Ethics Review Queue
Paste image descriptions, sourcing notes, and editorial standards to rank frames by consent sensitivity, context risk, and public-interest value for human review.
Score Ranker· graded ranking
Section · Jev
full primer →The kernel.
Jev rates every option for Visual journalism ethics on a few named qualities; photographers move sliders to decide what matters and the ranking updates instantly.
Why this primitiveTyped risk and value scores create a transparent review queue without automating ethical approval.
Kernel
comparable Jev `score` questions per candidate on 3-4 named dimensions, normalised with score/(levels-1) and combined with user-controlled weights in code
Drives the UI as
a ranked list with weight sliders that re-rank instantly without calling Jev again
Required key.
TYPESAFE_API_KEY
Your TypeSafe key. The mega-prompt asks for it with a secure form and keeps it on the server. Jev returns typed decisions: choice, noul (yes/no probability) and score.
open ↗Add this in your Lovable project under Settings → Secrets before pasting the prompt below.
Appendix · Mega-prompt
The build prompt.
budget · 1 message
Paste into a fresh Lovable project. Make sure the key above is set first. read the build strategy →
Build "Ethics Review Queue" as a ONE-SHOT Lovable build (~5 credits, no follow-ups).
Single-page TanStack Start app, one route, cut scope ruthlessly.
THIS PROMPT IS SELF-CONTAINED
Do not assume the participant knows Jev or has read any other page. TypeSafe Jev is a decision model,
not a text generator. It receives `state` plus a map of typed `questions` and returns JSON that code can
use directly. Use Choice to select exactly one defined option, Noul for a yes/no probability from 0 to 1,
and Score for a probability-weighted position across ordered levels. Keep rules, thresholds, arithmetic,
and actions in code. Use a generative model only if the product separately needs prose.
CONCEPT
Paste image descriptions, sourcing notes, and editorial standards to rank frames by consent sensitivity, context risk, and public-interest value for human review.
Discipline: Photography (Visual journalism ethics).
Jev pattern: Score Ranker (graded ranking) — comparable Jev `score` questions per candidate on 3-4 named dimensions, normalised with score/(levels-1) and combined with user-controlled weights in code.
Why typed decisions: Typed risk and value scores create a transparent review queue without automating ethical approval.
ENGINE: TypeSafe Jev (typed decisions, not text)
- Before writing code, ask the participant for `TYPESAFE_API_KEY` with Lovable's secure secret form. Never
ask them to paste it into chat, never prefix it with `VITE_`, and never expose it to browser code.
- Put the callable server function in `src/lib/jev.functions.ts`; do not import a server-only module from UI code.
- Validate the user's input before the handler and read `process.env['TYPESAFE_API_KEY']` inside the handler.
- From the server, call:
POST https://api.typesafe.ai/v1/systemone
Authorization: Bearer <TYPESAFE_API_KEY>, Content-Type: application/json
body: { "model": "jev-latest", "state": <Frame notes, sourcing details, and newsroom standards>, "questions": QUESTIONS }
- Ask all questions in ONE request (they run in parallel and cannot see each other).
- Read Choice from `answers[id].choice`, `.probabilities`, and `.confidence`; Score from `.score`,
`.probabilities`, `.legend`, and `.confidence`; Noul from `.noul` only (it has no separate confidence).
