docs(confidence-engine): preserve evidence provenance

.claude/ux-guidelines.md

@@ -515,6 +515,21 @@ Three tiers, applied top to bottom:
 - Omit items too verbose to scan; do not synthesise rewritten claims.
 - Never invent facts absent from the graph.
 
+### Provenance and attribution
+
+Preserve authorship and provenance in every user-facing presentation.
+
+When displaying a user's previous input, keep it visibly distinct from system-generated interpretation. If the original user wording is available, present it as the user's response rather than rewriting it into system prose. Derived Findings, summaries, uncertainties, assumptions, or follow-up questions must not be styled or worded in a way that implies the user said them.
+
+The distinction should be:
+
+```text
+User response        → user-authored (verbatim)
+What we learned      → Engine-derived
+```
+
+Exact labels are subject to UX refinement; the durable rule is separating provenance, not prescribing specific copy.
+
 ## Investigation Narrative
 
 The reasoning graph is the machine representation of the investigation.

docs/current-handoff.md

@@ -1995,3 +1995,41 @@ Target node: `n58lwnx`
 
 - latest-completed-turn → Previous Learning repartition (intentional defer — separate presentation/lifecycle decision)
 - workspace control UX wording ("Back to open questions" / "Done for now" / "Close investigation")
+
+---
+
+### USER-AUTHORED EVIDENCE VS ENGINE INTERPRETATION — PRODUCT PRINCIPLE
+
+**Status:** Durable product/UX principle
+
+The Confidence Engine must preserve provenance at the presentation layer. When the user supplies evidence or an answer, their authored content and the engine's derived interpretation must remain visibly and linguistically distinct.
+
+Core rule:
+
+```text
+User-authored content ≠ Engine-derived interpretation
+```
+
+The UI must not make system interpretation look like a quotation, rewrite, correction, or continuation of the user's own words. Where both appear together, the distinction should be obvious without requiring explanation.
+
+**Verbatim preservation:** When replaying a prior user response, use the stored original response verbatim. Preserve its wording exactly. Identify it clearly as the user's response. Do not silently rewrite it into more polished system language. Do not present an Engine interpretation as though it is what the user said.
+
+**Engine-derived material:** Findings, interpretations, uncertainties, assumptions and follow-up questions are Engine-derived. They must be labelled and presented separately from the user's original evidence.
+
+**Why this matters:** This prevents the user from reasonably believing "The system has manipulated or rewritten my own words." It also preserves epistemic provenance:
+
+```text
+what the user supplied → what the Engine inferred from it
+```
+
+**Completed-turn narrative direction (future intent):**
+
+```text
+previous question
+→ your response (verbatim)
+→ from that we learned (derived Findings)
+→ still unclear (remaining uncertainty)
+→ questions this raises (follow-up candidates)
+```
+
+Exact UI labels and wording remain subject to later UX refinement. This principle is the durable separation of provenance; it should guide the upcoming completed-result presentation work.