{"path":"research/interface-words-audit.md","content":"# The interface's words, audited\n\n*Begun 2026-10-23 on his ruling (ledger AR14, `docs/ux-principles.md` P28): every word the interface shows is\nchosen for the people who might come if Deliberus takes off, and every interface change comes to him first as a\nbrief summary for his blessing. His words: \"any term/word/label in the UI of Deliberus should be chosen/optimized\nfor broad understanding from the intended target audiences, but should not be so overly technical/niched that it\nrisks alienating too many people from the even broader possible set of people/target audiences who might engage\nwith Deliberus if it starts taking off.\"*\n\n**State:** first pass, proposals only. Nothing below has changed on the site; each group goes to him one at a\ntime and ships only on his word.\n\n## How the words were collected\n\nEvery text node and every `title`, `aria-label`, `placeholder` and `alt` value in the 42 Svelte files under\n`web/src` (658 strings), plus the strength badge's words (`deliberus/graph/qbaf.py`,\n`deliberus/extraction/schemes.py`) and the feed's mode names (`web/src/routes/feed/+page.svelte`). People's own\nclaims, quoted on the pages, are not the interface's words and are left out, as are the review pages only he uses\n(`/step-review`, `/part-review`, `/sameness`, `/me`), the constellation's tiles (their own review) and the\nBorderland page. Each word was marked by who would follow it: anyone, a reader of the notes only, or nobody.\n\n**Not covered yet:** strings built in TypeScript outside the templates (the wheel engine's readouts are tested\nunder AR10 and AR11 already), the server's error messages, and the docs pages' own prose.\n\n## Group 1: the claim page (the most visited page, and the most project words)\n\n| Now | Proposed | Why |\n|---|---|---|\n| Critical Questions (N) · *Scheme-generated questions that must be answered for this argument to hold* | Questions this argument must answer (N) · *Every kind of argument has its usual weak points. Answering them shows whether this one holds.* | *critical question* and *scheme* are argumentation theory's words |\n| ◇ sorry | ◇ unanswered | *sorry* is the Lean proof assistant's word; a stranger reads an apology |\n| none would currently change this claim's badge | none would change how strongly this claim stands right now | *badge* names our widget, not what it says |\n| Yes (confirms) · No (denies) | Yes, it holds here · No, it fails here | *confirms* and *denies* leave open what is confirmed; the buttons are styled as support and attack, so the proposal assumes every question is worded so that yes helps the argument, which the templates in `schemes.py` would need checking for |\n| Decomposes into · *These are the current subclaims beneath this claim…* | Its parts · *What this claim says, cut into parts that can each be agreed or disagreed with. A part can be cut further.* | *decomposes* and *subclaim* are ours |\n| Part of a larger claim · *This claim currently serves as one subclaim within a broader assertion.* | Part of a larger claim · *This is one part of what a larger claim says.* | same |\n| Still bundled deeper down: / Still bundled: | Could still be cut into parts: | *bundled* is ours |\n| superseded — no longer weighs · *A sharper edge replaced this one in the strength computation.* | replaced, no longer counts · *A more precise link replaced this one. It stays on the record.* | *edge* and *strength computation* are the engine's words |\n| Extraction reasoning | Why the machine read it this way | *extraction* is ours |\n| Clarify Meaning · *These contested terms appear in this claim…* · Current sense: | What does this word mean here? · *People use these words in different senses.* · The sense used here: | *contested term* and *sense* are the concept layer's words |\n| Claims that read similarly · *Found by comparing wording across analyses* | Claims worded alike · *Found by comparing wording across sources* | *analyses* means our runs |\n\n## Group 2: the strength badge's words\n\nShown on every claim. A stranger meets *UNEXAMINED*, *UNSETTLED* and *NO DATA* first; the scheme-flavoured pairs\n(*VALID / INVALID*, *SOUND / UNSOUND*, *RELEVANT / FALLACIOUS*, *BEST EXPLANATION / CONTESTED*, *PLAUSIBLE CHAIN /\nBROKEN CHAIN*, *STRONG / WEAK ANALOGY*, *SUBSTANTIATED / SPECULATIVE*, *CREDIBLE / QUESTIONABLE*, *GROUNDED*,\n*SUPPORTED / UNSUPPORTED*) are logic's words, and *FALLACIOUS* and *UNSOUND* read as verdicts on the person.\nProposal to come: one plain scale for every claim (for example *nobody has looked yet · open · leaning yes ·\nleaning no · well supported · badly undermined*), with the kind of argument said in the hover card, not the badge.\n\n## Group 3: the feed\n\n*Epistemic, not engagement-maximizing.* · *Bridging: high disagreement + strong reasoning — the novel signal* ·\n*Needs help: unanswered CQs, decomposition targets, and unclarified concepts* · *Contested: semantic disagreement\nhiding* · *Robust* · the actions *Answer CQ*, *Decompose*, *Inspect*. Note: the feed itself is under review\n(ledger Arc AW); its words wait on that.\n\n## Group 4: the home page and a source's page\n\n*Extract*, *Extracting argument structure…*, *Previous Extractions*, *Re-scan*, *PDF ready — Gemini will read it\nnatively*, *Possible structured version*, *Bridging arguments, contested claims, and where the graph needs help*,\n*Deepen Next*, *Diagnosis*, *Contested Concepts*, *the research garden*. The about page also says *19 principles*\nand *post-tribal epistemics* and the docs card says *55 documents*, both stale.\n\n## Group 5: the concept pages\n\n*Shared concept memory*, *Lifecycle*, *Clarified coverage*, *Dominant sense share*, *Possible merge candidates*,\n*Observed senses*, *operative meanings*, *locally stabilizing*.\n\n## Group 6: the map legends and the compartments page\n\nMostly plain already (AR10, AR11). Left to look at: *part and whole*, *adds a condition, says what a word means,\nor restates*, *kept a place for: rare, and easy to miss*. The compartments page (members only) says\n*No membrane written*.\n\n## Rulings\n\nNone yet.\n"}