Intent controls support the prompt

Help people express scope through selections and task choices.

Research-informed design proposal

Concrete takeaway

Pair free text with editable context chips and concrete task controls.

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 · Start from context	A question begins with a passage selection	Context chips should be editable
B · Editable scope	The person wants to control source scope	Removing a source must change retrieval transparently
C · Confirm an assumption	A material assumption is unresolved	Clarify without turning the task into an interview

The problem

A blank box makes users responsible for specifying passage, sources, purpose and output format in every prompt.

The pattern

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.

Compare the alternatives

Help people express scope through selections and task choices.

A · Start from context

Conversation · Example interface

Earlier message

Mark 1:1–5 · Translation A

Explain

Compare

Find related sources

My own question

A selected passage reduces prompt-writing effort.

B · Editable scope

Conversation · Example interface

Earlier message

Context

Selected passage and two commentaries.

Change source scope

Ask within this context

The active sources are visible and removable.

C · Confirm an assumption

Conversation · Example interface

Earlier message

Should I use the sources you selected or search more widely?

Selected sources only

Search more widely

The product asks only when the choice matters.

Original wireframe proposals · No live controls · Grey rows represent schematic text, not loading states · Labelled placeholders are not Scripture quotations

Download this wireframe as SVG

Failure modes

Forcing a complex prompt; invisible source filters; inferring belief or distress from a simple search.

What to validate

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.

Evidence status

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.
AI UX PlaygroundCatalogue and selected detail pages reviewed · Selected relevant entries reviewed; the entire catalogue was not audited. Its FAQ currently describes 150 patterns in 11 categories.
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

Read a long passage from a conversation — Inspect complete Scripture without letting an embed take over the dialogue.

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.