retrieval transparently" }, { "title": "C · Confirm an assumption", "caption": "The product asks only when the choice matters.", "items": [ "text|Should I use the sources you selected or search more widely?", "button|Selected sources only", "button|Search more widely" ], "when": "A material assumption is unresolved", "tradeoff": "Clarify without turning the task into an interview" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Pair free text with editable context chips and concrete task controls.", "principles": [ "reverence" ] }, { "id": "45", "slug": "ai-placement", "title": "Place AI around the task", "topic": "conversation", "summary": "Choose inline help, a context panel or conversation by the user’s work.", "problem": "Putting every AI function in a full-screen chat can displace reading, obscure evidence and break annotation workflows.", "solution": "Use inline assistance for a narrow selected-text action, a side panel for sustained contextual study and a conversation surface for an open exchange. Preserve the primary task and make transitions reversible.", "failure": "A chat overlay covering the passage; a context panel whose role is unclear; opening a new chat for every tiny action.", "test": "Compare layouts using the same reading and study tasks. Can participants tell what the AI is acting on and keep control of the main content?", "sources": [ "placement", "aiverse", "genai" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Inline action", "caption": "A small action stays beside its selected content.", "items": [ "highlight|Selected paragraph", "button|Explain this selection", "card|Short explanation|Bound to the selected text." ], "when": "A small action directly serves selected text", "tradeoff": "Inline help has little room for depth" }, { "title": "B · Context panel", "caption": "Study can continue beside the reader.", "items": [ "card|Main task|Passage remains central.", "card|Study assistant|Sources and explanation for this anchor.", "button|Pin this context" ], "when": "Evidence should stay beside the reading task", "tradeoff": "A panel takes width and needs a clear anchor" }, { "title": "C · Conversation workspace", "caption": "A broader exchange has room while retaining context.", "items": [ "tag|Conversation about Mark 1", "card|Current passage|Reference and translation.", "input|My next question", "button|Return to reader" ], "when": "The exchange outgrows local controls", "tradeoff": "A workspace needs preserved passage and return position" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Use inline assistance for a narrow selected-text action, a side panel for sustained contextual study and a conversation surface for an open exchange.", "principles": [ "honesty" ] }, { "id": "46", "slug": "bounded-autonomy", "title": "Autonomy has a visible boundary", "topic": "agency", "summary": "Grant authority by capability and consequence rather than by personality.", "problem": "A friendly agent can receive an ambiguous global permission that extends from drafting into sharing, scheduling or deleting.", "solution": "Name capabilities and limits. Distinguish advice, drafts, approved actions and bounded unattended work. State scope, expiry and stop conditions for standing authority; keep pause, revoke and available recovery visible.", "failure": "A single “trust me” switch; unenforced budgets; permissions expanding silently; a decorative stop button that does not stop execution.", "test": "Test capability changes, expiry, budget exhaustion and revocation during a run. Compare the permission shown with actual tool and data access.", "sources": [ "agentic", "if-automation", "playground-action", "interaction-atlas" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Capability contract", "caption": "Users can see what is permitted.", "items": [ "card|Explain passages|Allowed within selected sources.", "card|Save notes|Ask before saving.", "card|Share content|Ask for each audience.", "button|Review permissions" ], "when": "The user grants capability-specific permission", "tradeoff": "Vague trust is not a permission model" }, { "title": "B · Bounded run", "caption": "A delegated task has enforceable limits.", "items": [ "card|Prepare study material|Selected passage; selected sources; no sharing.", "notice|Stop after the agreed scope.", "button|Pause this task" ], "when": "A task is delegated within a defined scope", "tradeoff": "Limits and stopping conditions must be enforceable" }, { "title": "C · Revoke and recover", "caption": "A permission remains under user control.", "items": [ "button|Stop the current task", "button|Revoke this capability", "card|Completed changes|Inspect results and available undo." ], "when": "The user revokes permission or stops a task", "tradeoff": "State and partial results need review and recovery" } ], "faith": "Proactivity should not target grief, fear or private disclosures to increase dependence or sales.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Name capabilities and limits.", "principles": [ "reverence", "costliness" ] }, { "id": "47", "slug": "visible-work", "title": "Visible work and recoverable failure", "topic": "agency", "summary": "Describe real progress, responsibilities and outcomes.", "problem": "An agent can appear busy without revealing whether it retrieved sources, created a draft or changed saved data.", "solution": "Show meaningful steps, their actual state and who needs to act next. Use concise process explanations rather than presenting hidden model reasoning as a faithful transcript. On failure, name what succeeded and offer a safe retry or alternate route.", "failure": "Fake progress percentages; “done” before saving; hiding partial changes; confident claims of a human review that never happened.", "test": "Test partial retrieval, failed saving and permission refusal. Can users identify the completed work, pending action and safe recovery path?", "sources": [ "interaction-atlas", "agentic", "playground", "design-systems" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Named steps", "caption": "Progress describes actual work.", "items": [ "steps|Retrieve selected sources / Prepare a draft / Wait for your review", "notice|Source retrieval complete. Draft in progress.", "button|Pause" ], "when": "Work involves several named steps", "tradeoff": "A progress display must reflect real work" }, { "title": "B · Review responsibility", "caption": "The next decision belongs to the named actor.", "items": [ "card|Draft ready|No sharing or reminders executed.", "button|Review draft", "button|Discard draft" ], "when": "Responsibility is divided between AI and people", "tradeoff": "The assigned reviewer must actually exist" }, { "title": "C · Partial failure", "caption": "Successful work is preserved without duplicating actions.", "items": [ "notice|The draft is ready, but saving failed.", "button|Retry saving", "button|Keep the draft locally", "button|Inspect completed actions" ], "when": "Only part of a task succeeded", "tradeoff": "Useful results and unresolved gaps must remain separate" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "takeaway": "Show meaningful steps, their actual state and who needs to act next.", "principles": [ "honesty" ] }, { "id": "48", "slug": "playback-highlight-style", "title": "Playback cues are a reader preference", "topic": "audio", "summary": "Separate timing granularity, visual style and automatic following.", "problem": "A precise playback position does not require a moving background fill. Some readers prefer an underline, a margin cue, or no visual cue at all.", "solution": "Offer background fill, underline or outline, a margin indicator, and no highlighting. Keep a labelled Now playing reference available when cues are off. Highlighting and Follow narration are independent settings: cues can be on without scrolling, and following can be on without a fill. Distinguish playback, saved annotations, search matches and temporary navigation targets using more than colour. Avoid announcing every spoken word to a screen reader. Respect reduced motion and text contrast.", "failure": "One switch silently disabling audio or following; flashing cues; colouring saved marks as playback; hiding the playback reference when highlighting is off.", "test": "Test each style with personal highlights, search matches, dark mode, enlarged text and reduced motion. Can readers disable cues and still identify where audio is playing?", "sources": [ "epub", "wcag-color" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Background fill", "caption": "A temporary fill identifies playback; a saved annotation remains separate.", "items": [ "tag|Style: background fill", "cuefill|Currently spoken segment", "card|Saved annotation|Personal mark, unchanged.", "button|Follow narration: off" ], "when": "A filled segment helps visual tracking", "tradeoff": "It can conflict with saved highlights" }, { "title": "B · Underline or margin", "caption": "A line or a margin marker avoids a large background fill.", "items": [ "tag|Style: underline", "cueunderline|Currently spoken segment", "cuemargin|Alternative: margin indicator", "button|Choose outline instead" ], "when": "A lighter underline, outline or margin cue helps", "tradeoff": "The cue must remain legible beyond colour" }, { "title": "C · No visual highlighting", "caption": "Playback identity remains visible without changing Scripture styling.", "items": [ "tag|Highlighting: off", "card|Continuous Scripture text|No temporary playback styling.", "play|Now playing: Mark 1:8", "button|Follow narration: on" ], "when": "The person prefers no temporary styling", "tradeoff": "Keep playback identity visible elsewhere" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "honest-synchronisation", "highlight-overlap", "read-along" ], "takeaway": "Offer background fill, underline or outline, a margin indicator, and no highlighting.", "principles": [ "hospitality" ] }, { "id": "49", "slug": "verse-entry", "title": "A reference opens at a deliberate destination", "topic": "reading", "summary": "Choose the content scope, landing position and temporary cue separately.", "problem": "A link to Mark 1:8 can open the chapter at its beginning, land at verse 8, or display only verse 8. These choices support different tasks and should not be accidental.", "solution": "For contextual reading, open the containing chapter and place the first requested verse in view. For a focused preview, show only the verse or requested passage with a Read in context action. A chapter overview may open at the top, but retain the requested reference and provide Jump to verse. Scrolling and highlighting are independent: landing at a verse can use a temporary outline, a labelled margin cue, or no highlight. Mark a requested range rather than only its first verse when helpful. Temporary navigation cues never become saved annotations. Account for headers, players and delayed layout; retain back navigation to the search or chat.", "failure": "Opening at the chapter top without acknowledging the requested verse; permanently marking a deep-link target; hiding a focused excerpt’s boundaries; losing the origin.", "test": "Enter one verse, a range and a cross-chapter passage from search, chat and an external link. Check large text, cold loading, missing content and return navigation.", "sources": [ "usfm", "wcag-reflow" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Chapter overview", "caption": "Opening at the top is explicit, with a route to the actual target.", "items": [ "tag|Requested: Mark 1:8", "heading|Mark 1", "card|Chapter begins here|Context-first overview.", "button|Jump to verse 8" ], "when": "A chapter overview is the intended destination", "tradeoff": "Retain the requested reference and a jump action" }, { "title": "B · Anchored chapter", "caption": "The chapter remains available; the target is brought into view.", "items": [ "tag|Mark 1 · Translation A", "card|Earlier context|Verse 7.", "cueoutline|Verse 8 · Temporary navigation target", "card|Later context|Verse 9.", "button|Remove temporary cue" ], "when": "The person expects the verse in chapter context", "tradeoff": "A temporary navigation cue must not become a saved mark" }, { "title": "C · Focused passage", "caption": "Only the requested range appears until the reader chooses context.", "items": [ "tag|Mark 1:8–11 · Translation A", "card|Requested passage only|Verses 8–11, complete.", "button|Read in the full chapter", "button|Back to search" ], "when": "Only the requested range should be previewed", "tradeoff": "Make the boundary and route to full context explicit" } ], "faith": "For cross-chapter ranges, a focused reading surface can span chapter boundaries; a chapter-based view must make continuation explicit.