Blueprint Output Schema

const GenerateArgumentBlueprintOutputSchema = z.object({
  blueprint: z.array(ArgumentNodeSchema).describe('A structured JSON blueprint of the arguments.'),
  summary: z.string().describe("A concise, neutral summary of the overall state of the debate."),
  analysis: z.string().describe("AI-driven meta-analysis providing novel insights, identifying emerging themes, logical gaps, or the overall state of the debate."),
  credibilityScore: z.number().min(1).max(10).describe("A score from 1-10 rating the overall quality, diversity, and reliability of the sources found."),
  brutalHonestTake: z.string().describe("A candid, slightly cynical, 'no-BS' summary of the situation, written in simple, conversational language."),
  keyPoints: z.array(z.string()).describe("A list of 3-5 key takeaways or summary points."),
  socialPulse: z.string().describe("A summary of the public sentiment and key discussion points on the topic from social media platform X (Twitter)."),
  tweets: z.array(TweetSchema).describe('An array of relevant tweets from X/Twitter.'),
  fallacies: z.array(DetectedFallacySchema).optional().describe('An array of logical fallacies detected in the source material.'),
});

type GenerateArgumentBlueprintOutput = z.infer<typeof GenerateArgumentBlueprintOutputSchema>;

{
  "blueprint": [
    {
      "id": "1",
      "parentId": null,
      "type": "thesis",
      "side": "for",
      "content": "Should governments implement carbon taxes?",
      "sourceText": "User query",
      "source": "https://user-input.local/query",
      "fallacies": [],
      "logicalRole": "Central debate question"
    },
    {
      "id": "2",
      "parentId": "1",
      "type": "claim",
      "side": "for",
      "content": "Carbon taxes effectively reduce emissions",
      "sourceText": "Countries with carbon taxes saw 15% emission reduction...",
      "source": "https://example.com/study",
      "fallacies": [],
      "logicalRole": "Primary economic argument"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "The debate over carbon taxes centers on economic vs environmental priorities...",
  "analysis": "What emerges from the sources is a fundamental tension between short-term economic concerns and long-term environmental sustainability...",
  "credibilityScore": 7,
  "brutalHonestTake": "Both sides cherry-pick data to support their position. The real question isn't whether carbon taxes work, but whether we have the political will to implement them properly.",
  "keyPoints": [
    "Carbon taxes have proven effective in some countries",
    "Implementation varies widely affecting outcomes",
    "Economic impact depends on how revenue is used",
    "Political feasibility remains the biggest challenge"
  ],
  "socialPulse": "Twitter discourse is predictably polarized. Environmental advocates tout success stories while critics focus on economic hardship. Few nuanced takes.",
  "tweets": [
    {
      "id": "1234567890",
      "text": "Carbon taxes work. Just look at Sweden's emissions...",
      "author": {
        "name": "Climate Analyst",
        "username": "climate_data",
        "profile_image_url": "https://..."
      },
      "created_at": "2024-03-08T12:00:00Z",
      "public_metrics": {
        "retweet_count": 45,
        "reply_count": 12,
        "like_count": 230,
        "impression_count": 5600
      }
    }
  ],
  "fallacies": [
    {
      "id": "f1",
      "name": "Appeal to Emotion",
      "severity": "Major",
      "category": "Emotional Fallacy",
      "confidence": 0.9,
      "problematicText": "This tax will destroy families...",
      "explanation": "Uses emotional language without supporting evidence",
      "definition": "Appeal to Emotion manipulates emotions rather than using logic",
      "avoidance": "Focus on evidence-based arguments",
      "example": "Instead of 'this will destroy families', say 'data shows economic impact of X%'",
      "suggestion": "Replace emotional claims with specific economic data",
      "location": "Node 3"
    }
  ]
}