Continuity Evidence Desk
Writers paste a screenplay excerpt and continuity notes, and Jev decides whether each character, prop, and timeline claim is supported by the notes or should be sent for human review.
Verify & Escalate· check then hand off
Section · Jev
full primer →The kernel.
Jev checks each claim about Screenplay continuity against its evidence; anything unclear goes to a person, so writers never act on a guess.
Why this primitiveTyped support checks and review flags catch continuity risks without inventing replacement prose.
Kernel
a Jev `noul` checks each claim/field against its evidence; low or mid probabilities are escalated to a human review queue instead of auto-acting
Drives the UI as
claim cards marked supported / unsupported / needs review, with a review queue column
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 "Continuity Evidence Desk" 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
Writers paste a screenplay excerpt and continuity notes, and Jev decides whether each character, prop, and timeline claim is supported by the notes or should be sent for human review.
Discipline: Writing, Poetry & Narrative (Screenplay continuity).
Jev pattern: Verify & Escalate (check then hand off) — a Jev `noul` checks each claim/field against its evidence; low or mid probabilities are escalated to a human review queue instead of auto-acting.
Why typed decisions: Typed support checks and review flags catch continuity risks without inventing replacement prose.
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": <Script excerpt and continuity notes>, "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)
{
"claim_supported": {
"type": "noul",
"instructions": "Is each continuity claim supported by the supplied notes?",
"criteria": {
"true": "The notes directly support the claim.",
"false": "The notes conflict with, or do not establish, the claim."
}
},
"issue_type": {
"type": "choice",
"instructions": "What best describes the most consequential issue?",
"criteria": {
"timeline": "Event order or elapsed time conflicts.",
"character": "A character's presence, knowledge, or state conflicts.",
"prop": "A prop's location or condition conflicts.",
"none": "No material conflict is evident."
}
},
"impact": {
"type": "score",
"instructions": "Grade the impact if the claim is wrong.",
"criteria": [
"1: Cosmetic detail only",
"2: Minor scene confusion",
"3: Plot or character comprehension affected",
"4: Major story logic broken"
]
}
}
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
claim cards marked supported / unsupported / needs review, with a review queue column. 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
$1.2B
SAM
$180M
SOM
$9M
Indicative figures for hackathon pitches — refine with your own research before raising.
Adjacent entries.
Literary nonfiction
Citation Lineage Check
Authors paste a passage alongside source excerpts and citations, and Jev decides whether each factual claim is evidenced, correctly attributed, or needs human verification.
Poetry craftPoem Form Auditor
Poets paste a poem and its declared form rules, and Jev decides whether each line-level constraint is met or routed for human review.
Publishing contractsRights Clause Sorter
Authors paste a rights clause and their deal checklist, and Jev decides whether each requested right is present, excluded, or ambiguous enough for legal review.
Character dialogueDialogue Voice Ledger
Screenwriters paste dialogue samples tagged by character and a voice bible, and Jev decides whether each attributed line matches that character's documented speech traits.