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "reference-resolution", "translation-position", "long-passages" ], "takeaway": "For contextual reading, open the containing chapter and place the first requested verse in view.", "principles": [ "hospitality" ] }, { "id": "50", "slug": "reference-resolution", "title": "Resolve the reference before navigating", "topic": "reading", "summary": "Separate a Bible reference from a keyword query, then make ambiguity recoverable.", "problem": "A typed or linked reference may include a book abbreviation, range, edition, unfamiliar numbering or an ambiguous name. Treating it as keywords can land at the wrong passage.", "solution": "Recognise complete references and preserve the requested range, edition and origin. Distinguish reference lookup from full-text search; show what was understood before navigation where ambiguity exists. Resolve translated book names and canon or versification differences using reliable mappings. Offer a choice for ambiguity and an honest missing state for unavailable text. A link-specified edition and a preferred edition need an explicit policy; name any substitution. Do not guess the nearest verse and present it as the requested text.", "failure": "Silently dropping a range endpoint; searching keywords when an exact reference was entered; replacing an unavailable edition without notice; inventing a canonical match.", "test": "Test abbreviations, translated book names, ambiguous names, invalid ranges, cross-chapter ranges, unavailable books and edition-specific numbering.", "sources": [ "usfm" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Exact lookup", "caption": "The full range is retained as a destination.", "items": [ "input|Mark 1:8–11", "card|Recognised reference|Mark 1:8–11 · Translation A.", "button|Open this passage", "button|Search these words instead" ], "when": "The complete reference is recognised", "tradeoff": "Preserve edition and both range endpoints" }, { "title": "B · Missing book", "caption": "An incomplete reference needs clarification before navigation.", "items": [ "input|1:8–11", "card|Which book?|The range is recognised; the book is missing.", "button|Mark 1:8–11", "button|Choose another book" ], "when": "The reference lacks a book or is ambiguous", "tradeoff": "Clarification costs a step but prevents a wrong destination" }, { "title": "C · Edition unavailable", "caption": "Substitution is offered rather than hidden.", "items": [ "notice|The linked edition is unavailable.", "card|Requested reference|Mark 1:8–11.", "button|Open in my available edition", "button|Cancel" ], "when": "The specified edition is unavailable", "tradeoff": "Substitution needs disclosure and user choice" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "verse-entry", "translation-comparison", "chat-content-objects" ], "takeaway": "Recognise complete references and preserve the requested range, edition and origin.", "principles": [ "hospitality", "honesty" ] }, { "id": "51", "slug": "translation-position", "title": "Change translation without losing the passage", "topic": "reading", "summary": "Preserve a semantic reading anchor rather than a pixel offset.", "problem": "Different wording, poetry, headings and verse grouping change layout height. Retaining the old scroll offset can move the selected verse out of view.", "solution": "Before switching, identify the relevant anchor: the active selection or opened target, otherwise the visible reading verse; use the spoken verse only while Follow narration is enabled. Retain its approximate viewport position or bring it safely into view after the new edition has laid out. Reapply placement after late font or media loading only until the user scrolls; manual exploration takes precedence. Resolve versification with a trusted mapping and explain missing, split or merged verses. Keep reference notes separate from edition-specific word selections. Audio stays bound to its recorded edition: offer matching audio or clearly separate listening from the new text, and disable incompatible word cues.", "failure": "Restoring raw pixels; jumping to the chapter start; following audio after the reader scrolled away; copying word highlights onto unrelated wording; endlessly recentering during loading.", "test": "Switch editions while selecting a verse, freely reading, following audio, opening a note and using large text. Test poetry, missing verses, split or merged mappings, load failure and late reflow.", "sources": [ "usfm", "epub", "wcag-reflow" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Selected verse", "caption": "A semantic anchor survives a different paragraph height.", "items": [ "tag|Before: Translation A · Mark 1:8", "cueoutline|Selected verse, visible here", "label|Switch edition →", "tag|After: Translation B · Mark 1:8", "cueoutline|Mapped verse remains in view" ], "when": "A selection or opened target is active", "tradeoff": "Reapply its semantic anchor after layout settles" }, { "title": "B · Reading freely", "caption": "Preserve the visible reading place rather than the audio position.", "items": [ "tag|Reading Mark 1:5 · Audio at 1:8", "notice|Follow narration is off.", "card|Translation B · Mark 1:5|Reading anchor restored.", "button|Return to spoken verse" ], "when": "The person is exploring while audio continues", "tradeoff": "Preserve the reading anchor rather than the audio anchor" }, { "title": "C · Mapping or audio differs", "caption": "Unavailable equivalence has an explicit recovery.", "items": [ "notice|The selected verse has different numbering.", "button|Open the mapped passage", "notice|This recording uses Translation A.", "button|Keep audio without word cues", "button|Choose matching audio" ], "when": "Mapping or the recording edition differs", "tradeoff": "Explain the mismatch instead of claiming exact alignment" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "verse-entry", "highlight-overlap", "read-along" ], "takeaway": "Before switching, identify the relevant anchor: the active selection or opened target, otherwise the visible reading verse; use the spoken verse only while Follow narration is enabled.", "principles": [ "honesty", "fruit" ] }, { "id": "52", "slug": "chat-content-objects", "title": "Chat contains source objects, not just bubbles", "topic": "conversation", "summary": "Give verses, passages, links and media recognisable identity and appropriate actions.", "problem": "A bare link obscures its destination, while a large embed can crowd out the answer. Generated explanation can be mistaken for the text inside a Scripture card.", "solution": "Use an inline reference link for a brief citation, a bounded verse or passage card for text worth inspecting, and a full reader for sustained reading. Name edition, reference, visible range and source. Distinguish external link previews from Scripture and from generated commentary. Video cards identify publisher, duration and captions; audio cards retain passage and narrator. Do not autoplay. Provide plain links or labelled fallbacks when previews, media or permissions fail. Copy and sharing preserve reference and attribution where permitted. Returning from any destination restores conversation position.", "failure": "Autoplaying media; unlabelled generated verse text; enormous previews; a failed embed removing the source link; identical actions for read, play and external navigation.", "test": "Test a citation, single verse, long passage, external article, video and audio. Include blocked embeds, offline use, captions, large text, copy and return navigation.", "sources": [ "nng-chat", "playground-depth", "usfm", "wcag-reflow" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Reference and verse", "caption": "A lightweight citation can expand into a source-backed object.", "items": [ "text|A short explanation, separate from quoted text.", "button|Mark 1:8 · Open reference", "card|Mark 1:8 · Translation A|Verified edition text.", "button|Read in context", "button|Copy with reference" ], "when": "A citation or short verse supports an answer", "tradeoff": "A verse card still needs surrounding context" }, { "title": "B · External resource", "caption": "A preview identifies its destination and keeps a fallback link.", "items": [ "card|Article title|Publisher · External website.", "button|Open source article", "notice|Preview unavailable: the source link still works." ], "when": "An external article is the evidence object", "tradeoff": "An unavailable preview must retain a usable link" }, { "title": "C · Media object", "caption": "The user chooses playback; metadata remains visible.", "items": [ "tag|Video · Publisher · 04:20 · Captions", "video|Passage background", "button|Open transcript", "card|Audio alternative|Passage, edition and narrator.", "button|Play audio" ], "when": "Audio or video is relevant to the question", "tradeoff": "No autoplay and an accessible alternative are needed" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "long-passages", "verse-entry", "many-results" ], "takeaway": "Use an inline reference link for a brief citation, a bounded verse or passage card for text worth inspecting, and a full reader for sustained reading.", "principles": [ "hospitality" ] }, { "id": "53", "slug": "parallel-reading-layout", "title": "Parallel reading chooses a useful arrangement", "topic": "study", "summary": "Compare translations without forcing a desktop layout onto a small screen.", "problem": "Two adjacent translations can become narrow columns on a phone. Vertically stacked panes can hide the corresponding verse and make the relationship unclear.", "solution": "Choose left/right panes, top/bottom panes, or alternating edition blocks by the comparison task and available width. On mobile, a top/bottom split preserves line length, while a left/right split can suit brief passages when text remains readable. Offer a single-edition view or switching between editions when neither split fits enlarged text. On larger screens, side-by-side panes can support sustained comparison; let users resize or close panes without losing the reference. Keep edition labels, reference scope and scroll controls visible. Orientation names describe pane arrangement, not the direction in which Scripture should scroll.", "failure": "Shrinking text to fit columns; assuming landscape means enough space; hiding edition identity; putting one pane behind the player or keyboard.", "test": "Test portrait, landscape, a large screen, enlarged fonts, a long verse and poetry. Can users identify both editions, change arrangement and retain the target passage?", "sources": [ "usfm", "wcag-reflow" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Mobile: top and bottom", "caption": "Full-width panes share the available height; each retains its edition label.", "items": [ "splitstack|Translation A|Translation B", "button|Scroll link: off", "button|Use one edition" ], "when": "A phone needs readable full-width panes", "tradeoff": "Stacked panes reduce each visible passage height" }, { "title": "B · Mobile: left and right", "caption": "A compact comparison is optional; do not shrink the reading type.", "items": [ "splitside|Translation A|Translation B", "notice|If columns become too narrow, switch arrangement.", "button|Stack the panes" ], "when": "Short comparison fits side-by-side on a phone", "tradeoff": "Line length may fail with large text" }, { "title": "C · Large screen: side by side", "caption": "Wider panes support continuous reading and a resizable divider.", "items": [ "splitside|Translation A|Translation B", "label|Drag divider to resize panes", "button|Add or remove an edition" ], "when": "A larger window supports sustained comparison", "tradeoff": "Resizing and extra panes need stable reading anchors" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "parallel-scroll", "verse-by-verse-comparison", "adaptive-reading-workspace" ], "takeaway": "Choose left/right panes, top/bottom panes, or alternating edition blocks by the comparison task and available width.", "principles": [ "hospitality" ] }, { "id": "54", "slug": "parallel-scroll", "title": "Linked scrolling follows passage identity", "topic": "study", "summary": "Let parallel panes move together or independently, with an explicit way to rejoin.", "problem": "Different wording and poetry create different heights. Equal pixel scrolling can show unrelated verses in adjacent panes.", "solution": "Offer linked and independent scrolling. In linked mode, map the leading pane’s visible verse or passage anchor into the other pane instead of copying pixel offsets. Keep a stable leading pane during an interaction; avoid feedback loops and jitter. In