@dzhechkov/skills-presentation-storyteller 0.1.0

package/templates/.claude/skills/goap-research-ed25519/references/source-evaluation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,560 @@
+# Source Evaluation Reference (Ed25519 Enhanced)
+
+Comprehensive criteria for assessing source credibility with cryptographic trust layers.
+
+## Trust Model Overview
+
+```
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│                    TRUST PYRAMID                            │
+├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│                                                             │
+│                    ┌───────────┐                            │
+│                    │ Level 6   │ ← Cryptographically        │
+│                    │ VERIFIED  │   Signed + Trusted Issuer  │
+│                    └─────┬─────┘                            │
+│                    ┌─────┴─────┐                            │
+│                    │ Level 5   │ ← Primary Sources          │
+│                    │ HIGHEST   │   (traditional)            │
+│                    └─────┬─────┘                            │
+│                ┌─────────┴─────────┐                        │
+│                │     Level 4       │ ← Authoritative         │
+│                │     HIGH          │   Secondary              │
+│                └─────────┬─────────┘                        │
+│            ┌─────────────┴─────────────┐                    │
+│            │        Level 3            │ ← Reputable         │
+│            │        MODERATE           │   General            │
+│            └─────────────┬─────────────┘                    │
+│        ┌─────────────────┴─────────────────┐                │
+│        │           Level 2                 │ ← Community     │
+│        │           LOWER                   │                 │
+│        └─────────────────┬─────────────────┘                │
+│    ┌─────────────────────┴─────────────────────┐            │
+│    │              Level 1                      │ ← Unverified│
+│    │              MINIMAL                      │             │
+│    └───────────────────────────────────────────┘            │
+│                                                             │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+## Enhanced Reliability Scoring System
+
+### Level 6: Cryptographically Verified (NEW)
+**Characteristics:**
+- Ed25519 signature verified
+- Issuer in trusted whitelist
+- Content hash matches signature
+- Citation chain intact
+
+**Confidence Score:** 0.95 - 1.00
+
+**Examples:**
+- Academic papers with institutional signatures
+- Government documents with digital signatures
+- Press releases with verified organizational keys
+- Official API responses with authentication
+
+**Verification Requirements:**
+```python
+verified = (
+    signature_valid AND
+    issuer_in_whitelist AND
+    content_hash_matches AND
+    timestamp_valid
+)
+```
+
+**Use for:** Highest-stakes claims, legal evidence, financial data
+
+---
+
+### Level 5: Highest Reliability (Traditional)
+**Characteristics:**
+- Primary sources (original research, official documents)
+- Peer-reviewed academic publications
+- Official government/institutional data
+- Direct firsthand accounts from verified parties
+- Original documentation (contracts, records, footage)
+
+**Confidence Score:** 0.85 - 0.95
+
+**Examples:**
+- Published scientific papers in reputable journals
+- Government statistical agencies (census, BLS, WHO)
+- Official company SEC filings, press releases
+- Court documents, legal filings
+- Original research datasets
+
+**Use for:** Foundational facts, statistics, direct evidence
+
+---
+
+### Level 4: High Reliability
+**Characteristics:**
+- Authoritative secondary sources
+- Major established publications with editorial oversight
+- Recognized domain experts with verifiable credentials
+- Well-sourced investigative journalism
+- Comprehensive industry reports from established firms
+
+**Confidence Score:** 0.75 - 0.85
+
+**Examples:**
+- Major newspapers (NYT, WSJ, Guardian, Reuters, AP)
+- Academic review articles
+- Industry analysts (Gartner, McKinsey, Forrester)
+- Subject matter experts' published work
+- Technical documentation from official sources
+
+**Use for:** Analysis, expert interpretation, detailed reporting
+
+---
+
+### Level 3: Moderate Reliability
+**Characteristics:**