SERVER IMPLEMENTATION (adapt the input name and result mapping to this concept)
```ts
import { createServerFn } from "@tanstack/react-start";
import { z } from "zod";
const Input = z.object({ text: z.string().trim().min(1).max(20000) });
export const decide = createServerFn({ method: "POST" })
.inputValidator((input: unknown) => Input.parse(input))
.handler(async ({ data }) => {
const apiKey = process.env['TYPESAFE_API_KEY'];
if (!apiKey) return { ok: false as const, status: 500, message: "TYPESAFE_API_KEY is not configured." };
const requestBody = {
model: "jev-latest",
state: { text: data.text },
questions: QUESTIONS,
};
let response: Response | undefined;
for (let attempt = 0; attempt < 3; attempt += 1) {
response = await fetch("https://api.typesafe.ai/v1/systemone", {
method: "POST",
headers: { Authorization: `Bearer ${apiKey}`, "Content-Type": "application/json" },
body: JSON.stringify(requestBody),
});
if (response.ok || (response.status !== 429 && response.status < 500)) break;
if (attempt < 2) await new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(resolve, 750 * 2 ** attempt));
}
if (!response) return { ok: false as const, status: 503, message: "Jev did not respond." };
if (!response.ok) {
const message = (await response.text()).slice(0, 500) || `Jev request failed (${response.status}).`;
return { ok: false as const, status: response.status, message };
}
const result = await response.json();
return { ok: true as const, answers: result.answers };
});
```
In the page component, call `decide` with `useServerFn`, preserve the participant's input while loading or
on error, disable duplicate submissions, and render the returned typed values rather than parsing prose.
QUESTIONS (start here, refine wording if needed)
{
"consent_sensitivity": {
"type": "score",
"instructions": "Score each frame's sensitivity around consent and subject vulnerability.",
"criteria": [
"1: Low apparent sensitivity",
"2: Some sensitivity to consider",
"3: Significant consent concerns",
"4: Acute vulnerability requiring careful review"
]
},
"context_risk": {
"type": "score",
"instructions": "Score the risk that each frame could mislead without additional context.",
"criteria": [
"1: Low risk of misinterpretation",
"2: Some context would help",
"3: Easily misunderstood out of context",
"4: High risk of serious misrepresentation"
]
},
"public_interest": {
"type": "score",
"instructions": "Score each frame's contribution to the stated public interest.",
"criteria": [
"1: Little public-interest value",
"2: Limited relevance",
"3: Meaningful public value",
"4: Essential evidence of a matter of public concern"
]
}
}
DECISION RULES (in code, not in the model)
- choice/score: if confidence < 0.6 show a "needs review" badge instead of acting.
- noul: >= 0.75 = yes, <= 0.25 = no, otherwise "review".
- score: normalise with score / (levels - 1) before combining with weights.
- Missing or malformed answers go to review. Show safe HTTP status and message in the UI. Retry only 429/5xx,
at most twice with increasing delay; never retry 400/401/402/403/404 and never invent results.
- If the product needs prose (a summary, a message), use Lovable AI for that text only; Jev makes the decisions.
UI
a ranked list with weight sliders that re-rank instantly without calling Jev again. Include 2 sample inputs as one-click chips so the demo works instantly.
Tailwind + shadcn, editorial look, footer: "Built during the Creative AI & Quantum Hackathon organised by StreetKode Fam during Indian Krump Festival 14".
NO database, NO auth, NO extra pages, NO tests.
BEFORE YOU FINISH
- Run the app and test both sample inputs through the real server function.
- Confirm the browser receives no API key and no fabricated fallback result.
- Confirm Choice/Score confidence and Noul probability drive the stated review rules.
- Confirm loading, success, review, empty-input, and service-error states are readable on mobile.
Reference only if needed: https://docs.typesafe.ai/api and https://docs.typesafe.ai/primitives
Market sizing.
TAM
$4B global photo software
SAM
$200M newsroom standards tools
SOM
$4M editorial organizations
Indicative figures for hackathon pitches — refine with your own research before raising.
Adjacent entries.
Portfolio editing
Portfolio Sequence Studio
Paste a portfolio’s image notes and rank each frame by visual impact, thematic fit, and sequence value using adjustable weights.
PhotojournalismDeadline Select Desk
Paste assignment requirements and candidate frame descriptions to rank selects by story relevance, news value, and evidentiary clarity with adjustable weights.
Event photographyContact Sheet Cull
Paste burst metadata and brief image descriptions to rank near-duplicate frames by expression, sharpness, and composition using your own weights.
Editorial captioningCaption Match Sorter
Paste candidate captions alongside image facts to rank each caption by factual support, subject identification, and relevance without generating replacements.