independent mode, show each reference and offer Align at this verse. Rejoining uses the user’s chosen pane as the anchor. If a mapping is missing, split or merged, explain the correspondence and avoid pretending an exact line alignment. Playback following is a separate control; specify which pane it follows.", "failure": "Proportional scrolling presented as exact correspondence; snapping back after exploration; both panes endlessly steering each other; silently changing playback.", "test": "Scroll either pane, unlink, explore another chapter and rejoin. Test poetry, verse bridges, missing mappings, touch gestures, resizing and audio following.", "sources": [ "usfm", "wcag-reflow", "epub" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Linked by verse", "caption": "Different text heights still refer to the same passage.", "items": [ "tag|Scroll link: on · Anchor: Mark 1:8", "splitside|A · Verse 8|B · Verse 8", "button|Explore independently" ], "when": "Corresponding passages should follow together", "tradeoff": "Use reliable verse anchors rather than pixel ratios" }, { "title": "B · Independent exploration", "caption": "Each pane can show a different reference without snapping back.", "items": [ "tag|Scroll link: off", "splitstack|A · Mark 1:8|B · Mark 2:3", "button|Align B with A" ], "when": "The reader wants to explore each edition freely", "tradeoff": "Rejoining needs a chosen leading pane" }, { "title": "C · Mapping unavailable", "caption": "A gap interrupts synchronisation honestly.", "items": [ "splitside|A · Verse 8|B · Different numbering", "notice|Exact correspondence unavailable here.", "button|Review reference mapping", "button|Continue independently" ], "when": "Reference mapping is missing or nontrivial", "tradeoff": "Do not silently substitute a false correspondence" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "parallel-reading-layout", "translation-position", "read-along" ], "takeaway": "Offer linked and independent scrolling.", "principles": [ "honesty", "fruit" ] }, { "id": "55", "slug": "verse-by-verse-comparison", "title": "Group editions around a shared verse", "topic": "study", "summary": "Use repeated verse groups when matching corresponding passages matters more than continuous reading.", "problem": "Independent columns make a short comparison difficult when translation lengths differ. Interleaving every verse can fragment a sustained reading task.", "solution": "Group the chosen editions beneath a common reference. Repeat edition labels and preserve wording, paragraph structure and edition-specific numbering. Offer stacked edition blocks for narrow screens and columns inside each verse group where width permits. A continuous-text alternative supports reading an argument or poem. With many editions, let users choose which to include rather than endlessly expanding every group. Explain split, merged or missing verse mappings within the group.", "failure": "Aligning words just because verse numbers match; stripping poetic structure; hiding edition labels after the first group; substituting empty text for a missing verse.", "test": "Compare short and long verses, poetry, two and several editions, different numbering and large text. Can readers switch back to continuous context?", "sources": [ "usfm", "wcag-reflow" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Mobile: stacked editions", "caption": "Each verse group repeats both edition labels.", "items": [ "versecompare|Mark 1:8|stacked", "versecompare|Mark 1:9|stacked", "button|Read continuous context" ], "when": "Matching verses is the main mobile task", "tradeoff": "Interleaving can fragment continuous reading" }, { "title": "B · Large screen: grouped columns", "caption": "Columns align verse groups, not individual words.", "items": [ "versecompare|Mark 1:8|columns", "versecompare|Mark 1:9|columns", "button|Choose editions" ], "when": "Width supports edition columns within each verse group", "tradeoff": "Equal verse numbers do not prove word alignment" }, { "title": "C · Continuous alternative", "caption": "Sustained reading can retain the author’s larger structure.", "items": [ "bible|Translation A · Mark 1", "button|Switch to Translation B", "button|Compare the current verse" ], "when": "The reader wants the argument or poem as a whole", "tradeoff": "Offer a direct return to targeted comparison" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "parallel-reading-layout", "interlinear-reading", "translation-comparison" ], "takeaway": "Group the chosen editions beneath a common reference.", "principles": [ "rootedness" ] }, { "id": "56", "slug": "interlinear-reading", "title": "Interlinear rows expose their alignment", "topic": "study", "summary": "Distinguish source-language tokens, glosses and translation wording.", "problem": "An interlinear view can make a gloss look like a complete translation and imply one-to-one word equivalence. Dense lexical metadata can overwhelm the passage.", "solution": "Label the source text, token alignment, gloss source and reading direction. A gloss is a lexical aid rather than a fluent translation or a definitive meaning in context. Offer compact token stacks, expandable word detail and wider aligned rows where space permits. Let the user choose which rows to display: original script, transliteration, gloss, morphology or lexical reference. On mobile, wrap whole token groups in source order or open one token at a time; preserve right-to-left ordering and bidirectional labels. Distinguish source-order interlinear from translation-order reverse interlinear. Missing token links need an explicit unavailable state rather than invented alignment.", "failure": "Breaking a token stack across lines; flattening right-to-left source order; presenting a gloss as the chosen Bible translation; guessing links from similar-looking words.", "test": "Test Greek and Hebrew with expert reviewers, narrow width, enlarged text, bidirectional scripts, multi-token mappings and missing alignment. Can readers identify the origin of every row?", "sources": [ "usfm", "wcag-reflow" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Mobile: compact token stacks", "caption": "Whole token groups wrap together; each row has a named role.", "items": [ "tag|Source-order interlinear", "interlinear|compact", "button|Show transliteration", "button|Open selected word" ], "when": "Small-screen token inspection is useful", "tradeoff": "Wrap whole token groups rather than individual rows" }, { "title": "B · Large screen: aligned rows", "caption": "Extra room supports more layers, with optional metadata.", "items": [ "tag|Original text · Gloss source named", "interlinear|rows", "label|Rows: script / gloss / morphology", "button|Hide morphology" ], "when": "Several linguistic layers need comparison", "tradeoff": "Alignment and metadata require reliable sources" }, { "title": "C · Word detail on demand", "caption": "One word opens deeper study without crowding the passage.", "items": [ "bible|Selected edition · Mark 1:8", "cueoutline|Selected word · Reliable alignment", "sheet|Word detail|Source form, gloss, lexical source and mapping.", "notice|Gloss is not a complete translation." ], "when": "Only one word needs deeper analysis", "tradeoff": "An on-demand sheet must retain the source token anchor" } ], "faith": "The diagrams use labelled token placeholders, not invented Greek or Hebrew. Exact language layouts require real source data and specialist review.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "word-study", "verse-by-verse-comparison", "adaptive-reading-workspace" ], "takeaway": "Label the source text, token alignment, gloss source and reading direction.", "principles": [ "rootedness" ] }, { "id": "57", "slug": "adaptive-reading-workspace", "title": "The task survives a change of screen", "topic": "reading", "summary": "Change the arrangement of reading, comparison and tools while preserving state.", "problem": "A mobile reader with a bottom sheet and a desktop reader with a side panel may support the same task. Simply stretching the mobile screen wastes space; squeezing a desktop workspace hides text.", "solution": "Distinguish task-level patterns from their screen-specific arrangements. On a narrow screen, prioritise the main passage and use a sheet or a separate study view; on a larger screen, use a labelled side panel or parallel panes when it helps comparison. Base transitions on usable width and text size rather than a device name alone. Preserve edition, reference, selection, notes, playback and linked-scroll preference across resizing. Provide an explicit way to open and close additional surfaces. Do not change reading scope or turn on synchronised scrolling just because the window became wider.", "failure": "Desktop-only actions; panes that never collapse; resetting selections at a breakpoint; treating landscape as a requirement to split; overlapping fixed controls.", "test": "Resize during reading, note editing, comparison and playback. Test keyboard and touch, large text, focus restoration and a player reducing usable space.", "sources": [ "wcag-reflow", "placement", "usfm" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Mobile: reader and sheet", "caption": "The passage remains recognisable behind optional study detail.", "items": [ "bible|Translation A · Mark 1:8", "sheet|Study note|Anchored to verse 8.", "button|Close note and return to verse" ], "when": "A narrow view should prioritise the passage", "tradeoff": "Secondary study detail may cover the text" }, { "title": "B · Large screen: reader and panel", "caption": "A second surface supports study while retaining the passage.", "items": [ "splitside|Bible reader|Study panel", "button|Pin panel to this verse", "button|Close study panel" ], "when": "Extra width can use a persistent study panel", "tradeoff": "Do not reduce the main text to unreadable columns" }, { "title": "C · Narrower again", "caption": "The arrangement changes without losing the task.", "items": [ "tag|Same reference · Same selection", "bible|Translation A · Mark 1:8", "notice|Study panel moved into a sheet.", "button|Open retained study note" ], "when": "The window narrows during a task", "tradeoff": "Move the panel without losing selection or unsaved work" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "parallel-reading-layout", "contextual-study-panel", "readable-overflow" ], "takeaway": "Distinguish task-level patterns from their screen-specific arrangements.", "principles": [ "hospitality" ] }, { "id": "58", "slug": "honest-support", "title": "Support without automatic agreement", "topic": "agency", "summary": "Acknowledge feelings while examining claims, actions and competing perspectives.", "problem": "A faith assistant may flatter a user, endorse their conduct or reverse its answer merely because the user pushes back. A contrarian assistant can be equally harmful.", "solution": "Separate the person’s feelings from factual claims and proposed actions. Offer reasons, uncertainty and relevant attributed perspectives. Respectfully identify harm or unsupported conclusions without shaming the person. Ask permission before deeper reflection in ordinary formation tasks; permission is not a prerequisite for refusing harmful assistance. Do not claim God has endorsed the user’s conclusion or that the assistant knows their heart. Correct the response when evidence changes, rather than defending it for consistency. Measure grounding and harmful agreement alongside satisfaction.", "failure": "Affirming every moral conclusion; reversing a sourced answer under pressure; pretending empathy proves agreement; manufacturing disagreement; using spiritual authority to force obedience.", "test": "Use paired scenarios differing only in the user’s stated preference. Test pushback over several turns, requests for validation after harming someone and legitimate corrections. Include cultural and theological reviewers.", "sources": [ "sycophancy", "moore" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Separate emotion and claim", "caption": "Feeling heard does not require an unsupported verdict.", "items": [ "text|I hear that you feel hurt.", "card|What we know|Your account, remaining uncertainty and relevant context.", "button|Explore another perspective" ], "when": "A feeling and a factual claim need separating", "tradeoff": "Acknowledging emotion must not imply endorsement" }, { "title": "B · Respectful disagreement", "caption": "Reasons remain inspectable without moral humiliation.", "items": [ "text|I see a concern with that action.", "card|Reason for concern|Possible harm and the basis for the response.", "button|Discuss a safer alternative" ], "when": "An action or claim raises a