LVTD-LLC Influence Audit
Audit persuasion by identifying which shortcut cues are present, whether those cues are truthful, and what a less manipulative version would look like. The central distinction is honest decision support versus counterfeit evidence.
Quick Start
- Read
guidelines.mdto choose the smallest useful reference set. - Load
references/audit/knowledge.mdfor concepts andreferences/audit/rules.mdfor operating rules. - Use
workflows/audit-influence-risk.mdfor repeatable tasks. - For audits, surface both the active influence cue and the ethical rewrite.
Contents
| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
| references/audit/knowledge.md | Core concepts and source-grounded definitions |
| references/audit/rules.md | Rules, boundaries, and practical guidelines |
| references/audit/examples.md | Bad/better examples for applied situations |
| references/audit/smells.md | Red flags and anti-patterns to detect |
| references/audit/checklist.md | Fast review checklist |
| workflows/audit-influence-risk.md | Review a persuasion surface for mechanisms, evidence quality, user autonomy, and safer rewrites. |
Operating Principles
- Use only honest evidence. Do not invent popularity, scarcity, credentials, endorsements, or social connection.
- Separate helping a good decision from pushing a shortcut response. If the cue is counterfeit, treat it as a red flag.
- When rewriting, preserve user agency: add context, alternatives, and enough time to decide when stakes are meaningful.
Output Pattern
- Diagnosis - name the influence principle or cue.
- Evidence Check - state what proof supports or is missing from the cue.
- Risk - explain manipulation, trust, or decision-quality risk.
- Rewrite or Recommendation - provide an ethical alternative.
Validation
Use the prompts in evals/evals.json as smoke tests. A good result identifies the relevant Influence principle, preserves user agency, and avoids fabricated evidence or coercive pressure.