Scenario 10: Automated Content Flagging and Appeal Process

Requirement Scenario: Automated Content Flagging and Appeal Process

Actor

Registered User: Mehmet (An active community member sharing nutrition tips)

User Persona

• Name: Mehmet
• Situation: Mehmet is passionate about Turkish traditional foods and their health benefits. He frequently shares posts about herbal remedies and traditional nutrition practices. Sometimes his posts use strong language to emphasize health benefits, which can trigger automated content detection systems.
• Goal: Mehmet wants to share a post about the benefits of black cumin seed oil for immune health, but his post gets flagged by the automated system. He believes the flag is incorrect and wants to appeal the decision to have his educational content published.

Preconditions

1. Mehmet is logged into the Affordable & Healthy Eating Hub platform. (Requirement 1.7.2)
2. The platform has an automated detection system using a pre-trained sentiment analysis model. (Requirement 1.8.10)
3. Community Moderators are available to review appeals. (Requirement 1.8.14)
4. The appeals system is functional and accessible to users. (Requirement 1.8.12, 1.8.13)

Main Flow

1. Mehmet navigates to the forum to create a new post. (Requirement 1.4.2)
2. Mehmet writes a detailed post titled "Black Cumin Seed Oil: A Powerful Natural Immune Booster" with information about its benefits.
3. Mehmet adds appropriate tags including "Dietary tip" and "Natural remedies". (Requirement 1.4.1, 1.4.7.a)
4. Mehmet acknowledges community guidelines by agreeing to the responsibility prompt. (Requirement 1.4.14)
5. Mehmet attempts to publish the post.
6. Before publication, the automated detection system analyzes the post content using its pre-trained sentiment analysis model to identify potentially harmful patterns. (Requirement 1.8.10)
7. The system flags the post because phrases like "powerful cure" and "eliminates disease" trigger the automated detection as potential health misinformation.
8. The system immediately notifies Mehmet that his post has been flagged, displaying:
   • "Your post has been flagged for review"
   • Reason: "Potential health misinformation - unverified medical claims"
   • Options: "Edit Post" or "Submit Appeal" (Requirement 1.8.11)
9. Mehmet reviews the notification and believes his post is educational, not misleading, as he cited traditional usage rather than making absolute medical claims.
10. Mehmet decides to submit an appeal rather than editing his post. (Requirement 1.8.12)
11. Mehmet writes his appeal explanation: "This post discusses traditional uses of black cumin seed oil in Turkish culture and includes scientific references. I am not making medical claims but sharing cultural knowledge about nutrition. The phrase 'powerful cure' refers to traditional beliefs, not medical advice."
12. Mehmet submits the appeal to contest the automated flagging decision. (Requirement 1.8.12)
13. The system creates an appeal record with status "Pending Review" visible in Mehmet's account. (Requirement 1.8.13)
14. Mehmet navigates to his profile and checks the "My Appeals" section.
15. Mehmet views his appeal status showing:

• Post title: "Black Cumin Seed Oil: A Powerful Natural Immune Booster"
• Appeal submitted: [Date/Time]
• Status: "Pending Review"
• Expected resolution: Within 48 hours (Requirement 1.8.13, 2.1.4)

16. A Community Moderator accesses the moderation dashboard to review pending appeals. (Requirement 1.8.6)
17. The moderator reviews Mehmet's appeal, examining:

• Original post content
• Automated flag reason
• Mehmet's appeal explanation
• Context about traditional Turkish nutrition practices (Requirement 1.8.14)

18. The moderator evaluates the content with focus on inclusivity, considering Mehmet's cultural background and the educational nature of the post. (Requirement 1.8.16)
19. The moderator determines the automated flag was overly cautious and that the post is educational rather than harmful misinformation.
20. The moderator overrides the automated flag by approving the content for publication. (Requirement 1.8.14)
21. The moderator adds a rationale: "Appeal accepted. Post provides cultural and traditional nutrition information with appropriate context. Not medical advice or harmful misinformation."
22. The system updates the appeal status to "Accepted" with the moderator's rationale visible to Mehmet. (Requirement 1.8.13)
23. The system publishes Mehmet's post to the forum, now visible to all users.
24. Mehmet receives a notification that his appeal has been accepted and his post is now published.
25. Mehmet checks his appeal status in his profile, seeing the resolution and rationale. (Requirement 1.8.13)
26. The system logs the moderation action including the appeal, moderator decision, and timestamp for accountability. (Requirement 1.8.9, 2.4.12)
27. Mehmet's post receives engagement from other users interested in traditional nutrition. (Requirement 1.4.6)
28. The moderation action was completed within 48 hours of the appeal submission. (Requirement 2.1.4)

Outcome

• The automated detection system identified potentially problematic content before publication, protecting the community. (Requirement 1.8.10)
• Mehmet was immediately notified with clear reasons for the flag, maintaining transparency. (Requirement 1.8.11)
• Mehmet successfully submitted an appeal to contest the automated decision. (Requirement 1.8.12)
• Mehmet could track his appeal status throughout the review process in his account. (Requirement 1.8.13)
• A Community Moderator reviewed the appeal with cultural sensitivity, considering Mehmet's background and intent. (Requirement 1.8.16)
• The moderator overrode the automated flag, demonstrating human judgment can correct automated errors. (Requirement 1.8.14)
• The appeal was resolved within 48 hours, meeting the platform's SLA. (Requirement 2.1.4)
• Mehmet's educational content was published, enriching the platform with diverse cultural nutrition knowledge.
• The system maintained comprehensive logs of the entire process for accountability. (Requirement 1.8.9, 2.4.12)
• The platform successfully balanced automated safety with human oversight, preventing false positives from suppressing valuable content.
• The appeals process ensured fairness and allowed users to contest automated decisions. (Requirement 1.8.15)

Mockups

[Mockup 1: Post Creation Interface with Content Being Written]
[Mockup 2: Automated Flag Notification with Reason and Options]
[Mockup 3: Appeal Submission Form with Explanation Field]
[Mockup 4: User Profile - My Appeals Section Showing Pending Status]
[Mockup 5: Moderator Dashboard - Appeals Queue]
[Mockup 6: Appeal Review Interface with Original Post and User Explanation]
[Mockup 7: Appeal Status Updated to "Accepted" with Rationale]
[Mockup 8: Published Post Now Visible in Forum]