INDUSTRY FIELD GUIDE
Human rights organization evidence classification for AI
A human rights group may separate a reported concern, corroborating material and language approved for publication.
NAICS 813311 · Human Rights Organizations
A human rights group may separate a reported concern, corroborating material and language approved for publication. The UN human-rights monitoring manual describes principles for handling sensitive information. A fabricated scenario can test cautious attribution while keeping real casework outside the sample. OHCHR basic principles of human rights monitoring
Write an invented report about denial of access to a fictional meeting. Add one corroborating document about timing and another that leaves motive unresolved. Ask the model to label each claim and cite the relevant document. Give reviewers a separate scoring key for attribution, uncertainty and approved publication wording.
Keep survivor, witness, activist and case information out. Do not record actual interviews for this exercise. Use original text and invented situations.
Describe a fictional evidence classification sample
Original Fiund exercise
A corroborated time does not establish the motive behind a reported concern
An original scenario describes denied access to a fictional public meeting. It contains no real survivor, witness, activist, organization or casework.
| Record | Source | What it records |
|---|---|---|
| HR1 | Invented concern report | Alias A says entry was denied at 10:05 and alleges motive M. No independent motive evidence supplied. |
| HR2 | Original corroborating log | Confirms the mock entry desk closed at 10:00. It neither identifies A nor states a motive. |
| HR3 | Approved practice wording | Publication reviewer permits the statement: a reported denial occurred after the logged closing time; motive remains unverified. No broader allegation cleared. |
Question for the model
Which timing claim has corroborating context, and what would overstate the identity, motive or approved publication evidence?
Show the reference answer and checks
HR2 corroborates the desk's recorded 10:00 closing time, which is consistent with HR1's reported later 10:05 denial but does not independently identify A or prove motive M. HR3 supplies narrowly approved wording that retains those limits. Distinguish a report, corroborating context and verified motive rather than presenting the allegation as established or expanding the approved statement beyond its source.
- Treating evidence of closing time as proof of an alleged motive.
- Converting a reported concern or approved cautious summary into an independently verified identity claim.
Fields to preserve
- Claim and source type
- Separates allegation from corroborating context.
- Time and identity coverage
- Shows exactly what the log establishes.
- Approved wording and uncertainty
- Preserves publication limits without inventing motive.
Test another case
Add a contradictory timing record with uncertain origin. Require the model to surface the conflict and provenance gap rather than resolve it from narrative preference.
Use invented original text only. Exclude actual interviews, survivors, witnesses, activists and sensitive case information.
Discuss a contribution
Describe the sources you control, the task they could support and what has already been checked. Use the existing-data assessment for an archive or the collection brief for a new recording project. The contributor agreement defines Fiund’s licensing authority and compensation. A guide or fictional exercise does not establish an accepted collection or a sale.