2298d36bed
- Create Economist SubmissionTracking package correctly: * mainArticle = full blog post content * coverLetter = 216-word SIR— letter * Links to blog post via blogPostId - Archive 'Letter to The Economist' from blog posts (it's the cover letter) - Fix date display on article cards (use published_at) - Target publication already displaying via blue badge Database changes: - Make blogPostId optional in SubmissionTracking model - Economist package ID: 68fa85ae49d4900e7f2ecd83 - Le Monde package ID: 68fa2abd2e6acd5691932150 Next: Enhanced modal with tabs, validation, export 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
374 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
374 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
# TRA-OPS-0001: AI Content Generation Policy v1.0
|
|
|
|
**Document ID**: TRA-OPS-0001
|
|
**Version**: 1.0
|
|
**Classification**: OPERATIONAL
|
|
**Status**: DRAFT → ACTIVE (upon Phase 2 start)
|
|
**Created**: 2025-10-07
|
|
**Owner**: John Stroh
|
|
**Review Cycle**: Quarterly
|
|
**Next Review**: 2026-01-07
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Purpose
|
|
|
|
This document establishes the operational policy governing all AI-assisted content generation on the Tractatus Framework website. It ensures that AI operations align with the Tractatus framework's core principle: **"What cannot be systematized must not be automated."**
|
|
|
|
## Scope
|
|
|
|
This policy applies to all content generated or assisted by AI systems, including but not limited to:
|
|
- Blog posts (topic suggestions, outlines, drafts)
|
|
- Media inquiry responses (classification, prioritization, draft responses)
|
|
- Case study analysis (relevance assessment, categorization)
|
|
- Documentation summaries
|
|
- Social media content (future)
|
|
|
|
## Principles
|
|
|
|
### 1. Mandatory Human Approval
|
|
**Principle**: No AI-generated content shall be published, sent, or made public without explicit human approval.
|
|
|
|
**Implementation**:
|
|
- All AI outputs routed through moderation queue
|
|
- Two-person rule for sensitive content (admin + reviewer)
|
|
- Audit trail: who approved, when, why
|
|
- Rejection must include reason (for AI training)
|
|
|
|
**Tractatus Mapping**: TACTICAL quadrant (execution requires pre-approval)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 2. Values Boundary Enforcement
|
|
**Principle**: AI systems must not make decisions involving values, ethics, or human agency.
|
|
|
|
**Implementation**:
|
|
- BoundaryEnforcer.service validates all AI actions
|
|
- Values decisions flagged for human review
|
|
- AI may present options but not choose
|
|
|
|
**Examples**:
|
|
- ✅ AI can suggest blog topics
|
|
- ❌ AI cannot decide editorial policy
|
|
- ✅ AI can classify inquiry priority
|
|
- ❌ AI cannot decide whether to respond
|
|
|
|
**Tractatus Mapping**: STRATEGIC quadrant (values require human judgment per §12.1-12.7)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 3. Transparency & Attribution
|
|
**Principle**: Users must know when content is AI-assisted.
|
|
|
|
**Implementation**:
|
|
- All AI-assisted content labeled "AI-Assisted, Human-Reviewed"
|
|
- Disclosure in footer or metadata
|
|
- Option to view human review notes (future)
|
|
|
|
**Example Labels**:
|
|
```markdown
|
|
---
|
|
AI-Assisted: Claude Sonnet 4.5
|
|
Human Reviewer: John Stroh
|
|
Reviewed: 2025-10-15
|
|
Changes: Minor edits for tone
|
|
---
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 4. Quality & Accuracy Standards
|
|
**Principle**: AI-assisted content must meet the same quality standards as human-authored content.
|
|
|
|
**Implementation**:
|
|
- Editorial guidelines (TRA-OPS-0002) apply to all content
|
|
- Fact-checking required for claims
|
|
- Citation validation (all sources verified by human)
|
|
- Tone/voice consistency with brand
|
|
|
|
**Rejection Criteria**:
|
|
- Factual errors
|
|
- Unsupported claims
|
|
- Inappropriate tone
|
|
- Plagiarism or copyright violation
|
|
- Hallucinated citations
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 5. Privacy & Data Protection
|
|
**Principle**: AI systems must not process personal data without consent.
|
|
|
|
**Implementation**:
|
|
- No user data sent to Claude API without anonymization
|
|
- Media inquiries: strip PII before AI analysis
|
|
- Case submissions: explicit consent checkbox
|
|
- Audit logs: no personal data retention
|
|
|
|
**Compliance**: GDPR-lite principles (even if not EU-based)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 6. Cost & Resource Management
