Acceptance Examples

1. Caption, search cards, and an unwatched video

Input:

Expected result:

• Only E001 supports a claim about the post’s text, such as “@hike_lena’s caption says the headlamp ‘doesn’t die halfway up.’” Reading that as praise for battery life is an interpretation, so it goes in the interpretation column.
• E002 to E004 count under Discovered and support no finding. “Returned mine” in E003 is a snippet, so the report can’t say @summit_jo returned the product.
• The video’s contents are unknown. The report lists E005 under unanswered questions and makes no claim about what the video shows.

2. Original post, two reposts, and a disagreeing comment

Input:

Expected result:

• Group D1 counts once as support for “@lumen_labs says the lamp runs 40 hours”, not as three independent sources. The collection counts still list E010, E011, and E012 as three inspected sources in one duplicate group.
• The duplicate groups table shows E010 as the original and keeps the E011 and E012 references.
• E013 is attributed to @k_ramos. It doesn’t change what @lumen_labs said, and the report shows the two statements separately.

3. Supportive comments in a bounded sample

Protocol: the first 12 top-level comments under one post, sorted by newest, inspected on 2026-10-14. The unit of analysis is the comment.

Input: E020 to E031, twelve inspected comments. E021, E025, and E030 express support. The post shows a count of 340 comments, and the page doesn’t say how many of them are replies.

Expected result:

• The report can say “3 of 12 inspected comments expressed support (E021, E025, E030)”, with the selection method in the limitation column.
• It can’t say “25% of the audience supports the product” or “most commenters are positive”.
• The limits section says 12 top-level comments were inspected, and the post shows 340 comments that may include replies. The number of top-level comments that weren’t inspected is unknown, so the report doesn’t give one.

4. A blocked source and an empty search

Input:

Expected result:

• E040 is listed in access and collection limits, with its gap type.
• The empty search is listed as a collection limit, with the query, platform, and time.
• The report doesn’t say “nobody is discussing a recall”. If the recall question depends on these sources, the status is partial and the question stays unanswered.

5. Transcript read, video unwatched

Input:

Expected result:

• The report can say “The auto-generated transcript of @gearnotes’ video includes the line ‘It survived the drop test.’”
• It can’t say the video shows a drop test or that the lamp survived one. The limitation column says the video wasn’t watched and the transcript was auto-generated.

6. An export, not a live check

Input: E060 is an export-row from community-posts.csv, row 17, captured 2026-10-01T09:00Z. Its origin is “community moderator’s export, supplied by the user”. The user asks whether the post is still up.

Expected result:

• Claims based on E060 read “As of the export captured on 2026-10-01, the post said …”.
• Whether the post is still up today is an unanswered question, unless someone inspects the live page and records it as a new record.

7. A repost with added commentary

Input:

Expected result:

• The repeated text counts once, as @lumen_labs’ statement.
• “Doubt it, they said the same in May” is a separate statement by @skeptic_sam. It is not a second source for the price drop, and it is not something @lumen_labs said.

8. A source stating a fact

Input: E080 is inspected post-text by @tech_watch: “The recall covers every unit sold before March.”

Expected result:

• The claim table says “@tech_watch stated that the recall covers every unit sold before March”, citing E080.
• The report doesn’t state the recall’s scope as fact. The limitation column says the statement wasn’t checked against an independent source, such as the official recall notice.

9. No browsing, only URLs

Input: the user supplies five post URLs. The harness can’t open web pages, and the user has no exports.

Expected result:

• Five discovery-only records, one per URL, each with the URL as source_locator and capture_method: supplied-url.
• Counts show Discovered 5 and Inspected 0. The findings table is empty.
• Status is partial. The report asks for exports or captured copies of the posts.

10. Auditing a draft report

Input: a draft report says “Most users love the lamp” and cites three search result snippets. It says “no one mentions overheating” and cites one search with no results. It quotes a comment as the brand’s own statement.

Expected result:

• “Most users love the lamp”: flagged twice. Its citations are discovery-only, and it makes a prevalence claim with no defined sample.
• “No one mentions overheating”: flagged, because an empty search is a collection limit, not evidence of absence.
• The quoted comment: flagged as misattributed. The commenter said it, not the brand.
• The audit doesn’t invent replacement sources. It lists what evidence each claim would need.