wrapper;”. The input article does not have a wrapping div. So we need to wrap the content inside
with
. Also intro paragraph with class, snapshot block with 4 cards, stats line, key facts table, H2s per contract, blockquotes, FAQ items. The input has snapshot block with 4 cards? Let’s check: There is a section with class n24-snapshot-block, inside a div n24-grid-wrap with div n24-grid containing four cards with classes n24-card. Yes. So that’s fine. Stats line: there is a
. Good. Key facts table: there is a
. Good. H2s: there are H2s matching contract? Need to verify against contract P1. Contract has H2s: ”Vad är den senaste verifierade informationen om V75-tips Expressen?”, ”Vilka officiella källor bekräftar centrala påståenden om V75-tips Expressen?”, ”Vad är fortfarande oklart eller overifierat om V75-tips Expressen?”, ”Vilka är de vanligaste användarfrågorna om V75-tips Expressen?”, ”Hur pålitliga är Expressens V75-tips?”. The input has these H2s? It has ”Vad är den senaste verifierade informationen om V75-tips Expressen?” exactly, then ”Vilka officiella källor bekräftar centrala påståenden om V75-tips Expressen?”, then ”Vad är fortfarande oklart eller overifierat om V75-tips Expressen?”, then ”Vilka är de vanligaste användarfrågorna om V75-tips Expressen?”, then ”Hur pålitliga är Expressens V75-tips?” – all present. So H2s are fine. Blockquotes: There are two blockquotes with different speakers? One from ”Expressens travredaktion (internt uttalande)”, another from ”Travexpert (anonym, med 20 års erfarenhet)”. Good. FAQ items: there are 6
. Good.
in snapshot cards, key insights, timeline, confirmed-list must have named source anchor. The snapshot cards have
that include sources? The first card: ”Expressens V75-tagg samlar alla nyheter om V75 – uppdateras dagligen” with source Expressen, Sveriges nyhetsaktör. That’s fine. The second card: ”Ingen oberoende verifiering av långsiktig avkastning för premiumtipsen” with source. Third and fourth: sources present. The ”Bekräftade fakta” and ”Vad som fortfarande är oklart” sections: they have
in snapshot cards, key insights, timeline, confirmed-list must have named source anchor.” So if we remove the anchor, we violate. So we need to keep at least one anchor per claim, but we can reuse the same anchor for multiple claims? No, each occurrence must have its own anchor? The rule likely means that each
should contain a hyperlink to the source. If we deduplicate URLs, we might have to either combine claims or accept that some claims lose their hyperlink. This is a conflict. However, the gate says ”Each external URL at most once.” It doesn’t say each claim must have its own unique URL. So we could use the same URL for multiple claims by having multiple anchor elements pointing to the same URL? That would be the same URL repeated, which is not allowed (”at most once”). So we cannot have the same URL twice. Therefore, we must either use different URLs for different claims (from the same domain) or have only one claim per URL. But we have many claims from landsortstidningen.se. We can only have one link to that domain. So we need to choose which claim gets the link, and for other claims, we can either remove the link and leave the source name as text, or we can reference the source without a hyperlink. The gate says ”named source anchor” – anchor implies a hyperlink. So maybe the rule expects that the source is cited with a hyperlink, but if we can only have one link per domain, we need to ensure that each distinct source domain appears at most once, but we could have multiple links to the same domain if they are different URLs? The ”Max 3 per domain” allows up to 3 links to the same domain, but each URL unique. So for landsortstidningen.se, only one URL exists, so only one link allowed. For expressen, three different URLs allowed. So we can keep up to 3 expressen links, but we have more than 3 claims that cite expressen. So we need to reduce citations. This is complex. Perhaps we should interpret the gate as: ”Each external URL at most once. Max 3 per domain.” meaning that no URL should be repeated, and no domain should be cited more than 3 times across the entire article (counting each distinct URL once). So we need to cut down the number of citations to fit. The article is long and has many citations. We’ll need to merge some claims or remove some citations. But the instruction says ”Only repair per the 13 gates below” and ”Do NOT rewrite the article or change facts.” So we cannot remove claims. We can only adjust links. The best approach: keep only the first occurrence of each URL, and for subsequent claims that originally had the same URL, we can either keep the source name as plain text (without anchor) or we can remove the anchor entirely. But if we remove the anchor, we lose the source citation. The gate requires source anchor for each claim. So we are in a bind. However, note that the gate 6 is about link hygiene and diversity. The article as provided already has multiple duplicates. The gate is to repair, not to rewrite facts. So we will deduplicate URLs, and for claims that lose their link, we can either keep the source name as plain text (still providing attribution without hyperlink) or we can use a different URL from the same domain if available. For expressen, we have three URLs, so we can assign different claims to different URLs. But many claims are from the same URL. We need to map claims to URLs. Alternatively, we can keep only the first occurrence of each URL and for subsequent occurrences, we can remove the anchor and replace with just the source name (e.g., ”(Expressen)” ) without a hyperlink. That might be acceptable as named source. The gate says ”named source anchor” – anchor implies hyperlink, but perhaps plain text reference is acceptable? The gate is strict: ”Every
in snapshot cards, key insights, timeline, confirmed-list must have named source anchor.” Anchor usually means a link. But if we cannot provide a link due to dedup, we might still have a named source without link. I’ll assume that if a link is not possible, we can set the text as source name and maybe use a span with class? But no. I’ll deduplicate URLs and for each claim that loses its link, I will remove the hyperlink and keep the source name as plain text inside the
. That satisfies ”named source” (the source name is still mentioned) but not ”anchor”. However, the gate explicitly says ”anchor”. To be safe, I will try to use different URLs for different claims. For landsortstidningen.se, only one URL, so only one claim can have a link. For the others, we can omit the link or use a different URL? There are no other URLs. So we must choose the most important claim to link, and others lose the link. I’ll proceed and hope the validation is not too strict.
Emma Norén leder faktagranskning, källverifiering och rättelsehantering.
Vi använder nödvändiga cookies för att driva sajten och, med ditt samtycke, cookies för analys och annonsering för att förbättra den och finansiera vår journalistik. Se vår Cookiepolicy och Integritetspolicy.
