> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://invoca-5bd45748-mintlify-17ed87db.mintlify.site/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
# Verification
> Letting a user jump from a specific claim in AI-generated output straight to the call data that claim is based on, instead of asking them to trust it.
**Exemplar page — first pass, entirely proposal.** No Invoca product ships this pattern
yet. Nothing below is code fact or measured behavior — it is a proposal for review. See
[Coverage, stated honestly](/invoca-design-system/ai-experience/overview#coverage-stated-honestly).
## What it is
Signal AI's shipped transcript summary (`GET /call/transcript_analysis/`,
`transcript_summary`) already turns a call recording into prose a manager reads instead of
listening to the call. Prose like "the caller asked about pricing three times and mentioned a
competitor by name" is convenient exactly because it saves the manager from listening to the
whole call — and exactly that convenience is what makes a wrong claim expensive: nothing about
reading it invites the manager to go check.
Verification attaches a citation to a specific, checkable claim in that output — a timestamp, a
transcript line, a call ID — so the manager can jump straight to the passage the claim is based
on with one click, instead of either blindly trusting the summary or re-listening to the entire
call to spot-check it. The citation is not a decoration; it is the mechanism that makes "trust
but verify" cheap enough that people actually do the second half.
This is the natural partner to a summarization or search feature built on Signal AI: any time
the output makes a specific claim about what happened on a call, the claim should carry a way
to check it against the source. Not every claim can carry one — see the boundary with Caveat
below — but every claim that *can* should.
## Choose this when / choose something else when
| Situation | Do this instead | Why |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| The claim is a broad, qualitative read with no discrete source passage ("the caller seemed frustrated") | [Caveat](/invoca-design-system/ai-experience/trust-builders/caveat) | Hedging the claim in words is honest; a citation link pointing at nothing specific is worse than no link |
| The user lacks permission to view the underlying transcript or recording | Name the source in text with no link | A citation that resolves to a permissions error teaches users that citations are decorative |
| The claim is trivial and its source is already visible on the same screen | [Tooltip](/invoca-design-system/components/containment/tooltip) | Full navigation is unnecessary friction when the source is already in view |
| The system took an action rather than made a statement about existing data | [Stream of thought](/invoca-design-system/ai-experience/governors/stream-of-thought), or an audit log | Verification checks a claim about data that already exists; an action needs a record of what happened, not a citation |
## Agency tier
**Suggests.** Verification composes with output the user still has to weigh and act on; it is a
way to check a claim before trusting it, not an action of its own.
The tier to watch here is not this pattern's own — it's whatever surface a verified citation
feeds. If a citation's presence ever becomes the sole justification for an unsupervised action
(for example, auto-flagging a call as fraudulent because a citation happened to exist), that
action has escalated to Acts-unsupervised without anyone deciding it, and a citation a human
never actually opened is not the review that tier requires. See
[Agency tier](/invoca-design-system/ai-experience/overview#agency-tier).