supported concern", "tradeoff": "Disagreement needs reasons without humiliation" }, { "title": "C · Correct with evidence", "caption": "The assistant can revise an answer without simply mirroring pressure.", "items": [ "text|Your added context changes my earlier interpretation.", "card|What changed|New evidence and the revised reasoning.", "button|Review the sources" ], "when": "New evidence changes the answer", "tradeoff": "Correcting is different from mirroring user pressure" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "doubt-and-uncertainty", "spiritual-abuse", "reflection-to-life" ], "takeaway": "Separate the person’s feelings from factual claims and proposed actions.", "principles": [ "reverence", "honesty" ] }, { "id": "59", "slug": "reflection-to-life", "title": "Reflection can lead to a chosen practice", "topic": "formation", "summary": "Offer a bridge from understanding to life without treating inquiry as a failure.", "problem": "An endless chain of explanations can displace an intended practice. Conversely, pushing every intellectual question toward a behaviour can make the app controlling.", "solution": "Ask what the user wants from this session: understanding, contemplation, practical reflection or a next step. When relevant to that goal, invite a small, user-chosen application and allow edit, defer or decline. Consider the user’s actual constraints and the effects on other people. Silence, rest and an unresolved question can be sufficient outcomes. Do not equate a completed action or a long chat with spiritual maturity. Do not turn disclosure of harm into an assignment to reconcile with the person who harmed them.", "failure": "Endless elaboration to increase engagement; forced application; labelling study as avoidance; spiritual performance scores; unsafe action plans dressed as obedience.", "test": "Test both a purely textual question and a user explicitly seeking change. Can each finish without being redirected? Study outcomes with real users before claiming effects on formation.", "sources": [ "intent", "genai" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Understand only", "caption": "Inquiry remains a legitimate goal.", "items": [ "tag|Session goal: understand the passage", "button|Compare interpretations", "button|Finish with an open question" ], "when": "The person wants understanding alone", "tradeoff": "Do not force an application step" }, { "title": "B · Optional application", "caption": "The person chooses whether and how to act.", "items": [ "text|Would you like to connect this with a situation in your life?", "input|A step I choose", "button|Edit or make smaller", "button|Not today" ], "when": "The person wants a practical connection", "tradeoff": "The next step must be voluntary and safe" }, { "title": "C · Review without scoring", "caption": "Follow-up reflects the person’s experience.", "items": [ "text|What did you notice, if you tried it?", "button|It helped", "button|It did not fit", "button|I chose not to do it", "notice|No faith score or completion pressure." ], "when": "The person revisits a chosen action", "tradeoff": "Reflection is not a score or a required confession" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Proposed hypothesis", "related": [ "reflection-beyond-completion", "honest-support", "doubt-and-uncertainty" ], "takeaway": "Ask what the user wants from this session: understanding, contemplation, practical reflection or a next step.", "principles": [ "bridge", "fruit" ] }, { "id": "60", "slug": "doubt-and-uncertainty", "title": "Doubt has room to remain unresolved", "topic": "formation", "summary": "Distinguish inquiry, grief, moral uncertainty and distress without diagnosing belief.", "problem": "A question about faith can receive an apologetics dump, a certainty promise or a judgement that doubt indicates spiritual failure.", "solution": "Ask whether the person wants textual inquiry, different perspectives, space to express doubt or human conversation. Attribute traditions and admit uncertainty. Permit changes of belief and unresolved questions without threatening belonging. Do not infer illness from ordinary doubt or assume the user wants their earlier belief restored. Where repeated certainty-seeking causes distress, use the separate specialist-reviewed reassurance pattern. Immediate safety concerns take precedence over theological debate.", "failure": "Certainty on demand; diagnosing doubt as OCD; forced deconversion or reconversion; endless counterarguments; interpreting doubt as weak faith.", "test": "Test sincere inquiry, grief, changes of belief and repeated distress. Can users set the goal, reject an interpretation and leave with their question unresolved?", "sources": [ "iocdf", "shape" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Explore the question", "caption": "Reasoned inquiry remains available.", "items": [ "input|What I am uncertain about", "button|Study the sources", "button|Compare attributed perspectives" ], "when": "The person wants sources or perspectives", "tradeoff": "Do not promise certainty that evidence cannot provide" }, { "title": "B · Make room", "caption": "A painful question need not become a debate.", "items": [ "text|We can leave this unresolved for now.", "button|Talk about how this feels", "button|Pause without an answer" ], "when": "The person needs space for an unresolved question", "tradeoff": "Leaving uncertainty intact can be a valid outcome" }, { "title": "C · Choose human conversation", "caption": "The destination is chosen rather than imposed.", "items": [ "card|A person you consider safe|Pastoral, independent or other qualified support.", "button|Explore options", "button|Continue privately" ], "when": "The person wants a safe human conversation", "tradeoff": "Do not automatically route to an implicated institution" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Proposed hypothesis", "related": [ "reassurance-loops", "honest-support", "permission-and-repair" ], "takeaway": "Ask whether the person wants textual inquiry, different perspectives, space to express doubt or human conversation.", "principles": [ "reverence" ] }, { "id": "61", "slug": "reassurance-loops", "title": "Repeated reassurance needs a different response", "topic": "agency", "summary": "Notice distressing certainty loops without labelling ordinary faith questions as illness.", "problem": "Repeated promises of moral certainty can briefly comfort someone while encouraging another round of the same distressing question.", "solution": "Acknowledge the distress and recurrence without diagnosing OCD. Avoid new guarantees of purity, salvation or perfect certainty on each turn. Offer qualified support and a change of conversational focus if the user wants it. Do not conduct exposure therapy, impose a reassurance-withholding regimen or refuse all discussion of faith. Ordinary inquiry remains answerable. The model should not silently store a suspected diagnosis in memory.", "failure": "Unlimited reassurance; diagnosing scrupulosity from a phrase; cold refusal; self-guided exposure instructions; a covert health label.", "test": "Have OCD specialists review multi-turn cases alongside ordinary doubt and harmless repeated questions. Test that the assistant avoids both symptom accommodation and abandonment.", "sources": [ "iocdf", "samhsa" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Recognise recurrence", "caption": "Describe what is happening without a diagnostic label.", "items": [ "text|This question seems to be bringing you distress again.", "button|Talk about the distress", "button|Clarify the question" ], "when": "The same distressing certainty request recurs", "tradeoff": "Describe recurrence without assigning a diagnosis" }, { "title": "B · No certainty promise", "caption": "Warmth can remain without another absolute guarantee.", "items": [ "text|I cannot give perfect certainty about that.", "button|Explore qualified support", "button|Pause the conversation" ], "when": "Absolute reassurance would repeat the loop", "tradeoff": "Warmth and qualified support must remain available" }, { "title": "C · Preserve ordinary inquiry", "caption": "A repeated topic is not automatically a symptom.", "items": [ "card|A new textual question|Discuss sources and context.", "notice|No diagnosis inferred from repetition." ], "when": "The person has an ordinary textual question", "tradeoff": "Do not treat repetition alone as a clinical symptom" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Sensitive design proposal · Specialist review required", "related": [ "doubt-and-uncertainty", "sensitive-memory", "human-connections" ], "takeaway": "Acknowledge the distress and recurrence without diagnosing OCD.", "principles": [ "reverence" ] }, { "id": "62", "slug": "suicide-concerns", "title": "Suicide concerns receive a direct, humane response", "topic": "agency", "summary": "Prioritise immediate safety and real human support without shutting the person out.", "problem": "Indirect suicidal language may be missed, while any mention of death may trigger an irrelevant crisis card. Long spiritual explanations can delay needed help.", "solution": "For a concerning personal disclosure, respond calmly and clarify immediate safety with a brief direct question where needed. If there is immediate danger or an injury, prioritise verified local emergency help and a safe person who can be present. Make human crisis support reachable without payment or account setup. Do not require method details or a completed questionnaire before showing help. Keep supportive conversation available without claiming treatment, live monitoring, emergency dispatch or guaranteed detection. A resource card supplements humane dialogue; it does not replace it.", "failure": "Theological condemnation; promises that prayer will resolve danger; a hotline-only dismissal; assuming calm wording means safety; fabricated phone numbers or dispatch.", "test": "Clinical reviewers must test indirect language, acute and non-acute concerns, location uncertainty, failed contact actions, historical Bible discussion and multi-turn changes. Do not present chatbot routing as a validated risk scale.", "sources": [ "nimh-suicide", "crisis-de", "moore" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Clarify gently", "caption": "A brief direct question can clarify a concerning disclosure.", "items": [ "text|Are you thinking about suicide right now?", "button|Yes", "button|I am not sure", "button|No", "notice|Illustrative wording; clinical review required." ], "when": "A concerning personal disclosure needs clarification", "tradeoff": "A direct question is not a validated AI risk assessment" }, { "title": "B · Immediate danger", "caption": "Keep an emergency route brief and locally explicit.", "items": [ "tag|Germany · Emergency example", "notice|If you are in immediate danger or have already hurt yourself, call 112.", "button|Call 112", "text|If possible, reach someone safe who can stay with you.", "notice|This AI cannot dispatch help." ], "when": "Immediate danger or injury is indicated", "tradeoff": "Verified emergency help cannot depend on a questionnaire" }, { "title": "C · Ongoing distress", "caption": "Support stays available alongside human-help options.", "items": [ "text|You do not have to manage this alone.", "card|Human crisis support|Verified for location, language and availability.", "button|Contact support", "button|Reach someone safe" ], "when": "Distress continues without a stated immediate emergency", "tradeoff": "Keep human support accessible without promising monitoring" } ], "faith": "Examples are design proposals, not a clinical protocol. Contact services and escalation capabilities require jurisdiction-specific verification and operational ownership.", "status": "Sensitive design proposal · Clinical review required", "related": [ "contextual-safety", "safeguarding-handoff", "safe-support-access" ], "takeaway": "For a concerning personal disclosure, respond calmly and clarify immediate safety with a brief direct question where needed.", "principles": [ "reverence" ] }, { "id": "63", "slug": "possible-abuse", "title": "Take a disclosure seriously without requiring a label", "topic": "agency", "summary": "Support safety and choice even when the person is unsure whether an experience was abuse.", "problem": "A user may describe fear, coercion, control or harm without calling it abuse. Demanding proof or delivering a confident verdict can both undermine support.", "solution": "Listen without blame or pressure for a detailed account. Acknowledge concerning behaviour and ask what the person needs now. Clarify immediate safety where relevant; support does not depend on agreement with an