ActsETL Phase 6 Reviewer Wireframes

1. Explore Acts

Finding-centric exploration of the transformed corpus. Findings and processing outcomes remain the primary discovery lens, while reviewers can also filter or navigate across every transformed Act, including Acts with no current findings.

ActsETL Review

Explore ActsInvestigate ProvisionReview Problem

A. Reviewer

Transformed corpus · Run 418

Explore evidence

18 Acts · 127 current findings · 2 processing failures · 3 Acts with no current findings

Finding-centric, not finding-only. Machine findings and groups organise discovery, but all transformed Acts remain reachable for reviewer-led exploration.

Findings & processing outcomesAll transformed Acts

Search behaviour is deliberately not specified yet: searchable fields, matching semantics, result scope and relationship to direct provision navigation remain to be clarified.

Status	Act / location	Machine evidence	Review	Current problem associations
New	Finance Act 2025 (34) `sec_10__subsec_1__para_a` eISB s.10 ↗	Schematron · missing required eId Mechanical group: same rule · 14 occurrences	Unreviewed	—
Persisting	Example Act 2022 (12) `sec_4__mod_1__para_a` eISB s.4 ↗	Reference validator · invalid target	Reviewed	PR-17 Quoted amendment target lost
Gone	Example Act 2024 (8) `sec_7__subsec_2` eISB s.7 ↗	Previously: hierarchy mismatch	Reviewed	PR-09 Modification hierarchy flattened
Failed	Example Act 1995 (3) No provision location	Transformation stopped before normal validation	—	—

Corpus expansion

Add Acts

Acts or years

Compact entry may accept Act number/year tokens, whole years and year ranges. Exact parsing, validation and confirmation behaviour for year/year-range expansion should be confirmed before implementation.

2. Investigate Provision

The central workspace: compare one provision-level source/output occurrence, retain the route into it, and expand only into local section or modification hierarchy when needed.

ActsETL Review

Explore ActsInvestigate ProvisionReview Problem

A. Reviewer

Finance Act 2025 (34) · sec_10__subsec_1__para_a · Run 418 · eISB s.10 ↗From: Explore Acts · New findings · result 3 of 27

Current occurrence

sec_10__subsec_1__para_a

Review state: Unreviewed · No current reviewer problem association

Source provision · eISB-derived presentation

10. (1) Example provision text.

(a) Selected source material.

“Quoted amendment material.”

Traced correspondence shown where available; exact 1:n / n:1 presentation remains deferred.

Generated Akoma Ntoso · normalized presentation

10. (1) Example provision text.

(a) Selected generated material.

“Quoted amendment material.”

Acceptable transformation

Source-caused issue

New problem identified

Existing problem

Reviewer observation only

AI-assisted exploration

Suggested comparisons

Possible counterexample · confidence 78%

Example Act 2019 (9) · sec_12__subsec_3 — similar quoted amendment text but different modification nesting.

Confidence and usefulness remain distinct; usefulness-ranking mechanics are not specified.

Create reviewer problem

Short problem namePlain-language description

Current occurrence is automatically included as the originating supporting occurrence.

3. Review Problem

Manage a reviewer-defined problem, accumulated evidence and remediation lifecycle. Identified → Backlogged is the Phase 7 handoff.

ActsETL Review

Explore ActsInvestigate ProvisionReview Problem

A. Reviewer

Reviewer problem PR-17

Quoted amendment target lost

Quoted amendment content is retained, but generated structure loses the target relationship.

Remediation priority

Lifecycle status

Identified→Backlogged · Phase 7 handoff→Ready for recheck→VerifiedRetired

Supporting occurrences

Examples and evidence

Occurrence	Evidence	Review state
Finance Act 2025 (34) `sec_10__subsec_1__para_a` eISB s.10 ↗	Schematron finding + observation	Reviewed
Example Act 2022 (12) `sec_4__mod_1__para_a` eISB s.4 ↗	Reviewer-discovered · no validator finding	Reviewed

Reviewer observations

Observed when quoted material is nested inside a modification block.

Recheck

Previous recheck failed. Run 401 still reproduced the problem.

AI-assisted exploration

Corroborating example · confidence 86%

Example Act 2020 (21) · sec_5 has closely matching source structure.

Possible counterexample · confidence 69%

Example Act 2023 (7) · sec_11 appears to preserve the target.

Recent review history

10 Aug · S. Reviewer created problem.

11 Aug · Recheck failed on Run 401; returned to Backlogged.

Problem maintenance