William Jeynes
20 lines
1.0 KiB
Plaintext
20 lines
1.0 KiB
Plaintext
1. Proposed trigger events rewording the initial prompt should penalised
|
|
|
|
2. Proposed trigger events should be specific enough to create resonable analysis of that specific disinformation spread
|
|
|
|
2.1. Proposed trigger events should be verifiable (general ideas of sentiment are not admissable)
|
|
|
|
2.2. Proposed trigger events events should have a genuine causal link between the event and the disinformation
|
|
|
|
2.3 Proposed trigger events should avoid speculation
|
|
|
|
3. Proposed trigger events should be time-specific. A trigger events that happened after the event is invalid
|
|
|
|
4. Proposed trigger events should not describe a story of propogation (discussions on debunk articles is invalid)
|
|
|
|
5. Proposed trigger events should be sufficiently different from one another
|
|
|
|
6. Proposed trigger events must be free from bias, and backed up by reliable evidence
|
|
|
|
Edge case handing:
|
|
In the event analysis is perfect, however contains section(s) that violate one of the above, a worst case approach should be taken and the analysis should be laballed negativley |