abuse label. Offer independent specialist help and user-led next steps rather than investigating or prescribing confrontation. Include sexual, physical, emotional, financial, technological and spiritual contexts. Do not route automatically to a partner, parent or religious leader who may be implicated. Protect disclosure and explain real data handling.", "failure": "Minimising harm; interrogating for proof; declaring facts conclusively; automatic reconciliation advice; sharing the account with the person or institution involved.", "test": "Safeguarding reviewers and survivor-informed research should cover uncertainty, coercive control, sexual assault, historical experiences, unsafe households and institutional conflicts.", "sources": [ "who-lives", "hotline-tech", "samhsa" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Uncertain experience", "caption": "The person can explore concern without adopting a label.", "items": [ "text|What you describe sounds concerning. You do not have to decide what to call it to seek support.", "button|Talk about what I need now" ], "when": "The person is unsure how to name an experience", "tradeoff": "Support must not depend on accepting an abuse label" }, { "title": "B · Present safety", "caption": "Safety questions do not become a demand for the full story.", "items": [ "text|Are you somewhere safe to continue this conversation?", "button|Yes", "button|No or unsure", "button|Leave this screen" ], "when": "It may be unsafe to continue the conversation", "tradeoff": "Avoid collecting unnecessary identifying detail" }, { "title": "C · Independent support", "caption": "Support can sit outside the relationship or institution involved.", "items": [ "card|Specialist support|Location, eligibility and safe contact options.", "button|Explore independent help", "button|Continue without sharing more" ], "when": "The person wants help beyond the relationship", "tradeoff": "Check independence and safe contact methods" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Sensitive design proposal · Safeguarding review required", "related": [ "spiritual-abuse", "safe-support-access", "safeguarding-handoff" ], "takeaway": "Listen without blame or pressure for a detailed account.", "principles": [ "reverence" ] }, { "id": "64", "slug": "spiritual-abuse", "title": "Spiritual authority does not excuse coercion", "topic": "agency", "summary": "Recognise possible misuse of religious power without defending the institution or adjudicating theology.", "problem": "A disclosure about a leader may be reframed as disobedience, lack of forgiveness or a doctrinal disagreement, obscuring possible control or exploitation.", "solution": "Attend to consent, threats and patterns of control rather than only theological content. Take the disclosure seriously without declaring an investigation complete. Distinguish disagreement from coercion; a doctrinal position alone is not an automated abuse finding. Offer support independent of the implicated leader or community. Do not require confrontation, immediate forgiveness, reconciliation or return. Let the person choose whether spiritual content belongs in the conversation. Avoid speaking as God or treating the chatbot as spiritual authority.", "failure": "Defending a church before listening; telling someone to confront an alleged abuser; calling every disagreement abuse; making support conditional on forgiveness.", "test": "Use specialist-reviewed scenarios involving forced disclosure, spiritual threats, control of relationships or finances and legitimate noncoercive disagreement. Include conflicts of interest in referrals.", "sources": [ "spiritual-abuse-guidance", "who-lives" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Attend to power", "caption": "Concern focuses on coercion and safety, not a forced doctrinal verdict.", "items": [ "card|What needs attention|Consent, threats, control and the person’s needs.", "button|Explore independent support" ], "when": "Religious power may be used coercively", "tradeoff": "A theological difference alone is not an abuse verdict" }, { "title": "B · No spiritual pressure", "caption": "Support does not require reconciliation.", "items": [ "text|You do not need to confront that person to explore support here.", "button|Keep spiritual content out of this conversation" ], "when": "The person is being pressured toward confrontation", "tradeoff": "Support must not depend on forgiveness or reconciliation" }, { "title": "C · Independent destination", "caption": "An implicated institution is not the only route.", "items": [ "card|Independent safeguarding support|Verified contact and remit.", "button|Review contact options", "notice|Nothing is sent automatically." ], "when": "The implicated leader or institution is not a safe route", "tradeoff": "Use genuinely independent support options" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Sensitive design proposal · Safeguarding review required", "related": [ "possible-abuse", "honest-support", "safeguarding-handoff" ], "takeaway": "Attend to consent, threats and patterns of control rather than only theological content.", "principles": [ "reverence" ] }, { "id": "65", "slug": "safe-support-access", "title": "Support access accounts for monitored devices", "topic": "agency", "summary": "Treat screen traces, notifications and stored disclosures as part of the safety problem.", "problem": "An abusive person may have access to the user’s device, accounts or notifications. An innocent-looking reminder or saved summary can reveal a disclosure.", "solution": "Offer a quick exit and clearly explain its limits: changing the screen does not erase history, network logs or monitoring. Let users control storage and sharing; a private-looking interface is not proof of privacy. Avoid sensitive notification previews and unsolicited follow-ups. Ask whether it is safe to continue before adding identifying material or opening external services. Do not recommend sudden account or device changes as universally safe; refer to specialist safety guidance. Deletion and no-retention claims must reflect actual server, backup and analytics behaviour.", "failure": "A quick exit presented as invisibility; automatic crisis reminders; sensitive lock-screen text; promising deletion while retaining logs; an unsafe device-security checklist.", "test": "Review with digital-safety specialists. Test shared devices, push previews, account access, browser history, exports, analytics and backend retention. Avoid real survivor disclosures in routine test fixtures.", "sources": [ "hotline-ruth", "hotline-tech", "gdpr" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Exit with honest limits", "caption": "The screen changes; privacy is not guaranteed.", "items": [ "button|Leave this screen", "notice|This does not erase browsing history or device monitoring." ], "when": "The person needs to leave the screen quickly", "tradeoff": "Exit does not erase monitoring or browsing traces" }, { "title": "B · Control traces", "caption": "The real storage policy is stated before claiming privacy.", "items": [ "card|Conversation storage|Actual retention and deletion limits.", "button|Choose storage options", "button|Keep notification previews off" ], "when": "Stored content or notifications could reveal a disclosure", "tradeoff": "Privacy claims must match actual backend behaviour" }, { "title": "C · Safe contact choice", "caption": "Opening a service remains a deliberate action.", "items": [ "text|Is it safe to open support information on this device?", "button|Open contact options", "button|Not now" ], "when": "Opening a support destination could expose activity", "tradeoff": "The person decides whether the contact method is safe" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Sensitive design proposal · Safeguarding review required", "related": [ "sensitive-memory", "possible-abuse", "safeguarding-handoff" ], "takeaway": "Offer a quick exit and clearly explain its limits: changing the screen does not erase history, network logs or monitoring.", "principles": [ "reverence", "bridge" ] }, { "id": "66", "slug": "health-and-spiritual-practice", "title": "Spiritual practice does not replace health care", "topic": "agency", "summary": "Clarify service scope when wellness, illness and faith overlap.", "problem": "An app may frame symptoms as weak faith, give medication advice, or intensify fasting and other practices despite potential harm.", "solution": "Distinguish general information, pastoral reflection, optional wellness practice and professional health care. Do not diagnose, recommend medication changes or promise healing from devotional activity. If a suggested practice could conflict with health or personal circumstances, offer a non-demanding alternative and appropriate professional advice. Treat urgent physical or psychological danger through the relevant human-help route. Respect spirituality without validating dangerous commands or replacing professional care. Product purpose and claims determine the evidence and regulatory review required.", "failure": "Prayer offered instead of urgent care; attributing illness to sin; medical advice disguised as spiritual coaching; harmful fasting or sleep restriction; guaranteed treatment claims.", "test": "Qualified health and pastoral reviewers should test illness, medication questions, fasting, eating-related distress, harmful spiritual instructions and ordinary wellness requests.", "sources": [ "nice", "who", "moore", "mdcg" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Scope is clear", "caption": "The type of help remains named.", "items": [ "tag|General information · Not individual treatment", "button|Explore sourced information", "button|Choose pastoral reflection" ], "when": "The person wants general or pastoral information", "tradeoff": "The interface must not imply individual treatment" }, { "title": "B · Safer practice alternative", "caption": "Participation is optional and can fit the person’s circumstances.", "items": [ "card|Alternative practice|Quiet reflection without food restriction.", "button|Choose an alternative", "button|Skip this practice" ], "when": "A practice conflicts with health circumstances", "tradeoff": "An alternative should not become another demand" }, { "title": "C · Care remains available", "caption": "Spiritual support can accompany professional help.", "items": [ "card|Appropriate health support|Verified service and purpose.", "button|Explore professional support", "button|Request optional prayer" ], "when": "Professional support is relevant", "tradeoff": "Spiritual support can accompany it without replacing it" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Sensitive design proposal · Clinical review required", "related": [ "contextual-safety", "suicide-concerns", "human-connections" ], "takeaway": "Distinguish general information, pastoral reflection, optional wellness practice and professional health care.", "principles": [ "reverence" ] }, { "id": "67", "slug": "safeguarding-handoff", "title": "A support route has a real owner", "topic": "agency", "summary": "Make human contact, confidentiality and safeguarding responsibilities explicit.", "problem": "A chatbot can display a support button without staffing, send disclosures to an unsafe recipient or promise confidentiality beyond its actual policy.", "solution": "Distinguish user-initiated contact from an actual staffed transfer and state availability, eligibility and what data would be shared. Give control over a proposed summary and recipient where applicable. Do not default to a parent, partner or church leader who could be implicated. Services for minors and vulnerable people need specialist-designed pathways and jurisdiction-specific review of confidentiality, reporting and organisational duties. Explain applicable limits without claiming universal rules or sending reports that the product cannot deliver. Immediate help must not depend on an export or polished summary.", "failure": "Fake warm transfers; silently sending transcripts; blanket secrecy promises; unsafe guardian routing; treating a contact card as proof that someone is responding.", "test": "Test staffed and unstaffed hours, declined sharing, unavailable services, unsafe recipients and age-appropriate scenarios. Verify responsibilities before launch, not only button behaviour.", "sources": [ "who-lives", "hotline-ruth", "gdpr", "who" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Contact information", "caption": "A link is accurately labelled as user-initiated contact.", "items": [ "card|Independent support service|Verified audience, hours and languages.", "notice|You contact this service yourself.", "button|View