+- Reputable general sources
+- Industry publications and trade journals
+- Established news websites
+- Professional organization publications
+- Verified corporate communications
+
+**Confidence Score:** 0.60 - 0.75
+
+**Examples:**
+- Industry trade publications
+- Regional newspapers
+- Professional association reports
+- Established tech news sites (Ars Technica, Wired)
+- Company blogs (for product information)
+
+**Use for:** Context, industry perspective, supplementary information
+
+---
+
+### Level 2: Lower Reliability
+**Characteristics:**
+- Community-generated content with some verification
+- Personal blogs from demonstrated experts
+- User forums with reputation systems
+- Self-published but well-researched content
+- Secondary aggregation sites
+
+**Confidence Score:** 0.40 - 0.60
+
+**Examples:**
+- Stack Overflow (high-reputation answers)
+- Medium posts by verified professionals
+- Wikipedia (for general context, not citation)
+- Specialized forums (verified contributors)
+- News aggregators
+
+**Use for:** Starting points, technical troubleshooting, community consensus
+
+---
+
+### Level 1: Minimal Reliability
+**Characteristics:**
+- Unverified sources
+- Anonymous content
+- Social media posts
+- Content with clear commercial bias
+- Rumor or speculation
+
+**Confidence Score:** 0.00 - 0.40
+
+**Examples:**
+- Random social media posts
+- Anonymous forum comments
+- SEO-optimized content farms
+- Press releases (for claims about competitors)
+- Sponsored content disguised as editorial
+
+**Use for:** Leads only—never cite directly without verification
+
+---
+
+## Cryptographic Trust Multipliers
+
+When Ed25519 verification is available, apply multipliers:
+
+| Verification Status | Multiplier | Effect |
+|---------------------|------------|--------|
+| Signed + Trusted Issuer | 1.25 | Level 4 → Level 5+ |
+| Signed + Unknown Issuer | 1.10 | Slight boost |
+| Unsigned | 1.00 | No change |
+| Invalid Signature | 0.50 | Major penalty |
+| Revoked Key | 0.00 | Reject source |
+
+### Confidence Calculation Formula
+
+```python
+def calculate_confidence(source):
+    # Base reliability from level
+    base = source.level / 5.0  # 0.2 to 1.0
+    
+    # Verification multiplier
+    if source.signature_verified and source.issuer_trusted:
+        verification_mult = 1.25
+    elif source.signature_verified:
+        verification_mult = 1.10
+    elif source.signature_invalid:
+        verification_mult = 0.50
+    else:
+        verification_mult = 1.00
+    
+    # Recency factor
+    age_days = (now - source.timestamp).days
+    if age_days < 1:
+        recency = 1.00
+    elif age_days < 7:
+        recency = 0.95
+    elif age_days < 30:
+        recency = 0.85
+    elif age_days < 365:
+        recency = 0.70
+    else:
+        recency = 0.50
+    
+    # Cap at 1.0
+    return min(1.0, base * verification_mult * recency)
+```
+
+---
+
+## Source Evaluation Checklist (Enhanced)
+
+### Authority Assessment
+- [ ] Author/organization identifiable and credentialed
+- [ ] Publication has editorial standards
+- [ ] Expert credentials relevant to topic
+- [ ] Track record of accuracy
+- [ ] Institutional backing or peer review
+- [ ] **Ed25519 public key registered** (NEW)
+- [ ] **Issuer in trusted whitelist** (NEW)
+
+### Cryptographic Assessment (NEW)
+- [ ] Content signed with Ed25519
+- [ ] Signature verification passes
+- [ ] Public key retrievable from trusted source
+- [ ] Issuer domain matches claimed origin
+- [ ] No key revocation notices
+- [ ] Timestamp within acceptable range
+
+### Currency Assessment
+- [ ] Publication date clearly stated
+- [ ] Information current for topic type
+- [ ] No signs of outdated information
+- [ ] Updates/corrections noted if applicable
+- [ ] **Signature timestamp recent** (NEW)
+
+### Coverage Assessment
+- [ ] Scope appropriate to claims made
+- [ ] Evidence provided for assertions
+- [ ] Methodology explained for research
+- [ ] Limitations acknowledged
+- [ ] Multiple perspectives considered
+
+### Objectivity Assessment
+- [ ] Potential biases identified and manageable
+- [ ] Funding/sponsorship disclosed
+- [ ] Language neutral (not promotional)
+- [ ] Counterarguments addressed
+- [ ] Commercial interests declared
+
+### Accuracy Assessment
+- [ ] Facts verifiable through other sources
+- [ ] Statistics include methodology
+- [ ] Quotes attributed and checkable
+- [ ] No obvious errors detected
+- [ ] Sources cited properly
+- [ ] **Content hash matches signature** (NEW)
+
+---
+
+## Trusted Issuer Categories
+
+### Tier 1: Government & Regulatory
+**Trust Level:** Highest (auto-Level 5+)
+```yaml
+tier1_issuers:
+  - "*.gov"
+  - "*.gov.uk"
+  - "*.gov.au"
+  - "europa.eu"
+  - "who.int"
+  - "worldbank.org"
+  - "imf.org"
+```
+
+### Tier 2: Academic & Research
+**Trust Level:** Very High (Level 5)
+```yaml
+tier2_issuers:
+  - "arxiv.org"
+  - "nature.com"
+  - "science.org"
+  - "sciencedirect.com"
+  - "springer.com"
+  - "ieee.org"
+  - "acm.org"
+  - "pubmed.gov"
+  - "*.edu"
+```
+
+### Tier 3: Major News & Wire Services
+**Trust Level:** High (Level 4+)
+```yaml
+tier3_issuers:
+  - "reuters.com"
+  - "ap.org"
+  - "afp.com"
+  - "bbc.com"
+  - "nytimes.com"
+  - "wsj.com"
+  - "washingtonpost.com"
+  - "economist.com"
+  - "ft.com"
+```
+
+### Tier 4: Industry & Professional
+**Trust Level:** Moderate-High (Level 3-4)
+```yaml
+tier4_issuers:
+  - "gartner.com"
+  - "mckinsey.com"
+  - "forrester.com"
+  - "deloitte.com"
+  - "pwc.com"
+  - "kpmg.com"
+```
+
+---
+
+## Domain-Specific Evaluation (Enhanced)
+
+### Scientific/Medical Information
+**Require:** 
+- Peer-reviewed sources, established journals
+- **Ed25519 signature from institutional key**
+
+**Watch for:** 
+- Predatory journals
+- Non-replicated studies
+- Press releases overstating findings
+- **Signatures from unrecognized institutions**
+
+**Verify:** 
+- Sample sizes, methodology, conflicts of interest
+- Replication status
+- **Institutional key registry**
+
+**Minimum Requirements:**
+```
+Mode: strict (0.95)
+Sources: ≥2 Level 5+
+Signatures: Required from Tier 2 issuers
+```
+
+### Financial/Business Information
+**Require:** 
+- Official filings, audited statements
+- **SEC/regulatory body signatures where applicable**
+
+**Watch for:** 
+- Promotional content
+- Undisclosed sponsored research
+- **Forged corporate signatures**
+
+**Verify:** 
+- Numbers against multiple independent sources
+- Check for corrections
+- **Verify corporate key against official registry**
+
+### Technology Information
+**Require:** 
+- Official documentation
+- Benchmarks with methodology
+- **Signed releases from official project keys**
+
+**Watch for:** 
+- Marketing claims
+- Outdated information (rapid change)
+- **Compromised project keys**
+
+**Verify:** 
+- Version numbers
+- Test conditions
+- Community feedback
+- **Project key from official source (GitHub, website)**
+
+### Legal Information
+**Require:** 
+- Primary legal sources
+- Licensed attorney commentary
+- **Court/government signatures**
+
+**Watch for:** 
+- Jurisdiction-specific variations
+- Outdated precedents
+- **Unofficial legal advice**
+
+**Verify:** 
+- Current status of laws/cases
+- Jurisdictional applicability
+- **Government issuer keys**
+
+### Political/News Information
+**Require:** 
+- Multiple independent sources
+- Primary documentation
+- **≥3 Tier 3 issuer signatures**
+
+**Watch for:** 
+- Partisan framing
+- Selective reporting
+- Anonymous sourcing
+- **Single-source "scoops" without verification**
+
+**Verify:** 
+- Cross-reference across ideologically diverse outlets
+- **Multiple independent signatures**
+
+---
+
+## Bias Recognition Matrix (Enhanced)
+
+| Bias Type | Indicators | Mitigation | Verification Help |
+|-----------|------------|------------|-------------------|
+| Commercial | Promotes product/service, lacks criticism | Seek independent reviews | Require non-commercial issuer |
+| Political | One-sided framing, loaded language | Cross-reference opposing viewpoints | Multi-perspective signatures |
+| Confirmation | Only supports pre-existing narrative | Actively seek disconfirming evidence | Signed dissenting sources |
+| Recency | Overweights recent events | Include historical context | Check timestamp validity |
+| Survivorship | Only successful examples shown | Look for failure cases | Academic peer-review sigs |
+| Selection | Cherry-picked data/examples | Seek comprehensive datasets | Raw data signatures |
+| **Forgery** (NEW) | Claimed sources don't exist | **Verify signatures** | Ed25519 verification |
+
+---
+
+## Verification Requirements by Claim Type (Enhanced)
+
+### Hard Facts (dates, numbers, names)
+**Traditional:**
+- Minimum: 1 Level 4+ source
+- Preferred: Primary source documentation