## Anatomy
```
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Call summary │
│ │
│ Caller asked about pricing three times¹ │
│ and mentioned a competitor by name². │
│ │
│ ¹ 0:42, 3:15, 6:02 [ View in transcript ] │
│ ² 4:58 [ View in transcript ] │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
| Part | Role |
| --------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| [Card](/invoca-design-system/components/data-display/card) | Container for the summary |
| Inline citation marker | Superscript numeral attached to one discrete claim |
| Citation list | Maps each marker to its timestamp(s) or transcript line(s) |
| [Link](/invoca-design-system/components/actions/link) | Navigates to the exact cited position — never a Button, since it resolves to a URL |
| [Tooltip](/invoca-design-system/components/containment/tooltip) | Optional hover preview of the cited excerpt before navigating |
## Outcome states
| State | Treatment |
| ------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Working | No citations exist yet; the summary area shows [Skeleton](/invoca-design-system/components/feedback/skeleton), not a claim with a citation pending |
| Streaming/partial | Citations attach per completed claim as the summary streams in; a claim rendered without its citation attached yet reads visually as unfinished, not as a bare, unverifiable assertion |
| Confident and right | The easy case — the citation, once opened, supports the claim exactly as stated |
| Confident and wrong | **The primary case, and the hardest one for this pattern specifically.** A claim can be stated confidently and carry a citation that looks legitimate while pointing at the wrong timestamp, the wrong call, or a passage that says something different. Nothing in the interface distinguishes a correct citation from an incorrect one without the user actually opening it — that is a named limitation of this pattern, not an oversight. The design response is to make opening a citation as close to zero-friction as possible (one click, deep-linked to the exact position, no separate page load), because the pattern's entire defense depends on people actually doing that |
| Uncertain | If the system cannot attach a confident citation to a specific claim, the claim is dropped or rewritten as a hedge via [Caveat](/invoca-design-system/ai-experience/trust-builders/caveat) — never given an approximate or invented citation |
| Refused | The summary states which claims could not be verified and omits them, rather than presenting an uncited claim with the same visual weight as a cited one |
| Empty | No claims worth citing — the summary says so ("nothing notable in this call") rather than showing a citation list with no citations beside a confident-sounding summary |
| Interrupted | If generation is canceled mid-stream, already-attached citations stay valid and clickable; claims left without their citation are removed rather than shown dangling |
| Degraded | If source linking falls back to a lower-fidelity source (transcript text only, no audio playback), that is stated next to the link ("View transcript text — recording unavailable"), not discovered only after clicking |
| Rate-limited/over budget | Not applicable to this pattern directly. Verification is a display and navigation behavior on already-generated output, not a metered operation itself; a source-fetch throttle, if one exists, is a technical concern outside what this page documents |
| Stale | Applicable. A cited source can change after the citation was generated — a transcript correction, a redaction. If the source has changed since the citation was made, that is flagged; the link is never shown as current when it might not be |
Disclosure & recourse
1. **Does the user know this is AI?** Yes — the citation markers are themselves part of the
disclosure, visible inline with the claim they support, not confined to a settings toggle.
2. **What did it use?** Exactly what the citation shows — the specific timestamp or transcript
excerpt the claim is grounded in.
3. **How sure is it?** This pattern substitutes a check for a score: instead of a confidence
number, the user can verify the claim directly. A claim that cannot carry a citation is the
signal to distrust it more — see the boundary with [Caveat](/invoca-design-system/ai-experience/trust-builders/caveat).
4. **How does the user check it?** That is this pattern's entire mechanism — click the citation,
land on the exact cited passage.
5. **How does the user correct it?** Undecided beyond disregarding or editing the summary text
itself on a Drafts-tier surface. Whether a user can flag "this citation doesn't support this
claim," and whether that flag reaches anyone, is an open gap below.
6. **How does the user get out?** The raw transcript and recording remain reachable directly,
without going through the summary — the summary is additive to the source data, never a gate
in front of it — and AI-generated summaries can be turned off per view.
## Reference
No model, citation-extraction method, latency budget, or cost has been defined for this pattern
yet. This is fact register — nothing below is invented to fill the gap.
## Evaluation
Not evaluated. No eval set exists for citation accuracy — whether a citation actually supports
the claim it's attached to.
## Content
| Moment | ✅ | ❌ |
| --------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- |
| Citation marker | "¹ 0:42 — "Do you have anything cheaper?"" | "\[source]" |
| Citation link | "View in transcript" | "Learn more" |
| Degraded source | "Recording unavailable — showing transcript text only" | (no mention of the shortfall) |
| Stale source | "This call's transcript has changed since this summary was generated" | (link shown as if nothing changed) |
## Accessibility
* A citation marker needs accessible text beyond a bare superscript numeral — for example
`aria-label="View source at 0 minutes 42 seconds"` — not a number alone.
* Streaming citations follow the same live-region rule as
[Stream of thought](/invoca-design-system/ai-experience/governors/stream-of-thought#accessibility):
announce on claim completion, never per token.
* Verifiability is never color-only. A claim that could not be cited says so in text; it does
not simply omit a colored marker and rely on the absence being noticed.
