| name | fact-checking |
| description | Use when working on claim verification in graph-protokoll: detecting checkable statements, assigning verdicts (bestätigt/teilweise/irreführend/falsch/unbelegt), attaching sources, the evidence corpus, or the "every fact-check has a source" invariant. Trigger on pipeline/factcheck.py, data/evidence/evidenz.json, Aussage/Verdikt/Quelle/Evidenz tasks. |
Fact-checking (Aussage → Verdikt + Quelle + Audio-Beleg)
The project's distinctive feature: quantitative claims in speeches are checked against an
official evidence corpus, and each verdict always carries a source plus the audio
timestamp of the original statement.
How it works
extract (Aussage) → factcheck → Faktencheck{verdikt, begründung, quelle} → graph: GEPRUEFT_ALS → BELEGT_MIT
- Demopfad
factcheck_rule_based(aussagen, evidenz_path): deterministic keyword-overlap
match against data/evidence/evidenz.json (≥0.6 → that verdict; else unbelegt).
- Produktivpfad
factcheck_with_retrieval (contract only, raises NotImplementedError):
dense retrieval over an official corpus (Destatis, Bundesregierung answers, Drucksachen via
DIP-API) + an NLI-style LLM verifier (entailment/contradiction) with citation duty.
- Claims come from
extract._is_checkable (a quantifiable figure present, and not a
promise like "wird … vorlegen" — those become Aufgabes, not facts).
The invariant — do not break it
assert all(fc.quelle for fc in results), "Faktencheck ohne Quelle — verletzt Grundsatz."
- Every
FactCheck has a quelle. Even unbelegt references the corpus it was checked
against, with stand: "not provable against source X up to date Y" — not "not checked".
Never produce a verdict without a source; never let the assert weaken.
unbelegt ≠ falsch. Missing evidence is reported as missing, never as refutation.- Verdict scale is fixed (
VERDIKTE): bestätigt · teilweise · irreführend · falsch · unbelegt. Don't add verdicts without updating VERDIKTE, the accessible._VERDIKT_WORT
verbalization, the web frontend .fc styles, and the Neo4j few-shot examples.
Boundaries (keep these honest)
Opinions are not checked (only quantifiable factual claims); a verdict is a sourced
suggestion, not a ruling — always Mensch-im-Loop with a Widerspruchspfad; evidence carries a
stand so stale belege are flagged. The demo evidence (data/evidence/evidenz.json) is
fictional — never add real statistics or real sources to it.
Hard policy — no verdicts on real people. The rule-based checker against the fictional
corpus is not a reliable fact-checker (it produced a spurious falsch on a real MdB when run
on a real protocol). Real sessions are ingested with --no-factcheck — never auto-publish
Faktencheck/Quelle/GEPRUEFT_ALS verdicts on real, named persons (Persönlichkeitsrecht).
Real fact-checking needs a real evidence corpus + LLM-NLI verifier + human review. The
fact-check mechanism is demonstrated only on the fictional bundestag scenario. See
[[bundestag-ingestion]] and docs/spark-und-echtdaten.md Teil D.
Verify
python3 run_demo.py --scenario bundestag (prints the fact-check block); the assert runs on
every build. Background: docs/bundestag-protokollierung-analyse.md §4.