contact methods" ], "when": "The product only offers contact information", "tradeoff": "Do not label a link as a transfer" }, { "title": "B · Real staffed transfer", "caption": "Only an operational service can promise a transfer.", "items": [ "card|Staffed support available|Expected wait and recipient.", "button|Review the information to share", "button|Request transfer" ], "when": "An actual staffed transfer is operational", "tradeoff": "Confirm data, recipient, eligibility and expected wait" }, { "title": "C · Service unavailable", "caption": "A failed route does not imply someone is watching.", "items": [ "notice|This service is not staffed right now.", "button|View other verified options", "notice|No live monitoring or automatic dispatch." ], "when": "A staffed route is unavailable", "tradeoff": "Show real alternatives without claiming someone is watching" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Sensitive design proposal · Safeguarding review required", "related": [ "human-connections", "possible-abuse", "safe-support-access" ], "takeaway": "Distinguish user-initiated contact from an actual staffed transfer and state availability, eligibility and what data would be shared.", "principles": [ "reverence", "bridge", "costliness" ] }, { "id": "68", "slug": "audio-mix", "title": "Speech and ambience have separate controls", "topic": "audio", "summary": "Let background music support listening without masking speech or becoming mandatory.", "problem": "One volume control cannot express a preference for clear narration and quiet ambience. Pausing speech may unexpectedly stop everything or leave music playing.", "solution": "Provide independent speech and music levels, a music-off option and clearly labelled pause controls. Distinguish Pause narration from Pause all audio. State whether music continues during reflection, at the end of a chapter and after interruption. Restore user choices rather than resetting the mix. Consider reduced sensory stimulation, hearing accessibility, headphones, downloads, battery and background playback. Decorative audio is optional; it does not establish spiritual benefit.", "failure": "Music required to access Scripture; misleading pause icons; abrupt level changes; ambience obscuring words; unwanted music resuming after a call.", "test": "Test music off, quiet narration, screen-free use, incoming calls, sleep timers and offline media. Can a listener stop every sound immediately?", "sources": [ "dwell-selah", "audio-trust", "youversion-audio" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Narration only", "caption": "A complete listening experience does not require music.", "items": [ "play|Narration: playing", "button|Music: off", "button|Pause all audio" ], "when": "The person wants clear narration without ambience", "tradeoff": "This must remain a complete listening option" }, { "title": "B · Independent mix", "caption": "Each layer has its own level and state.", "items": [ "label|Narration volume: 80%", "label|Music volume: 20%", "button|Choose ambience", "button|Mute background music" ], "when": "The person wants music beneath speech", "tradeoff": "Independent levels and sensory preferences matter" }, { "title": "C · Speech paused", "caption": "Remaining sound is named rather than implied.", "items": [ "tag|Narration paused · Music playing", "button|Resume narration", "button|Pause all audio" ], "when": "Speech pauses while ambience continues", "tradeoff": "A clearly available stop-all action is essential" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "contemplative-pause", "passage-repetition", "audio-first" ], "takeaway": "Provide independent speech and music levels, a music-off option and clearly labelled pause controls.", "principles": [ "grace" ] }, { "id": "69", "slug": "contemplative-pause", "title": "Pause narration without losing the moment", "topic": "audio", "summary": "Make an intentional reflection phase distinguishable from a stopped or broken player.", "problem": "A contemplative pause may preserve music, become silent or resume after a timer. An ambiguous pause button does not explain which behaviour will occur.", "solution": "Name the phase, show the saved speech position and provide Resume narration and Stop all audio. Let users choose music, silence and whether resumption is manual or timed. A timer offers cancel and extend, and never overrides a deliberate manual pause. Keep the microphone off unless separately requested. A known session state allows recovery after interruption. Selah is one provider’s label for this behaviour; a new product should explain the action in its own language.", "failure": "A hidden countdown; automatic speech during prayer; continuing music after Stop all; treating silence as abandonment; microphone capture disguised as reflection.", "test": "Test timed and untimed pauses, lock-screen controls, interruptions and a user needing longer than planned. Can they recognise and control what happens next?", "sources": [ "dwell-selah", "dwell-repeat", "voice-of-ai" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Music continues", "caption": "The speech pause preserves an optional soundscape.", "items": [ "tag|Reflection · Narration paused", "play|Background music continues", "button|Resume narration", "button|Stop all audio" ], "when": "The person wants reflection with continued music", "tradeoff": "Name the remaining sound and keep all-audio stop available" }, { "title": "B · Silence", "caption": "Quiet is an explicit state, not a playback fault.", "items": [ "tag|Silent reflection · Microphone off", "notice|Resume whenever you choose.", "button|Resume narration", "button|End session" ], "when": "The person wants silence without a countdown", "tradeoff": "Manual resumption must remain possible" }, { "title": "C · Timed reflection", "caption": "Automatic resumption is visible and reversible.", "items": [ "tag|Resume narration in 30 seconds", "button|Extend pause", "button|Switch to manual resume", "button|Cancel timer" ], "when": "The person explicitly chooses a timed pause", "tradeoff": "Show, cancel or extend the timer before resuming" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "audio-mix", "silence-and-ending", "passage-repetition" ], "takeaway": "Name the phase, show the saved speech position and provide Resume narration and Stop all audio.", "principles": [ "hospitality", "bridge" ] }, { "id": "70", "slug": "passage-repetition", "title": "Repeat an explicit Scripture range", "topic": "audio", "summary": "Separate what repeats, how often and what happens between repetitions.", "problem": "A track, verse, selected passage, chapter and queue are different repeat targets. An infinite loop can be mistaken for a finite practice.", "solution": "Name the exact reference, edition and repeat unit. Offer a finite count or an explicitly chosen continuous loop, with an obvious stop control. Let users set a gap between repetitions and choose silence or optional music during it. Preserve verse boundaries where reliable timing exists; without that data, offer a track or chapter loop rather than guessing. Make sleep-timer precedence clear and exclude footnotes unless chosen. Changing translation or audio source rechecks the loop instead of reusing incompatible timestamps.", "failure": "Repeating a whole track when a verse was selected; invented segment boundaries; hidden infinite playback; a sleep timer that silently loses to repeat.", "test": "Test verse, cross-chapter range, chapter and queue loops, finite completion, no segment timing, interruption and source changes.", "sources": [ "dwell-repeat", "dwell-selah", "epub" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · A verse or passage", "caption": "A short practice names the loop boundaries.", "items": [ "card|Repeat Mark 1:8–11|Translation A · Reliable segment timing.", "label|Three repetitions · 10-second gap", "button|Start repeating" ], "when": "A short range has reliable segment timing", "tradeoff": "Finite count and gaps need explicit controls" }, { "title": "B · Chapter immersion", "caption": "Longer listening has an explicit endpoint.", "items": [ "card|Repeat Mark 1|Two chapter repetitions.", "button|Choose reflection gap", "button|Stop after this chapter" ], "when": "The person wants repeated chapter listening", "tradeoff": "Define the endpoint and sleep-timer precedence" }, { "title": "C · Timing unavailable", "caption": "A coarser unit is offered honestly.", "items": [ "notice|Verse boundaries are unavailable in this recording.", "button|Repeat the complete track", "button|Choose another recording" ], "when": "Only a track boundary is available", "tradeoff": "Offer that coarser unit instead of guessing verse timing" } ], "faith": "Dwell’s cited material documents track and queue repetition. Verse-level loops here are an original extension requiring reliable segment boundaries, not a claim that every provider exposes verse timing.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "contemplative-pause", "memorisation-practice", "honest-synchronisation" ], "takeaway": "Name the exact reference, edition and repeat unit.", "principles": [ "rootedness", "grace" ] }, { "id": "71", "slug": "memorisation-practice", "title": "Recall is optional and specific", "topic": "formation", "summary": "Distinguish repeated exposure, a recall exercise and a reflective practice.", "problem": "Listening repeatedly may support familiarity but does not show that the person can recall the wording. A quiz can turn sacred practice into performance pressure.", "solution": "Let users choose listen again, try recall or remain in reflection. A recall exercise names the edition, offers hide-and-reveal and lets the learner compare with verified text. Treat mistakes as information about this exercise rather than faithfulness. Audio capture and AI evaluation require separate consent and honest limits; manual self-check is a complete alternative. Do not promise that a particular repetition schedule produces memorisation or spiritual formation without relevant evidence.", "failure": "Calling replay mastery; a compulsory quiz after prayer; storing recitations by default; scoring spiritual worth; grading against a different translation.", "test": "Test edition differences, accessibility, declining recall, self-check and audio-consent refusal. Validate learning claims separately from engagement.", "sources": [ "dwell-repeat", "gamification-meta", "sdt" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Listen again", "caption": "Exposure remains useful without a test.", "items": [ "bible|Chosen edition · Selected passage", "button|Repeat listening", "button|Reflect without a quiz" ], "when": "The goal is repeated listening or reflection", "tradeoff": "Do not claim demonstrated recall" }, { "title": "B · Self-check", "caption": "The learner controls reveal and comparison.", "items": [ "card|Try recalling this passage|Text temporarily hidden.", "button|Reveal verified text", "button|Compare for myself" ], "when": "The learner wants private self-check", "tradeoff": "Edition wording and reveal controls matter" }, { "title": "C · Optional recorded recall", "caption": "Recording is an additional choice.", "items": [ "notice|Microphone off until you choose to record.", "button|Review recording and storage options", "button|Use manual self-check" ], "when": "The learner chooses recorded recall", "tradeoff": "Consent, storage and evaluation limits add responsibility" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Proposed hypothesis", "related": [ "passage-repetition", "optional-game-elements", "meaningful-progress" ], "takeaway": "Let users choose listen again, try recall or remain in reflection.", "principles": [ "rootedness", "grace" ] }, { "id": "72", "slug": "generated-practice", "title": "Generated practices have inspectable sources", "topic": "formation", "summary": "Distinguish authored content, template assembly and newly generated guidance.", "problem": "An AI devotional may sound authoritative while mixing a Bible quotation, interpretation and a personalised application whose sources are unclear.", "solution": "Name how the practice was produced and the chosen passage, edition, purpose, tradition or interpretive scope, and approximate duration. Keep verified Scripture separate from generated reflection. Compare curated authored content, reviewed templates with bounded adaptation, and generated drafts that can be inspected before playback. Let users change scope, preview the transcript and choose an authored alternative. A revised draft is a new version; it should not silently overwrite a practice already underway. Do not infer sensitive circumstances or claim divine authorship. Higher-consequence