Clarify suggested answers, review acknowledgment, and the filing-choice helper #362

Report and evidence

Source: Kris's Vermont LITEfile testing feedback dated October 27, 2026, supplied for triage. She manually started a new Relief from Abuse case with four forms (not an interview handoff) and tested a Small Claims Complaint.

Reviewed main at 8aa288b456e2079099a90b9d6bd87194e90269e9. This is source/history review, not a reproduction of Kris's deployed session; the referenced screenshots were not included in the supplied text.

Three related Confirm-information problems:

1. The asterisk explanation sounds as though the uploaded document itself contains a mistake.
2. “I checked these details against my document” appears before the editable people/classification details it may refer to.
3. The prefilled helper box “We filled in what we could. Something wrong?” is unclear. Kris proposes the manual dropdowns followed by an optional Help me choose button.

Current sources: efile_app/efile/templates/efile/components/extraction_marker_modal.html, efile_app/efile/templates/efile/extraction_review.html, and efile_app/efile/templates/efile/components/filing_code_search.html.

The heading “Tell the court what you're filing” and its explanation of court/case/document classification already exist. The request is to improve the surrounding prompt/order, not add that introduction again.

Acceptance criteria

• Make the tool the subject of the possible mistake. Suggested concise wording: “A * means LITEfile suggested this answer after reading your document. The suggestion may be wrong. Check it and make any needed changes.” Preserve the actual marker semantics and AI-off behavior.
• Identify what the acknowledgment covers. Place it after the details the filer must check, or otherwise make its reference unambiguous while retaining access to the PDF previews.
• Preserve the required acknowledgment when applicable, accessible inline errors/focus, and the source/extraction fingerprint behavior that remembers a completed review and invalidates it after relevant document changes.
• Keep prepared-PDF review safeguards distinct from confirming extracted answers; do not remove a required check while rearranging markup.
• Replace the prefilled helper prompt with a clear invitation to choose or correct court/case/document details. Evaluate Kris's manual-first, helper-below layout on mobile and keyboard.
• Keep both manual selection and the optional helper, and continue avoiding unexplained “code” jargon.
• Check extracted/no-extraction/AI-off, new/existing case, Back/resume, and interview-handoff-specific screens. Do not make the streamlined handoff repeat already completed reviews.

Intentional changes this revisits

• #319, bebc79a, deliberately shortened the asterisk explanation and other screen copy.
• #306 tied acknowledgment to the source/extraction and reduced repeated confirmation.
• #348, e857c37, deliberately moved the acknowledgment beside the previews.
• 5df98c7 deliberately put the helper before the manual fields and introduced the current prompt.
• Confirm case: show an accessible error when the extraction acknowledgement is unchecked #231 fixed accessible missing-acknowledgment errors; Streamline interview handoff review and continuation #355 separately streamlined imported interview review.

Treat placement changes as an intentional UX revision in response to new feedback, preserving these safeguards. Shared clarity improvements belong in translated common copy; only genuinely local wording needs jurisdiction overrides.

Related implementation slice: #359 (partner text hooks and Vermont content).