Danish Immigration RAG
- Current
- The public repository implements a local answer path with citations, source-state checks, signed knowledge releases, and explicit refusal behavior.
- Next
- Official-source review and independent semantic adjudication must close the recorded production-qualification gaps.
Support trace
- Claim
- Drafted
- Citation
- Missing
Source review
- Source
- Versioned
- Scope
- Narrowed
Release record
- Answer
- Qualified
- Citation
- Attached
Policy answers lose trust when polished language outruns the source passages a visitor can inspect.
A reviewer decides which sources are authoritative and when an unsupported conclusion must be qualified or refused.
Public architecture, evaluation, and governance records support the case study; the three-state visual remains an intentionally synthetic explanation.
The public corpus is fixture-based and the evaluation lacks independent semantic adjudication, so this is not a production or legal qualification.
Synthetic workflow / Danish Immigration RAG
Question enters the local guide
- Input
- A visitor asks a policy question.
- Intervention
- The guide records the question before drafting.
- Outcome
- The request has a visible evidence target.
- Limitation
- No answer is implied by the question alone.
A four-beat synthetic retrieval review keeps a question, source set, changed-source decision, and bounded answer visible as one stable artifact.
Without motion, the same demonstration reads as input, intervention, bounded outcome, and limitation: a question enters, reviewed sources attach, a changed source is held, and the answer stops at available evidence.
Synthetic demonstration — public-safe recreation, not a live immigration answer.Read the decisions behind the frame.
Why this work exists
The problem worth solving and the human judgment that frames it.
When an answer cannot outrun its sources
The trust problem begins when fluent language appears more certain than the material beneath it. This project keeps source identity, version, supporting passages, and the stopping rule close to the answer so a visitor can inspect the boundary instead of inferring it from tone.
Release authority stays with a reviewer
A person decides which sources are authoritative enough to enter the corpus, which claims require qualification or refusal, how changed material is handled, and whether the resulting evidence is safe and accurate enough to present. The retrieval layer prepares a record; it does not grant authority.
How the work was shaped
The workflow, tailoring, present capability, and next useful step.
Six handoffs behind one evidence-bounded response
Candidate material moves through source review, local ingest, retrieval, citation, evaluation, and release qualification. Each handoff leaves a small record that can be checked independently; the generated answer is never the only artifact in the workflow.
Build around source, citation, and refusal seams
The development workflow is sliced at source approval, retrieval, citation, response checking, and release qualification seams. Each slice can be reviewed independently, while the content contract fails closed until evidence provenance, limitation language, and disclosure status are present.
A local assistant with its evidence trail attached
The public project implements a loopback-only web assistant, hybrid local retrieval, local generation, citations, source freshness, refusal behavior, signed knowledge-release verification, and rollback. Its machine evaluation completed all 20 surfaces, while deliberately withholding strict qualification where human semantic judgment is missing.
Close the human qualification gaps
The next milestone is a production-candidate release built from archived official pages and named human review records, followed by independent adjudication of required facts, forbidden claims, privacy requirements, citation relationships, and unsupported-claim rate.
What the evidence supports
The demonstration worth inspecting and the boundary it cannot cross.
Public records behind the synthetic explanation
The linked repository, architecture, evaluation quality bar, and source-governance record are the factual evidence for this case study. The browser-native sequence remains synthetic by design: it explains an unsupported draft, a source-review decision, and a bounded response without presenting itself as a live immigration answer.
What this dossier deliberately refuses to claim
The assistant is not legal advice and does not decide eligibility. The public source registry says its bundled documents are project-authored fixtures rather than reviewed official snapshots, and five release-blocking semantic metrics remain not evaluable without an independent reviewer. Passing machine checks therefore does not establish production qualification.
Named human decisions
- Choose what can enter the corpus
A human reviewer decides which source material is authoritative, current enough, and safe to expose in a public case study.
Why: Retrieval quality cannot repair a source that is out of scope, private, stale, or presented without the context needed to interpret it.
- Keep unsupported answers bounded
A human reviewer defines when the system must qualify, refuse, or point back to the source instead of filling an evidence gap.
Why: A confident answer is not evidence of eligibility, legal advice, or current policy, so the boundary must remain visible in the release decision.
- Qualify the release claim
A human reviewer decides whether the available validation supports a public explanation and names the limitations that remain.
Why: Schema completeness and passing checks make the dossier inspectable; they do not authorize factual or publication approval.
Validation provenance / status
- Public evaluation report / 2026-07-14
Result: All 20 evaluation surfaces completed with zero execution errors; citation coverage, answer behavior, trust indicators, and six automated workflows passed their recorded checks.
Provenance: Public evaluation quality bar and its linked machine-readable report in the project repository.
Material limitations: Five release-blocking semantic metrics remain not evaluable because independent human adjudication is absent; strict release qualification is false.
- Source registry production qualification
Result: The repository implements explicit source states, signed manifests, integrity checks, user-approved installation, and atomic rollback boundaries.
Provenance: Public source-governance document and repository implementation at the reviewed main commit.
Material limitations: The bundled corpus contains project-authored fixtures; official snapshots and named human source-review records are still required for production qualification.
Reviewed links
four public project records reviewed for portfolio use
Bounded proof: This project does not provide legal advice or eligibility decisions. Its public repository proves a local application and governance machinery, but the bundled knowledge release is fixture-based, five semantic metrics lack independent adjudication, and the work is not production-qualified.
