A Non-Developer Agent Output Needs a Verification UI, Not Just a Download Button

Cursor's "Sand" project targets non-developers. Anthropic's Claude Cowork runs cross-device. OpenAI's ChatGPT Work delivers documents, spreadsheets, and presentations. When an agent produces a deliverable for someone who cannot read the code, the verification interface matters more than the output format. A download button is not verification. The problem When a developer reviews agent output, they can read the diff, run the tests, and check the types. When a non-developer receives an agent-produced spreadsheet or document, they have no equivalent verification path. They either trust it completely or reject it completely. Neither is useful. What a verification UI needs Element Purpose Implementation Source list Show what inputs the agent used Links to source documents with timestamps Confidence indicator Flag low-confidence outputs Per-section confidence derived from source coverage Change highlights Show what the agent generated vs. copied Diff view between source and output Audit trail Record who requested what and when Append-only log with request ID, timestamp, and result hash Rejection path Let the user say "this is wrong" without starting over Feedback record linked to specific output section A minimal verification component Agent Output Verification .verification-card { border: 1px solid #ddd; border-radius: 8px; padding: 16px; margin: 8px 0; font-family: system-ui, sans-serif; } .source-list { list-style: none; padding: 0; } .source-list li { padding: 4px 0; border-bottom: 1px solid #eee; } .confidence-low { color: #c0392b; font-weight: bold; } .confidence-medium { color: #e67e22; } .confidence-high { color: #27ae60; } .reject-btn { background: #fff; border: 1px solid #c0392b; color: #c0392b; padding: 4px 12px; border-radius: 4px; cursor: pointer; } .reject-btn:hover { background: #c0392b; color: #fff; } .audit-entry { font-size: 12px; color: #666; margin-top: 8px; } [role="alert"] { padding: 8px; border-radius: 4px; margin: 4px 0; } .alert-warning { background: #fff3cd; border: 1px solid #ffc107; } Q3 Revenue Summary Generated by: agent-task-7841 Requested: 2026-07-20 14:32 UTC Confidence: Medium This output has medium confidence. Two of five sections have no direct source. Sources used Q3-sales-report.csv (uploaded 2026-07-20) Pricing-changes-2026.xlsx (uploaded 2026-07-20) Q2-summary.docx (uploaded 2026-07-15) Sections "Market outlook" and "Risk factors" have no matching source. Output preview Total Q3 revenue: $2.4M (up 12% from Q2) Top product: Widget Pro ($890K, 37% of total) Market outlook: [no source] This section is wrong Flag a section for review without discarding the whole output. Audit trail: Request 7841 initiated by user@example.com at 2026-07-20T14:32:00Z Agent completed at 2026-07-20T14:35:22Z Output hash: sha256:a3f2e1... document.getElementById('reject-btn').addEventListener('click', function() { const feedback = { request_id: 'agent-task-7841', section: 'output-preview', feedback: 'rejected', timestamp: new Date().toISOString() }; // In production: send to feedback endpoint console.log('Feedback recorded:', feedback); this.textContent = 'Flagged for review'; this.disabled = true; }); // