Human Review Design Framework

A paired public prototype: A is the working tool; B turns the same question into a film, motion argument and interactive web experience.

Determine whether a human reviewer can actually change or stop an AI-assisted decision.

RN conceived the question, structured the research and evidence boundaries, designed the information and interaction, implemented the prototype and documented its limits.

The generated protocol is a design aid, not a substitute for legal, clinical, safety, or domain-specific review requirements.

Build 001 asks when is a human actually a control? That question came first and the artifact second, which is the order everything on this page follows. Each section below is either an attempt at the question or a statement of where the attempt stops, and the two are kept visibly apart so you can weigh them separately.

A and B are two routes into one question rather than a product and its trailer. Open A when you would rather reach your own judgement by operating something and seeing what it returns on your own input. Open B when you would rather understand why the question takes this shape before you touch a control. The two cards below describe each side in its own words, and most people get more out of the pair than either half alone, in whichever order suits them.

This is build 001 of one hundred, in phase 01, and it is built to be inherited. What it hands to later builds is concrete rather than thematic: cap:001. That is what makes the sequence compound instead of repeat, and it is why the lineage view is worth reading alongside any single build.

Every claim on this page is meant to be inspectable rather than taken on trust. The public record sets out what changed, what another person can reuse, what supports the system and what the build is not entitled to claim, and the archive retains the research, rejected approaches and technical decisions behind it. A status on this page saying a review is still open is a factual report on the state of that evidence record, and it stays visible until the review closes.

Reading one build in isolation gives you the artifact; reading it in sequence gives you the argument. The gallery lets you enter at any number, and the archive holds the syllabus, feasibility audit and release standard that govern the whole programme. If this build interests you, the neighbouring numbers are usually the fastest way to see the reasoning that led into it and the capability it hands forward.