Pattern 21
Narration style has provenance
Distinguish an audio edition from an adaptation or generated retelling.
Concrete takeaway
Identify the text basis, narrator or synthetic voice, adaptation status and relevant rights.
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 · Verbatim reading | Verified edition text is read verbatim | The recording must match the displayed edition |
| B · Dramatized edition | The edition is performed or dramatized | Performance needs a label distinct from commentary |
| C · Retelling | The audio retells the passage | A retelling is not the original Bible wording |
The problem
Music, dramatisation or synthetic voices can change perceived meaning and authority without telling listeners what kind of content they hear.
The pattern
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.
Compare the alternatives
Distinguish an audio edition from an adaptation or generated retelling.
A · Verbatim reading
The audio edition and narrator are named.
B · Dramatized edition
Production choices are transparent.
C · Retelling
An adaptation is labelled before listening.
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 generated retelling labelled Scripture; unnamed editorial additions; impersonating a trusted religious figure; unsupported claims that a voice is human.
What to validate
Can listeners identify content type and origin before playback, including on audio-only surfaces? Does switching styles preserve accurate labels?
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.
- Designing Audio AI People Actually TrustArticle reviewed · The author scopes this to responsible audio AI, not a complete conversational-agent guideline.
- 8 voice AI UX patternsArticle reviewed · A design analysis rather than a clinical or Bible-app validation study. The original short link leads through another Friedman post.
Common scenarios and flows
- A lectio-style listening practice — Offer a contemplative sequence without requiring chat or recorded responses.
- Listen to an AI overview and inspect a claim — Use explanatory audio while retaining access to the source material and control of the session.
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.
Design principles in this decision
Editorial application of Missional by Design. These values frame review questions; they do not validate a pattern’s effectiveness.
- 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.
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.
Does generated text, audio or media leave the app? Decide which origin information remains understandable in playback, download and sharing, and which file metadata the applicable role requires.
Start with EU and Germany, then review the relevant market:
- US · Utah: generated-media provenance — Enacted; relevant duties scheduled for 2027
- 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.