personal guidance needs the separate care and safeguarding boundaries.", "failure": "Invented Scripture; undisclosed generation; authoritative synthetic narration; hidden profiling; unreviewable personal direction; unstable session text.", "test": "Test provenance, unsupported claims, edition rights, tradition mismatch, regeneration and interrupted playback. Evaluate generative content separately from the clarity of its player.", "sources": [ "genai", "shape", "usfm" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Authored practice", "caption": "Stable content has a named author and source.", "items": [ "card|Reviewed devotional|Author, passage and duration.", "button|Preview transcript", "button|Start practice" ], "when": "Stable reviewed content meets the task", "tradeoff": "Less personalisation can increase predictability" }, { "title": "B · Bounded adaptation", "caption": "Personalisation changes only specified elements.", "items": [ "card|Template-based practice|Reviewed structure · Chosen passage.", "button|Choose length and focus", "notice|Scripture wording stays verified." ], "when": "A reviewed structure can be adapted within limits", "tradeoff": "Specify exactly what changes and what stays verified" }, { "title": "C · Generated draft", "caption": "A new synthesis remains inspectable and editable.", "items": [ "tag|AI-generated reflection · Draft", "card|Source scope|Passage, edition and allowed sources.", "button|Review before listening", "button|Choose an authored alternative" ], "when": "New synthesis is useful and reviewable", "tradeoff": "Generation adds grounding, versioning and review obligations" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "interactive-reflection", "scripture-and-interpretation", "narration-provenance", "ai-involvement-disclosure" ], "takeaway": "Name how the practice was produced and the chosen passage, edition, purpose, tradition or interpretive scope, and approximate duration.", "principles": [ "hospitality", "rootedness", "honesty", "fruit" ] }, { "id": "73", "slug": "interactive-reflection", "title": "An interactive practice has visible branches", "topic": "formation", "summary": "Allow listening, reflection and dialogue without turning every pause into a prompt.", "problem": "An adaptive meditation can demand disclosure, redirect the practice unpredictably or keep generating new questions without an ending.", "solution": "Present an understandable sequence and let users choose listening only, a reflection question or a dialogue branch. Silent participation is complete participation. Explain what a response will change, which data is retained and whether generation is occurring. Let users skip a prompt, return to the main practice and finish without another turn. Keep playback, microphone capture and written responses distinct. If distress or possible harm emerges, suspend unsuitable practice content and use an appropriate care route rather than generating a spiritual lesson from it.", "failure": "Forced journaling; hidden branches based on mood inference; endless questions; speaking over quiet reflection; unsafe adaptation after an abuse disclosure.", "test": "Test listening-only participation, skipped questions, correction, silence, offline or failed generation, returning from chat and sensitive disclosures.", "sources": [ "genai", "shape", "who", "samhsa" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Listen only", "caption": "A complete session requires no response data.", "items": [ "steps|Read / Reflect / Rest / Finish", "button|Continue without responding" ], "when": "The person wants a listening-only practice", "tradeoff": "No disclosure should be needed for completion" }, { "title": "B · Choose a branch", "caption": "A question has a visible relationship to the main practice.", "items": [ "card|Optional reflection|A question about the selected passage.", "button|Answer privately", "button|Open a dialogue", "button|Skip and continue" ], "when": "The person chooses an optional question or dialogue", "tradeoff": "Explain the branch and data handling before entering it" }, { "title": "C · Return or end", "caption": "An adaptive branch does not trap the user.", "items": [ "tag|Discussion branch · AI-generated", "button|Return to the practice", "button|Finish here", "notice|No follow-up is required." ], "when": "The branch no longer serves the practice", "tradeoff": "Return and finish controls need preserved state" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Proposed hypothesis", "related": [ "generated-practice", "prayer-coauthorship", "permission-and-repair" ], "takeaway": "Present an understandable sequence and let users choose listening only, a reflection question or a dialogue branch.", "principles": [ "rootedness", "fruit" ] }, { "id": "74", "slug": "prayer-coauthorship", "title": "Prayer support preserves the person’s voice", "topic": "formation", "summary": "Offer authored prayer, editable assistance or silence without impersonating divine response.", "problem": "Generated prayers may prescribe emotions, disclose private facts or create the impression that an AI can hear, answer or mediate prayer as a spiritual agent.", "solution": "Let the person choose an authored prayer with attribution, an editable draft based on voluntarily supplied intentions, or silent prayer without text generation. Name generated wording as assistance rather than Scripture or a divine answer. Let users remove assumptions, select a relevant tradition or language, and decline personalisation. Speaking the prayer aloud and recording the user are separate consent states. Do not promise answered prayer, diagnose a lack of faith or use intimacy to encourage dependency. Saving, sharing and reminders require distinct choices.", "failure": "God speaking through generated text; treating a prayer as consent to store health data; synthetic intimacy; forced declarations; publishing an intention by default.", "test": "Test declining personalisation, editing theological language, silence, accessibility, voice consent and private intentions. Use pastoral and safeguarding review for sensitive applications.", "sources": [ "shape", "genai", "audio-trust", "samhsa" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Authored prayer", "caption": "Attribution makes the source and tradition clear.", "items": [ "card|Prayer text|Named source and tradition.", "button|Read", "button|Listen without recording" ], "when": "An authored prayer fits the chosen tradition", "tradeoff": "Attribute it and offer text or playback" }, { "title": "B · Editable assistance", "caption": "The person owns the wording and its assumptions.", "items": [ "tag|AI-assisted prayer draft", "input|An intention I choose to share", "button|Review and edit the wording", "button|Continue without saving" ], "when": "The person wants help expressing an intention", "tradeoff": "Draft wording and assumptions remain editable" }, { "title": "C · Silence", "caption": "Prayer need not generate a data artifact.", "items": [ "tag|Silent prayer · Microphone off", "button|Remain here", "button|Finish", "notice|No response or recording required." ], "when": "The person prefers silence", "tradeoff": "No generated artifact or recording is required" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Proposed hypothesis", "related": [ "interactive-reflection", "sensitive-memory", "human-connections", "ai-involvement-disclosure" ], "takeaway": "Let the person choose an authored prayer with attribution, an editable draft based on voluntarily supplied intentions, or silent prayer without text generation.", "principles": [ "rootedness", "bridge" ] }, { "id": "75", "slug": "optional-game-elements", "title": "Game elements serve a chosen learning task", "topic": "formation", "summary": "Use challenges, badges or streaks only with a clear purpose and a complete alternative.", "problem": "A game mechanic can make a learning task approachable but also make private faith activity feel ranked, competitive or morally measured.", "solution": "Identify the concrete task before adding a mechanic. An optional passage-recall challenge can give feedback about that exercise; a completed-plan badge can acknowledge a task without implying spiritual standing. Offer participation without scores, reminders or public comparison. Make streak pauses and rest understandable rather than creating debt. Avoid rewards tied to intimate disclosures or pressure to purchase streak recovery. Evaluate who benefits, who opts out and whether effects persist beyond novelty. Educational gamification findings are not evidence of spiritual growth.", "failure": "Faith leaderboards; monetised streak anxiety; shame after missed days; badges equated with holiness; a score required to access Scripture.", "test": "Compare the mechanic with a complete nongame alternative. Measure learning or practical task outcomes alongside autonomy, pressure and unwanted comparison; do not optimise only app opens.", "sources": [ "sdt", "gamification-meta", "formation-agenda" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Optional challenge", "caption": "Feedback refers to a defined exercise.", "items": [ "card|Passage recall challenge|Chosen edition · Private feedback.", "button|Try the challenge", "button|Use self-check instead" ], "when": "A learner deliberately chooses a task challenge", "tradeoff": "Feedback must remain about that exercise" }, { "title": "B · Task acknowledgement", "caption": "A badge describes completion, not spiritual worth.", "items": [ "card|Reading plan completed|Your chosen task is finished.", "button|Hide completion badges", "button|Close the session" ], "when": "A completed task deserves an acknowledgement", "tradeoff": "A badge must not imply spiritual rank" }, { "title": "C · No game layer", "caption": "The same practice remains fully available.", "items": [ "card|Read, listen or reflect|No streak, score or rank.", "button|Begin my chosen practice" ], "when": "Game elements do not help the chosen practice", "tradeoff": "The nongame alternative must be equally usable" } ], "faith": "", "status": "Proposed hypothesis", "related": [ "meaningful-progress", "return-without-shame", "memorisation-practice" ], "takeaway": "Identify the concrete task before adding a mechanic.", "principles": [ "grace", "fruit" ] }, { "id": "76", "slug": "passage-focused-reading", "title": "A bounded passage with a route to wider context", "topic": "reading", "summary": "Choose the reading unit by the task while keeping its boundaries and context visible.", "problem": "A chapter can be too broad for one reflection; an isolated verse can omit the argument. A focused page can also hide neighbouring text or imply that editorial boundaries are definitive.", "solution": "Present the full chosen passage, its reference and edition. Explain editorial headings and passage boundaries. Offer preceding and following context and continuous reading without losing the original selection.", "failure": "Clipping a passage without notice; treating one boundary as universal across editions; replacing source text with an AI summary; making context available only through chat.", "test": "Compare focused and continuous layouts for orientation, comprehension, voluntary rereading and context access. Include poetry and passages crossing chapter boundaries.", "sources": [ "dyer-reading", "dyer-author", "aperto-passage-design", "usfm" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Focused passage", "caption": "A coherent unit for a bounded encounter.", "items": [ "tag|Luke 15:1–7 · Edition A", "bible|Chosen passage", "notice|Editorial passage boundary", "button|Read preceding context", "button|Continue into the chapter" ], "when": "A bounded devotional or discussion task is chosen", "tradeoff": "Context routes and editorial boundaries remain explicit" }, { "title": "B · Continuous reading", "caption": "Sustained reading with a recoverable focus.", "items": [ "tag|Luke 15 · Edition A", "bible|Chapter reading", "highlight|Selected passage: verses 1–7", "button|Return to selected passage" ], "when": "The person wants sustained reading", "tradeoff": "Restore selection without repeatedly recentering" }, { "title": "C · Shared practice passage", "caption": "Several voluntary modes retain one source.", "items": [ "tag|This week: Luke 15:1–7", "bible|Verified passage", "button|Reflect on this passage", "button|Listen to an overview", "button|Read wider context" ], "when": "Several practices share a passage", "tradeoff": "Offer mode changes without forcing completion or disclosure" } ], "faith": "A pericope is an editorially bounded unit, not a universal measure of an ideal session. Short reading and sustained reading both remain legitimate.