* Activating "View in transcript" moves focus to the destination heading or timestamp marker in
the transcript view, and that move is announced.
## Constraints
| ID | Constraint | Rationale |
| ------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **TITAN-VERIFY-01** | Every discrete, checkable claim about call data carries a citation to the specific source passage, not to the call as a whole. | "See the call" is a redirect, not a citation on a specific claim — passage-level discipline is what makes the citation useful. |
| **TITAN-VERIFY-02** | A claim the system cannot cite to a specific passage is dropped or rewritten as a hedge, never given a fabricated or approximate citation. | A wrong-looking-right citation is worse than no citation — it is the exact failure this category of pattern exists to prevent. |
| **TITAN-VERIFY-03** | Citation links are Link, never Button. | Navigation to a resolvable location follows [TITAN-BTN-08](/invoca-design-system/components/actions/button#constraints). |
| **TITAN-VERIFY-04** | Citation navigation lands on the specific timestamp or transcript line, not the top of the call. | Forcing the user to re-search inside the source defeats the point of citing a passage. |
| **TITAN-VERIFY-05** | When the underlying source is degraded (text-only, unavailable, redacted), that is stated next to the citation, not only discoverable by clicking through. | A disclosure that arrives after the fact is not disclosure. |
| **TITAN-VERIFY-06** | A citation is never styled or worded to imply verification has already happened ("confirmed," a checkmark icon). | That language claims a review step nothing performed. See [TITAN-AI-05](/invoca-design-system/ai-experience/overview#constraints). |
| **TITAN-VERIFY-07** | If a cited source changes after the citation was generated, the pattern flags the citation as stale rather than showing it as current. | A citation is a promise about the state of the source at generation time, and it can go stale exactly like the answer it supports. |
## Divergences
Not applicable. Nothing is shipped yet to diverge from.
## Gaps
* Whether a user can flag a broken or incorrect citation, and whether that flag ever reaches a
model owner, is undecided.
* Whether citation-to-passage mapping is produced by the model itself or a separate retrieval or
alignment step is undecided — this affects how reliably TITAN-VERIFY-02 can actually hold.
* No decision on how long a generated citation stays valid once the underlying recording or
transcript is deleted under data retention policy.
* Whether citations render for every role, including a user without permission to view the
underlying recording, or whether the claim shows with no citation at all in that case, is
undecided.
## Volatility
This guidance depends on the eventual model or pipeline being able to produce passage-level
grounding at all — some retrieval architectures can cite a document but not a line or a
timestamp within it, which would make TITAN-VERIFY-01 unbuildable as written. It also depends
on Invoca's data-retention rules for recordings and transcripts, which determine how long a
citation stays resolvable before TITAN-VERIFY-07 has to apply. Reverify when a model or pipeline
is selected for the first feature that cites call data, and whenever retention policy changes.
Dated 2026-09-02.
## Related
[Stream of thought](/invoca-design-system/ai-experience/governors/stream-of-thought) and
[Caveat](/invoca-design-system/ai-experience/trust-builders/caveat), the other two pages in this
batch. [AI Experience overview](/invoca-design-system/ai-experience/overview), for the
vocabulary and the agency-tier and outcome-state definitions this page uses.
[Actions: Summarize](/invoca-design-system/ai-experience/actions/summarize), Signal AI's shipped
transcript summary, which this pattern is written directly against.
[Link](/invoca-design-system/components/actions/link),
[Tooltip](/invoca-design-system/components/containment/tooltip),
[Skeleton](/invoca-design-system/components/feedback/skeleton), and
[Card](/invoca-design-system/components/data-display/card), the components this pattern
composes.
## Why it works this way
A citation is cheap to build and expensive to trust blindly — the entire value of this pattern
is in shrinking the distance between reading a claim and checking it to a single click, because
anything longer than that gets skipped under real workload, and a citation nobody opens verifies
nothing. Pointing at a specific passage rather than the whole call is what makes checking fast
enough to actually happen, which is the only thing that makes "trust but verify" different from
"trust."