|
|
**Principle**: AI usage must be cost-effective and sustainable.
|
|
|
|
**Implementation**:
|
|
- Monthly budget cap: $200/month (see TRA-OPS-0005)
|
|
- Rate limiting: 1000 requests/day max
|
|
- Caching: 30-day TTL for identical queries
|
|
- Monitoring: alert if >80% of budget used
|
|
|
|
**Governance**: Quarterly cost review, adjust limits as needed
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## AI System Inventory
|
|
|
|
### Approved AI Systems
|
|
|
|
| System | Provider | Model | Purpose | Status |
|
|
|--------|----------|-------|---------|--------|
|
|
| **Claude API** | Anthropic | Sonnet 4.5 | Blog curation, media triage, case analysis | APPROVED |
|
|
|
|
### Future Considerations
|
|
|
|
| System | Provider | Purpose | Status |
|
|
|--------|----------|---------|--------|
|
|
| **GPT-4** | OpenAI | Fallback for Claude outages | EVALUATION |
|
|
| **LLaMA 3** | Meta | Self-hosted alternative | RESEARCH |
|
|
|
|
**Approval Process**: Any new AI system requires:
|
|
1. Technical evaluation (accuracy, cost, privacy)
|
|
2. Governance review (Tractatus compliance)
|
|
3. John Stroh approval
|
|
4. 30-day pilot period
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Operational Workflows
|
|
|
|
### Blog Post Generation Workflow
|
|
|
|
```mermaid
|
|
graph TD
|
|
A[News Feed Ingestion] --> B[AI Topic Suggestion]
|
|
B --> C[Human Approval Queue]
|
|
C -->|Approved| D[AI Outline Generation]
|
|
C -->|Rejected| Z[End]
|
|
D --> E[Human Review & Edit]
|
|
E -->|Accept| F[Human Writes Draft]
|
|
E -->|Reject| Z
|
|
F --> G[Final Human Approval]
|
|
G -->|Approved| H[Publish]
|
|
G -->|Rejected| Z
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Key Decision Points**:
|
|
1. **Topic Approval**: Human decides if topic is valuable (STRATEGIC)
|
|
2. **Outline Review**: Human edits for accuracy/tone (OPERATIONAL)
|
|
3. **Draft Approval**: Human decides to publish (STRATEGIC)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Media Inquiry Workflow
|
|
|
|
```mermaid
|
|
graph TD
|
|
A[Inquiry Received] --> B[Strip PII]
|
|
B --> C[AI Classification]
|
|
C --> D[AI Priority Scoring]
|
|
D --> E[AI Draft Response]
|
|
E --> F[Human Review Queue]
|
|
F -->|Approve & Send| G[Send Response]
|
|
F -->|Edit & Send| H[Human Edits]
|
|
F -->|Reject| Z[End]
|
|
H --> G
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Key Decision Points**:
|
|
1. **Classification Review**: Human verifies AI categorization (OPERATIONAL)
|
|
2. **Send Decision**: Human decides whether to respond (STRATEGIC)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Case Study Workflow
|
|
|
|
```mermaid
|
|
graph TD
|
|
A[Community Submission] --> B[Consent Check]
|
|
B -->|No Consent| Z[Reject]
|
|
B -->|Consent| C[AI Relevance Analysis]
|
|
C --> D[AI Tractatus Mapping]
|
|
D --> E[Human Moderation Queue]
|
|
E -->|Approve| F[Publish to Portal]
|
|
E -->|Request Edits| G[Contact Submitter]
|
|
E -->|Reject| H[Notify with Reason]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Key Decision Points**:
|
|
1. **Consent Validation**: Automated check (SYSTEM)
|
|
2. **Relevance Assessment**: Human verifies AI analysis (OPERATIONAL)
|
|
3. **Publication Decision**: Human decides to publish (STRATEGIC)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Human Oversight Requirements
|
|
|
|
### Minimum Oversight Levels
|
|
|
|
| Content Type | Minimum Reviewers | Review SLA | Escalation |
|
|
|--------------|-------------------|------------|------------|
|
|
| **Blog Posts** | 1 (admin) | 48 hours | N/A |
|
|
| **Media Inquiries (High Priority)** | 1 (admin) | 4 hours | John Stroh |
|
|
| **Media Inquiries (Low Priority)** | 1 (admin) | 7 days | N/A |
|
|
| **Case Studies** | 1 (admin) | 7 days | N/A |
|
|
| **Documentation Changes** | 1 (admin) | 14 days | John Stroh |
|
|
|
|
### Reviewer Qualifications
|
|
|
|
**Admin Reviewer** (minimum requirements):
|
|
- Understands Tractatus framework
|
|
- Technical background (AI/ML familiarity)
|
|
- Editorial experience (writing, fact-checking)
|
|
- Authorized by John Stroh
|
|
|
|
**Future**: Multiple reviewer roles (technical, editorial, legal)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Audit & Compliance
|
|
|
|
### Audit Trail Requirements
|
|
|
|
All AI-assisted content must log:
|
|
- **Input**: What was sent to AI (prompt + context)
|
|