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "reading-context", "text-structure", "reading-position", "source-grounded-audio" ], "takeaway": "Present the full chosen passage, its reference and edition.", "principles": [ "rootedness", "fruit" ] }, { "id": "77", "slug": "source-grounded-audio", "title": "Generated audio remains connected to its sources", "topic": "audio", "summary": "An AI overview explains source material; it remains distinct from a recording of Scripture.", "problem": "Conversational voices can make a generated synthesis sound like an authoritative human teacher. Audio claims are harder to inspect when the source set, transcript and evidence anchors are hidden.", "solution": "Name the passage, edition and selected supporting sources before generation. Label synthetic voices and generated interpretation. Keep a versioned transcript and source list reachable from the player; use timestamped claim links only when a reliable alignment exists.", "failure": "Calling a summary an audio Bible; invented quotations or timecodes; silent source changes; fabricated speaker expertise; autoplaying a personalised prayer after an overview.", "test": "Test generation failure, source changes, disputed claims, offline playback and interruption. Can listeners distinguish verified quotation, interpretation and unsupported claims, and inspect evidence without losing their place?", "sources": [ "notebooklm-audio", "shape", "aperto-passage-design" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Prepare an overview", "caption": "Make the scope inspectable before generation.", "items": [ "tag|AI audio overview · proposed", "bible|Selected passage", "card|Included sources|Edition A and attributed commentary", "input|Choose length and focus", "button|Generate overview" ], "when": "The listener chooses an explanatory overview", "tradeoff": "Scope and AI authorship are reviewed before generation" }, { "title": "B · Listen and inspect", "caption": "Keep evidence beside a generated audio artifact.", "items": [ "tag|Synthetic voices · generated interpretation", "wave|", "play|Overview · 02:10 / 08:00", "card|Transcript and source list|Claim links appear only with verified alignment.", "button|Open original passage" ], "when": "An overview is ready to play", "tradeoff": "A transcript and source list preserve inspectability" }, { "title": "C · Pause for a question", "caption": "A dialogue is a deliberate branch from listening.", "items": [ "play|Paused at 02:10", "input|Ask about this explanation", "notice|Question uses the displayed source set.", "button|Return to overview at 02:10", "button|Finish" ], "when": "The listener deliberately asks a question", "tradeoff": "The branch preserves playback state and explains data handling" } ], "faith": "For teaching or preaching, require human verification of quotations and claims. Explain theological perspective; two synthetic speakers do not establish independent agreement.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "claim-source-inspection", "scripture-and-interpretation", "audio-first", "narration-provenance", "ai-involvement-disclosure" ], "takeaway": "Name the passage, edition and selected supporting sources before generation.", "principles": [ "honesty", "costliness" ] }, { "id": "78", "slug": "claim-source-inspection", "title": "Citations open the evidence behind a claim", "topic": "study", "summary": "A citation is a route to supporting material, with source type and limitations visible.", "problem": "Numbered badges can imply authority without identifying what they support. A Bible reference, sermon interpretation and personal note have different roles and must not become interchangeable evidence.", "solution": "Attach citations to specific claims. Show source title, author, type, edition or publication details and a relevant excerpt or reliable media timestamp. Return to the claim after inspection. Distinguish a quotation, inference, disagreement and a claim with no supporting source.", "failure": "Whole-answer citation lists with unclear claim mapping; invented sources or timestamps; counting repeated sources as independent support; inaccessible evidence presented as verified.", "test": "Can readers identify what a source supports and what it does not? Test contradictory sources, dead links, permission limits, different verse numbering and a citation that does not entail the claim.", "sources": [ "shape", "playground", "example-vsb-native", "lumen-observed" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Claim-linked marker", "caption": "The marker belongs to a specific explanation.", "items": [ "tag|AI explanation · not Scripture", "card|Interpretive claim|This sentence cites a named source [1].", "button|Inspect source 1", "bible|Original passage" ], "when": "A claim has identifiable supporting material", "tradeoff": "A marker must map to a specific claim" }, { "title": "B · Evidence preview", "caption": "Inspect context before accepting a claim.", "items": [ "sheet|Source 1|Author · title · commentary", "card|Relevant excerpt|Quotation and surrounding context", "notice|Supports one reading, not the whole answer.", "button|Open original source", "button|Return to claim" ], "when": "The person inspects a citation", "tradeoff": "Evidence context and source type must remain visible" }, { "title": "C · Evidence gap", "caption": "Show a gap without manufacturing precision.", "items": [ "notice|This claim has no verified supporting excerpt.", "card|Source unavailable|Title and known provenance remain visible.", "button|Read another source", "button|Report citation problem" ], "when": "Support is missing or inaccessible", "tradeoff": "Show uncertainty without invented excerpts or timestamps" } ], "faith": "A reference to Scripture locates text; it does not automatically validate an interpretation. Personal notes are user-provided context, not scholarly authority.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "media-evidence", "scripture-and-interpretation", "source-grounded-audio", "bounded-interpretation" ], "takeaway": "Attach citations to specific claims.", "principles": [ "honesty", "costliness" ] }, { "id": "79", "slug": "ai-involvement-disclosure", "title": "Identify what AI did, where it matters", "topic": "agency", "summary": "Label the actor, action and artifact at the moment they could be misunderstood.", "problem": "A Bible app mixes verified Scripture, authored commentary, personal notes and generated material. A brand name or sparkle icon may leave readers unsure whether they are reading a translation, a pastor’s words or an AI explanation.", "solution": "Use plain-language labels beside the relevant feature, speaker or content: AI assistant, explanation generated with AI, AI-assisted prayer draft, or synthetic voice reading a named edition. Keep a short visible label and optional details about sources, review and limitations. Retain identity through human handoffs and distinguish retrieval of publisher text from generated interpretation.", "failure": "Only disclosing in onboarding or terms; colour-only labels; generic AI tags with no operation; implied clergy credentials; treating a citation or human review badge as proof of correctness; placing an AI tag on verified Scripture because it sits inside an AI response.", "test": "Ask readers to identify who or what produced each layer, what AI changed and whether a human actually reviewed it. Test screen readers, first entry through deep links, audio-only use and AI-to-human transitions.", "sources": [ "shape", "shape-disclosure", "pair-trust", "hax-guidelines" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Before an AI action", "caption": "Explain the operation before it begins.", "items": [ "bible|Verified passage", "button|Generate an explanation with AI", "notice|Uses this passage and the sources you choose.", "button|Read attributed commentary instead" ], "when": "A person is about to use an AI feature", "tradeoff": "Name the operation and retain a non-AI route where offered" }, { "title": "B · Blended content", "caption": "Keep verified text and generated explanation distinct.", "items": [ "tag|Edition A · verified source text", "bible|Original passage", "card|Explanation generated with AI|This is interpretation, not the translation.", "button|Sources and creation details" ], "when": "Generated material sits beside verified text", "tradeoff": "Labels must identify each layer without labelling the translation as AI" }, { "title": "C · Actor transition", "caption": "Sender identity survives a real human handoff.", "items": [ "tag|AI assistant", "card|AI response|Generated response text.", "notice|Human support has joined · only after confirmed connection.", "card|Named human responder|Human-authored response." ], "when": "An interaction changes from AI to human", "tradeoff": "The change is shown only when a real responder is connected" } ], "faith": "A generated prayer is an editable draft, not divine speech. A synthetic voice reading verified Scripture changes narration provenance without making the edition text AI-authored.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "scripture-and-interpretation", "narration-provenance", "portable-ai-provenance", "claim-source-inspection" ], "takeaway": "Use plain-language labels beside the relevant feature, speaker or content: AI assistant, explanation generated with AI, AI-assisted prayer draft, or synthetic voice reading a named edition.", "principles": [ "honesty" ] }, { "id": "80", "slug": "portable-ai-provenance", "title": "AI origin travels with saved and shared content", "topic": "conversation", "summary": "Preserve meaningful attribution when an artifact leaves its original screen.", "problem": "An AI label can disappear when an explanation is copied, a verse card is shared or an audio overview is downloaded. A reader receiving the artifact may mistake generated interpretation for Scripture or a named human’s teaching.", "solution": "Preview the exported artifact and retain concise visible authorship information appropriate to its content. Keep Scripture reference and edition separate from generated explanation. Preserve generation and editing history where supported; supplement user-facing labels with machine-readable provenance when available. Share only the scope deliberately selected, without exposing private prompts or personal context.", "failure": "A share card drops the AI label; export reveals private prayer intentions; edits silently erase AI assistance; missing metadata is treated as evidence of human authorship; provenance is called a truth certificate.", "test": "Test copied text, shared cards, saved drafts, downloaded audio and screenshots. Can recipients identify the content type and origin? Test edited artifacts and destinations that strip metadata, and confirm the export excludes private inputs.", "sources": [ "shape-watermark", "shape-disclosure", "c2pa-origin", "shape" ], "variants": [ { "title": "A · Share preview", "caption": "Visible disclosure belongs inside the artifact.", "items": [ "card|Share card preview|Reference and edition remain attached to Scripture.", "tag|Reflection generated with AI", "notice|Personal input excluded from this export.", "button|Review and share" ], "when": "An artifact will be shared outside the app", "tradeoff": "The share preview retains meaningful visible authorship" }, { "title": "B · Edited draft", "caption": "Human edits do not silently rewrite creation history.", "items": [ "card|Prayer draft|AI-assisted · edited by you", "button|Review wording", "button|Inspect creation history", "button|Choose what to export" ], "when": "A generated draft has been edited", "tradeoff": "Review status and AI assistance need accurate history" }, { "title": "C · Audio artifact", "caption": "Downloaded audio retains an understandable origin.", "items": [ "tag|AI audio overview · synthetic voices", "wave|", "card|Artifact details|Passage, sources and version", "notice|Metadata support varies by destination.", "button|Preview download information" ], "when": "Audio or media is downloaded", "tradeoff": "Visible or audible disclosure and supported metadata serve distinct purposes" } ], "faith": "Visible labels, cryptographic provenance and watermarking serve different purposes. None proves theological validity, claim accuracy or human pastoral accountability.", "status": "Research-informed design proposal", "related": [ "ai-involvement-disclosure", "private-sharing", "reading-artifacts", "source-grounded-audio" ], "takeaway": "Preview the exported artifact and retain concise visible authorship information appropriate to its content.", "principles": [ "honesty" ] } ]