Designing A Who Cares Wizard For 2Ia - Source Excerpt 01 - Designing a Who Cares Wizard for 2IA.org

Back to Designing A Who Cares Wizard For 2Ia

Summary

This source excerpt begins near Designing a Who Cares Wizard for 2IA.org and preserves the surrounding evidence from 2IA.org/agent-file-handoff/Archive/2026-05-17-who-cares-wizard/Designing a Who Cares Wizard for 2IA.org.md.

**Source path:** 2IA.org/agent-file-handoff/Archive/2026-05-17-who-cares-wizard/Designing a Who Cares Wizard for 2IA.org.md

# Designing a Who Cares Wizard for 2IA.org

## Executive summary

A strong “Who Cares Wizard” for 2IA should not behave like a chatbot, a lead-generation form, or a confession box. It should act as a privacy-first, rights-navigation layer that helps people identify the next lawful, practical channel: a records request, an appeal, a correction path, a regulator, a civil-rights body, or a trusted support organization. That is the most faithful interpretation of 2IA’s own public posture, which emphasizes civil-liberties research, lawful public intelligence, minimization, visible corrections, privacy-by-default, and ordinary public contact that is truthful, brief, respectful, and non-automated. citeturn0view0turn1view0turn1view1turn2view0turn2view1turn2view2turn5view0turn5view1turn6view0

I recommend a rules-based, editorially auditable wizard with **20 levels and 20 end nodes**. Levels 1–10 should identify the domain of concern. Levels 11–19 should tailor the route by jurisdiction, record type, complaint type, privacy needs, evidence available, contact preference, and accessibility/language needs. Level 20 should show the best-fit outcome page, plus one or two adjacent routes when the signal is ambiguous. This structure fits both 2IA’s correction-driven publication method and public-sector UX guidance that favors one question per screen, explicit headings, and visible step progress for longer flows. citeturn1view1turn5view1turn17view0turn17view1turn17view2

The wizard should live **on the homepage as an entry card**, but after the first answer it should continue on a dedicated route such as `/who-cares/step/1`. That approach preserves the homepage’s existing search and archive functions, avoids a heavy modal experience, and better matches 2IA’s no-tracker, no-third-party-embed privacy posture. 2IA already exposes a briefing search, archive pages, issue hubs, a public-records path, a corrections path, and a methodology page; the wizard should complement those assets, not replace them. citeturn0view0turn1view0turn2view0turn5view0turn5view1

The first release should be treated as **U.S.-first** because the strongest official contact ecosystem surfaced here is overwhelmingly U.S. federal and state-oriented, and 2IA’s own public-records framing is explicitly FOIA-centric. I also assume that target languages are not yet specified, that user technical literacy ranges from low to advanced, and that 2IA’s public site is probably running on a theme/plugin CMS, likely WordPress-style, because the site publicly references its theme and future plugins and exposes archive/category structures; that CMS assumption should be verified before engineering begins. citeturn5view0turn2view0turn0view0

## What 2IA already signals

2IA’s homepage, Start Here page, and About page define the site as independent civil-liberties research on surveillance, identity, AI inference, false positives, public records, and lawful public understanding. The site argues that records, metadata, algorithms, and institutional claims should be made legible “without turning curiosity into collateral damage,” and its “fast version” already points readers toward metadata, surveillance systems, AI harm, public records, lawful contact, and corrections. That means the wizard should inherit 2IA’s existing issue map rather than invent a generic help taxonomy. citeturn0view0turn1view0turn2view4

Methodologically, 2IA says publication should be built around source notes, confidence labels, minimization, AI-use disclosure, right of reply, and visible corrections. That matters because a decision tree is not only a UX component here; it is an editorial system. A deterministic, inspectable branching model is easier to correct, audit, and update than a free-form generative assistant, which makes it a better fit for a site that explicitly treats corrections as editorial infrastructure and AI as subordinate to human review. citeturn1view1turn5view1

2IA’s privacy and contact pages are even more decisive. The site says the theme does not add analytics, tracking pixels, external fonts, CDN assets, or unnecessary cookies by default. It also warns that future forms, newsletter tools, analytics packages, embeds, and plugins should be treated as policy changes requiring review for purpose, consent, retention, access, deletion, and opt-out. On contact, 2IA tells users not to send classified material, private personal data, exploit details, threats, or material they do not have the right to share, and it states that public contact is not a secure drop box. Those statements strongly argue for a wizard with closed-choice questions, minimal free text, no third-party survey scripts, and clear warnings before any outbound handoff. citeturn2view0turn2view2turn6view0

2IA’s Lawful Contact and Public Records pages also shape the tone of the experience. 2IA urges users to use official public channels for their intended purpose, to keep outreach non-automated, and to document dates and responses carefully. It frames public records as lawful leverage and emphasizes that narrow requests are easier to search, answer, appeal, and publish. So the wizard should route users toward specific, dated, documented actions, not broad “tell us your story” intake. citeturn2view1turn5view0

Finally, 2IA’s volunteer page is unusually useful for persona design. It explicitly names research assistants, editors, designers, accessibility reviewers, translators, public-records trackers, legal reviewers, and technical maintainers as legitimate contribution roles. That means the wizard should not treat “visitor seeking help” as the only audience; it should also recognize volunteers, researchers, and policymakers as first-class users. citeturn2view3

## Personas and editorial logic

**Visitor seeking help.** This persona is likely stressed, uncertain which institution matters, unsure whether the issue is “privacy,” “discrimination,” “records,” or “AI,” and often worried about saying the wrong thing. For them, the wizard should ask what happened at the level of a system or decision, not at the level of blame, motive, or self-disclosure. 2IA’s public guidance repeatedly prefers narrow, lawful, documented action over drama or ambiguity, which is exactly the posture this persona needs. citeturn1view0turn2view1turn2view2

**Volunteer.** A 2IA volunteer is not a vigilante. The site explicitly rejects targeting private people, bypassing access controls, gathering secrets, provoking systems, or unauthorized investigation. That means the volunteer persona should be offered bounded roles such as accessibility testing, translation, records tracking, editing, document review, or technical maintenance, with methodology and privacy obligations shown before any sign-up prompt. citeturn2view3turn1view1

**Researcher.** This persona needs provenance, confidence states, source classes, and route-specific documentation. 2IA’s methodology is already written for them: separate confirmed facts from inference, preserve source context, and treat AI as subordinate. For these users, the wizard should expose “Why this result?” and “What evidence should I gather?” modules, not just contact cards. citeturn1view1turn0view0

**Policymaker.** This persona is less likely to need a complaint form and more likely to need procurement, audit, retention, due-process, deletion, and correction questions. 2IA’s own dossiers explicitly single out contracts, data-sharing clauses, audit rights, vendor claims, retention limits, due process, and downstream repair. So policymaker copy should be available as a secondary tab on every result page, and as a dedicated end route when the user indicates they are trying to improve an institution rather than solve a personal incident. citeturn0view0turn5view0turn6view0

Question phrasing should therefore follow a simple rule: **ask about the system, the effect, and the next action**, not fault. Good examples are “Which system or decision affected you?”, “What information do you already have, if any?”, and “Would you like an official route, a research route, or both?” Bad examples are “Who targeted you?”, “Do you have proof?”, or “Do you want to escalate?” This matches 2IA’s insistence on truthful, non-theatrical contact and minimization. citeturn2view1turn2view2turn6view0