- **Output**: Raw AI response (unedited)
|
|
- **Review**: Human changes (diff)
|
|
- **Decision**: Approve/reject + reason
|
|
- **Metadata**: Reviewer, timestamp, model version
|
|
|
|
**Retention**: 2 years minimum
|
|
|
|
### Compliance Monitoring
|
|
|
|
**Monthly Review**:
|
|
- AI approval rate (target: 70-90%)
|
|
- Rejection reasons (categorized)
|
|
- Cost vs. budget
|
|
- SLA compliance
|
|
|
|
**Quarterly Review**:
|
|
- Policy effectiveness
|
|
- User feedback on AI content quality
|
|
- Boundary violations (should be 0)
|
|
- Cost-benefit analysis
|
|
|
|
**Annual Review**:
|
|
- Full policy revision
|
|
- AI system evaluation
|
|
- Governance alignment audit
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Error Handling & Incidents
|
|
|
|
### AI System Failures
|
|
|
|
**Scenario**: Claude API unavailable
|
|
|
|
**Response**:
|
|
1. Graceful degradation: disable AI features
|
|
2. Manual workflows: admins handle all tasks
|
|
3. User notification: "AI features temporarily unavailable"
|
|
4. Post-mortem: document incident, adjust SLAs
|
|
|
|
### Content Quality Issues
|
|
|
|
**Scenario**: AI-generated content contains factual error
|
|
|
|
**Response**:
|
|
1. Immediate retraction/correction (if published)
|
|
2. Root cause analysis: prompt issue, AI hallucination, review failure?
|
|
3. Process update: improve review checklist
|
|
4. Reviewer training: flag similar errors
|
|
|
|
### Boundary Violations
|
|
|
|
**Scenario**: AI makes values decision without human approval
|
|
|
|
**Response**:
|
|
1. **CRITICAL INCIDENT**: Escalate to John Stroh immediately
|
|
2. Rollback: revert to manual workflow
|
|
3. Investigation: How did BoundaryEnforcer fail?
|
|
4. System audit: Test all boundary checks
|
|
5. Policy review: Update TRA-OPS-0001
|
|
|
|
**Tractatus Mandate**: Zero tolerance for boundary violations
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Revision & Amendment Process
|
|
|
|
### Minor Revisions (v1.0 → v1.1)
|
|
- Typos, clarifications, formatting
|
|
- Approval: Admin reviewer
|
|
- Notification: Email to stakeholders
|
|
|
|
### Major Revisions (v1.0 → v2.0)
|
|
- Policy changes, new workflows, scope expansion
|
|
- Approval: John Stroh
|
|
- Review: 30-day comment period
|
|
- Notification: Blog post announcement
|
|
|
|
### Emergency Amendments
|
|
- Security/privacy issues requiring immediate change
|
|
- Approval: John Stroh (verbal, documented within 24h)
|
|
- Review: Retrospective within 7 days
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Related Documents
|
|
|
|
**Strategic**:
|
|
- STR-VAL-0001: Core Values & Principles (source: sydigital)
|
|
- STR-GOV-0001: Strategic Review Protocol (source: sydigital)
|
|
- STR-GOV-0002: Values Alignment Framework (source: sydigital)
|
|
|
|
**Operational** (Tractatus-specific):
|
|
- TRA-OPS-0002: Blog Editorial Guidelines
|
|
- TRA-OPS-0003: Media Inquiry Response Protocol
|
|
- TRA-OPS-0004: Case Study Moderation Standards
|
|
- TRA-OPS-0005: Human Oversight Requirements
|
|
|
|
**Technical**:
|
|
- API Documentation: `/docs/api-reference.html`
|
|
- Tractatus Framework Specification: `/docs/technical-proposal.md`
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Glossary
|
|
|
|
**AI-Assisted Content**: Content where AI contributed to generation (topic, outline, draft) but human made final decisions and edits.
|
|
|
|
**Boundary Violation**: AI system making a decision in STRATEGIC quadrant (values, ethics, policy) without human approval.
|
|
|
|
**Human Approval**: Explicit action by authorized reviewer to publish/send AI-assisted content.
|
|
|
|
**Moderation Queue**: System where AI outputs await human review before publication.
|
|
|
|
**Values Decision**: Any decision involving ethics, privacy, user agency, editorial policy, or mission alignment.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Approval
|
|
|
|
| Role | Name | Signature | Date |
|
|
|------|------|-----------|------|
|
|
| **Policy Owner** | John Stroh | [Pending] | [TBD] |
|
|
| **Technical Reviewer** | Claude Code | [Pending] | 2025-10-07 |
|
|
| **Final Approval** | John Stroh | [Pending] | [TBD] |
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
**Status**: DRAFT (awaiting John Stroh approval to activate)
|
|
**Effective Date**: Upon Phase 2 deployment
|
|
**Next Review**: 2026-01-07 (3 months post-activation)
|