+- Red flag: Only Level 2 or below available
+
+**With Ed25519:**
+- Minimum: 1 Level 4+ source OR 1 signed Level 3 source
+- Preferred: Signed primary source
+- Auto-accept: Level 6 (cryptographically verified)
+
+### Expert Opinions
+**Traditional:**
+- Minimum: Attributed to named, credentialed expert
+- Preferred: Multiple experts agreeing
+- Red flag: Anonymous or unverifiable credentials
+
+**With Ed25519:**
+- Minimum: Signed by expert's verified key
+- Preferred: Institutional countersignature
+- Auto-accept: Academic institution signature
+
+### Statistics
+**Traditional:**
+- Minimum: Methodology disclosed, Level 4+ source
+- Preferred: Original study/dataset accessible
+- Red flag: No methodology, round numbers without context
+
+**With Ed25519:**
+- Minimum: Signed by research institution
+- Preferred: Signed raw data + methodology
+- Required for strict mode: Institutional signature
+
+### Predictions/Forecasts
+- Label confidence explicitly
+- Note track record of forecaster
+- Present range of expert opinions
+- **Never auto-accept signed predictions as facts**
+
+### Controversial Claims
+**Traditional:**
+- Minimum: 3+ independent Level 3+ sources
+- Preferred: Primary evidence available
+- Required: Opposing viewpoints documented
+
+**With Ed25519:**
+- Minimum: 3+ independently signed sources
+- Preferred: Signed primary evidence + 2 corroborations
+- Required: Signed opposing viewpoint included
+
+---
+
+## Anti-Hallucination Verification Matrix
+
+| Claim Type | Unsigned OK? | Signature Required? | Strict Mode |
+|------------|--------------|---------------------|-------------|
+| Historical fact | Yes (Level 4+) | Preferred | Level 5+ |
+| Current event | Level 4+ only | Required | Tier 3 sig |
+| Scientific claim | Level 5+ only | Required | Tier 2 sig |
+| Financial data | No | Required | Regulatory sig |
+| Medical advice | No | Required | Institutional sig |
+| Legal statement | No | Required | Gov/court sig |
+| Expert quote | Level 4+ | Preferred | Expert key |
+| Statistics | Level 5+ | Required | Methodology sig |
+
+---
+
+## Source Rejection Criteria
+
+Automatically reject sources with:
+- Invalid Ed25519 signature
+- Revoked issuer key
+- Timestamp >1 year old for current events
+- Mismatched content hash
+- Unknown issuer in strict mode
+- Multiple failed verification attempts
+- Blacklisted domain
+
+---
+
+## Confidence Thresholds by Research Mode
+
+| Mode | Threshold | Unsigned Sources | Signature Required |
+|------|-----------|------------------|-------------------|
+| Development | 0.75 | Allowed (Level 3+) | Optional |
+| Moderate | 0.85 | Limited (Level 4+) | Preferred |
+| Strict | 0.95 | Rare (Level 5 only) | Required |
+| Paranoid | 0.99 | Never | Always (Tier 1-2) |
+
+---
+
+## Appendix: Quick Reference Card
+
+```
+┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│          SOURCE EVALUATION QUICK REFERENCE             │
+├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│ ALWAYS VERIFY:                                         │
+│   ✓ Ed25519 signature (if available)                  │
+│   ✓ Issuer against whitelist                          │
+│   ✓ Content hash integrity                            │
+│   ✓ Timestamp validity                                │
+│                                                        │
+│ CONFIDENCE FORMULA:                                    │
+│   confidence = level/5 × verification × recency        │
+│                                                        │
+│ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS:                                  │
+│   Facts: 1 signed source OR 2 Level 4+ unsigned       │
+│   Stats: Signed methodology OR Level 5+ with method   │
+│   Quotes: Signed OR Level 4+ with attribution         │
+│                                                        │
+│ RED FLAGS:                                             │
+│   ✗ Invalid/missing signature in strict mode          │
+│   ✗ Unknown issuer for sensitive claims               │
+│   ✗ Single source for controversial claims            │
+│   ✗ No methodology for statistics                     │
+│                                                        │
+│ ANTI-HALLUCINATION RULE:                              │
+│   "If you can't cite it, don't claim it"              │
+└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```