Pattern 25
Choose the kind of help
Support a goal without diagnosing it from a prompt.
Concrete takeaway
Offer a small set of concrete tasks and a free-text route.
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 · Task choices | Several task types are available | Choices must not restrict the free-text route |
| B · One clarification | One ambiguity changes the next response | Too many questions become a barrier |
| C · Practice preview | A practice is being suggested | Purpose and duration should be previewed before starting |
The problem
An open input can leave people unsure what to ask, while an assistant may assume they want study, prayer or emotional support.
The pattern
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.
Compare the alternatives
Support a goal without diagnosing it from a prompt.
A · Task choices
Concrete options help people start.
B · One clarification
Only context needed for the next step is requested.
C · Practice preview
A suggested activity is voluntary.
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 diagnostic-looking questionnaire; inferring a condition or belief from a task choice; a mandatory prayer flow for every personal question.
What to validate
Can users select a useful path without learning prompting jargon or disclosing more than needed? Does free text remain a complete route?
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.
- How can AI UI capture intentArticle reviewed · Avoid turning contextual assistance into hidden inference about belief, health or emotional state.
- AI UX PatternsPublic sample and catalogue framing reviewed · The pattern-composition example is a design reference, not a validation of the proposed faith-specific variants.
- 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.
- GenAI UX Design PatternsPublic framework overview reviewed · The public overview supports this synthesis; linked material and individual examples were not exhaustively audited.
Common scenarios and flows
- Prepare and participate in an AI-assisted practice — Use bounded adaptation while keeping Scripture, authorship and user choice inspectable.
Examples in use
Attributed app evidence with dates and review limits. A screenshot illustrates an implementation; it does not establish that the proposal works for every audience.
HelloBible · Mobile-format marketing imageA daily verse card alongside practice entry points
Publisher promotional mockup
Aperto · Desktop web prototypeNamed feelings, companion style and a skip route
Local prototype capture · synthetic session · cropped
Lumen Bible · Desktop web · English interfaceOptional choices about engagement and experience
Direct signed-out web capture
Design principles in this decision
Editorial application of Missional by Design. These values frame review questions; they do not validate a pattern’s effectiveness.
- Reverence — What does this interaction ask of the person, and can they understand, decline, correct or leave it without penalty?
Compare alternatives using the task and evidence above. Record competing needs instead of treating a principle as an automatic verdict.
Regional applicability
Design review questions · 5 October 2026. These prompts identify possible triggers; they do not classify this pattern or every faith app as a regulated service.
What does this service actually offer: source assistance, a sustained companion, pastoral support or a clinical service? Review entry, return and recurring notices against the applicable definition.
Start with EU and Germany, then review the relevant market:
- US · California — Enacted AI-specific law
- US · New York — Enacted AI-specific law
- US · Utah: mental-health chatbots — Enacted AI-specific law
- US · Texas — Enacted AI-specific law; effective 1 January 2026
- United Kingdom — Existing law + regulator guidance; policy statement
- Australia — Existing law + regulator guidance; national policy
- China — Binding AI-content labelling measures; effective 1 September 2025
- South Korea — AI Basic Act in force; announced enforcement grace period
Use the jurisdiction decision guide to record the trigger, source version and resulting product requirement.