Phase 6 Reviewer Wireframes — Workbench + Notebook Alternative

Explore Acts = discovery grid · Investigate Provision = compact comparison workbench + resizable notebook below · Review Problem = structured case record + retained investigation thread

Workspace 1

Explore Acts — discovery grid

Finding-centric triage with explicit routes to all transformed Acts. Notebook interaction remains intentionally absent from this workspace.

ActsETL Review
A. Reviewer
Transformed corpus · Run 418

Explore evidence

18 Acts · 127 current findings · 2 processing failures · 3 Acts with no current findings
Findings & processingAll transformed Acts
StatusAct / locationMachine evidenceReviewProblems
NewFinance Act 2025 (34)
sec_10__subsec_1__para_a
eISB s.10 ↗
Schematron · missing required eId
same rule · 14 occurrences
Unreviewed
PersistingExample Act 2022 (12)
sec_4__mod_1__para_a
Reference validator · invalid targetReviewedPR-17
Workspace 2

Investigate Provision — compact comparison + resizable notebook

The upper workbench is deliberately compact because most provision comparisons are expected to be short. The notebook spans the full lower workspace and can grow as the investigation becomes more exploratory.

ActsETL Review
A. Reviewer
Finance Act 2025 (34) · sec_10__subsec_1__para_a · Run 418
Source provisioneISB-derived

10. (1) The Minister may prescribe...

(a) such matters as may be necessary...

“A person who contravenes this provision commits an offence.”

Generated Akoma NtosoRun 418

10. (1) The Minister may prescribe...

(a) such matters as may be necessary...

“A person who contravenes this provision commits an offence.”

Investigation notebook

Working investigation thread

Working material is not a reviewer conclusion or problem association unless explicitly promoted.
Working note
14:21 · A. Reviewer
Observation

Quoted material is retained, but the target relationship appears absent in generated AKN.

Comparison
14:27
Act X · s.12

Similar quoted amendment text, flatter modification hierarchy; target is preserved.

AI suggestion · confidence 81%
14:29
Possible corroborating example

Act Y · s.8 has similar nesting and the same apparent relationship loss.

Working hypothesis
14:34 · A. Reviewer
Scope may depend on modification nesting

Failure may occur when quoted material is nested inside a modification hierarchy, rather than with quotations generally.

Workspace 3

Review Problem — structured case record + retained investigation thread

The problem record remains authoritative. Selected notebook material can become durable observations, supporting occurrences or problem-description evidence, while exploratory working notes remain distinguishable.

ActsETL Review
A. Reviewer
Reviewer problem PR-17

Quoted amendment target lost

Quoted amendment content is retained, but the generated structure loses the target relationship needed to represent the modification correctly.

IdentifiedBacklogged · Phase 7 handoffReady for recheckVerifiedRetired
Supporting occurrences
OccurrenceEvidenceReview
Finance Act 2025 (34) · s.10(1)(a)Machine finding + reviewer observationReviewed
Example Act 2022 (12) · s.4Reviewer-discovered · no validator findingReviewed
Problem evidence

Durable observation

Observed when quoted material is nested inside a modification block; plain quotations outside modification structure appear unaffected.

Retained investigation thread
DurableOriginating occurrenceFinance Act 2025 (34) · s.10(1)(a)
DurableObservation promoted from notebookQuoted target relationship absent in generated AKN.
Working context retainedComparison that narrowed the hypothesisAct X · s.12 preserved the target under a flatter modification hierarchy.
DurableProblem definition clarifiedScope narrowed to nested modification structure.
Explore Acts subordinate flow

Add Acts — catalogue selection and confirmation

ActsETL Review
A. Reviewer
1 Select2 Confirm3 Process

Select Acts to add

YearAct no.Act name/title
202418Finance (No. 2) Act 2024
202412Finance Act 2024
202339Finance (No. 2) Act 2023
2 selected