Narrator Reliability Desk
Paste a narrative passage and Jev routes it to a point-of-view concern, then scores reliability signals and checks whether the passage contains a contradiction in the narrator’s account.
The kernel.
Writers paste in what arrives for Narrative point of view and Jev picks exactly one option from a fixed list, with the odds for every option shown — unclear cases get a "needs review" badge.
Why this primitiveA fixed POV taxonomy helps editors locate viewpoint risks and assess them consistently without interpreting the passage in prose.
Required key.
Add this in your Lovable project under Settings → Secrets before pasting the prompt below.
The build prompt.
Paste into a fresh Lovable project. Make sure the key above is set first. read the build strategy →
Build "Narrator Reliability 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
Paste a narrative passage and Jev routes it to a point-of-view concern, then scores reliability signals and checks whether the passage contains a contradiction in the narrator’s account.
Discipline: Writing, Poetry & Narrative (Narrative point of view).
Jev pattern: Choice Router (pick one of a set) — a Jev `choice` question that routes each incoming item to one handler/category from a fixed option map, plus branch-specific questions asked in the same request.
Why typed decisions: A fixed POV taxonomy helps editors locate viewpoint risks and assess them consistently without interpreting the passage in 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": <Passage, intended viewpoint, and narrator profile>, "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)
{
"pov_concern": {
"type": "choice",
"instructions": "Route this passage to its primary point-of-view concern.",
"criteria": {
"head_hop": "Access shifts between minds without clear control",
"distance_shift": "Narrative distance changes unexpectedly",
"knowledge_limit": "The narrator knows information they should not know",
"reliability": "The account may be distorted or self-contradictory"
}
},
"reliability_signal": {
"type": "score",
"instructions": "For the selected concern, how strong is the evidence of a viewpoint issue?",
"criteria": [
"No clear signal",
"A weak or ambiguous signal",
"A noticeable signal",
"An unmistakable viewpoint issue"
]
},
"account_contradiction": {
"type": "noul",
"instructions": "For the selected concern, does the narrator contradict their own account within the passage?",
"criteria": {
"true": "The passage contains a direct or consequential contradiction",
"false": "The passage contains no clear contradiction"
}
}
}
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 paste box that shows the chosen option, the full probability bar chart, and a 'needs review' badge when confidence is low. 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.
Indicative figures for hackathon pitches — refine with your own research before raising.