Pattern 09
Evidence sets the limits of the answer
Name sources, perspectives and gaps without manufacturing certainty.
Concrete takeaway
Distinguish direct evidence, interpretation and related material.
Choose an approach
These are editorial decision conditions to validate. Some alternatives are successive states or can be combined; they are not always exclusive choices.
| Alternative | Use when | Tradeoff or requirement |
|---|---|---|
| A · Bounded claim | The source supports a limited claim | An incomplete answer may be more honest |
| B · Named perspectives | Relevant traditions differ | Multiple perspectives need attribution and careful scope |
| C · Evidence gap | Supporting evidence is missing | Do not fill the gap with confident prose |
The problem
AI may fuse a passage, a commentary and its own extrapolation into an answer that overstates the available evidence.
The pattern
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.
Compare the alternatives
Name sources, perspectives and gaps without manufacturing certainty.
A · Bounded claim
The explanation stays within what the cited source supports.
B · Named perspectives
Different readings are attributed.
C · Evidence gap
An honest gap is more useful than invented agreement.
Original wireframe proposals · No live controls · Grey rows represent schematic text, not loading states · Labelled placeholders are not Scripture quotations
Download this wireframe as SVGFailure modes
A citation attached to an unsupported claim; an invented confidence percentage; claiming divine authority; treating a missing resource as agreement.
Bible and faith considerations
A faith assistant should not speak as God, pronounce personal spiritual standing or claim access to divine intentions.
What to validate
Give reviewers a disputed passage and incomplete sources. Can they trace each claim and identify unsupported extrapolation or tradition-specific assumptions?
Research-informed design proposal. These visual alternatives have not been tested with users in this atlas. Source findings, documented behaviour and this proposed adaptation are different kinds of evidence.
Sources and adaptation
This card is an original design synthesis. The following sources inform its content distinctions, interaction approach or review requirements; they do not validate the whole pattern.
- CitationsPattern detail reviewed · Citation presence alone does not establish claim support.
- The Shape of AICatalogue and named entries reviewed · The site states CC BY NC SA. This atlas uses original text and original wireframes; it does not reproduce the source illustrations.
- Pattern CatalogueCatalogue entries and descriptions reviewed · A broad observational design catalogue rather than an exclusively AI or faith resource.
- Agentic UX PatternsPublished catalogue overview and example reviewed · The catalogue presents 49 proposals. Their inclusion is not evidence of effectiveness in faith or clinical settings.
Common scenarios and flows
- Read a long passage from a conversation — Inspect complete Scripture without letting an embed take over the dialogue.
Design principles in this decision
Editorial application of Missional by Design. These values frame review questions; they do not validate a pattern’s effectiveness.
- Rootedness — Which source and tradition inform this experience, and what meaning or context might this adaptation lose?
- Honesty — Could this interface lead a person to infer more authority, certainty, privacy or human support than the service provides?
Compare alternatives using the task and evidence above. Record competing needs instead of treating a principle as an automatic verdict.