{
  "version": "2026-09-26.1",
  "title": "Healthcare AI Citation UX Review Kit",
  "caseStudyUrl": "https://pharosproduction.com/insights/healthcare/ai-citation-ux-aesthetic-medicine/?utm_source=github_pages&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=healthcare_citation_ux&utm_content=review_kit",
  "sources": [
    {
      "id": "S01",
      "url": "https://pharosproduction.com/insights/healthcare/ai-citation-ux-aesthetic-medicine/",
      "title": "AI citation UX for aesthetic medicine",
      "checkedAt": "2026-09-26",
      "snapshotSha256": "b5106de08130bb104960d6585071ae25af9aa9df6f96ff236832a824cb42ce3a",
      "scope": "Publisher-reported design-stage case and internal citation audit. No independent runtime or clinical validation. Updated September 24, 2026."
    },
    {
      "id": "S02",
      "url": "https://www.shapeof.ai/patterns/citations",
      "title": "Citations | Shape of AI",
      "checkedAt": "2026-09-26",
      "snapshotSha256": "a14c91940b684899cbf432259ed8beb3d0edb2563cc1a7626feda811dc79367d",
      "scope": "Citation interface patterns: source specificity, metadata and explicit missing sources. Does not validate this kit's six checks."
    },
    {
      "id": "S03",
      "url": "https://www.nngroup.com/articles/explainable-ai/",
      "title": "Explainable AI in Chat Interfaces | NN/G",
      "checkedAt": "2026-09-26",
      "snapshotSha256": "e1c3f7a718d66f70ad5f885b6bc35e38e9fb5e857d858fb28a794fad02748ec4",
      "scope": "Original UX analysis of explanation text and citations in chat interfaces. Does not establish clinical reliability."
    }
  ],
  "checks": [
    {
      "id": "claim-support",
      "title": "Claim → supporting passage",
      "question": "Can a reviewer inspect the passage behind a specific claim?",
      "evidence": "One annotated answer with each factual claim mapped to the passage intended to support it.",
      "observe": "Open a claim-level citation. Read the passage in context and have a reviewer decide whether it supports that exact claim.",
      "failure": "A real document can still be irrelevant to the claim. A link that opens is insufficient evidence.",
      "sources": [
        "S01",
        "S02",
        "S03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "source-location",
      "title": "Location and edition",
      "question": "Does the citation land on the intended place in the intended source version?",
      "evidence": "A checked example showing document identity, edition, displayed locator and actual destination.",
      "observe": "Compare the displayed page or section with the destination. For PDFs, check printed numbering separately from viewer numbering.",
      "failure": "A plausible page number or section title can point to the wrong place. A mapping from one document cannot be reused blindly.",
      "sources": [
        "S01",
        "S02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "sample-separation",
      "title": "Samples stay visibly samples",
      "question": "Can a reviewer distinguish sample citations from verified source records?",
      "evidence": "Side-by-side screens of a sample record and a checked record, including their labels and click behavior.",
      "observe": "Ask someone outside the design team to identify the sample. Keep its placeholder identity visible wherever the record appears.",
      "failure": "A realistic fabricated title or identifier can survive handoff as if someone verified it. Color alone is ambiguous.",
      "sources": [
        "S01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "missing-evidence",
      "title": "Missing evidence has a next step",
      "question": "Do unsupported claims, retrieval misses and unavailable sources have distinct states?",
      "evidence": "A small state table with a screen, trigger and next action for each missing-evidence condition.",
      "observe": "Walk through each state. Check that a retrieval failure does not silently become a claim that the source lacks the answer.",
      "failure": "One generic error hides whether the source is absent, inaccessible or simply not found by the retrieval process.",
      "sources": [
        "S01",
        "S02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "source-category",
      "title": "Source categories stay separate",
      "question": "Can users tell what kind of source supports a claim?",
      "evidence": "An evidence panel showing source category, title, edition or date, and the supported claim.",
      "observe": "Review how handbook content, external research and regulatory records are labeled when they appear together.",
      "failure": "A nearby authoritative record can make another claim seem supported. Proximity and visual style do not establish authority.",
      "sources": [
        "S01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "change-handoff",
      "title": "Changes survive the handoff",
      "question": "Can the team see what was reviewed when a source or saved answer changes?",
      "evidence": "A before-and-after example plus a review record naming the source version, changed claim, owner and unresolved questions.",
      "observe": "Change one source version in the prototype. Show how the old answer and the need for another review remain visible.",
      "failure": "Replacing a source silently can leave a saved answer carrying stale support. An unowned review request may be missed.",
      "sources": [
        "S01"
      ]
    }
  ]
}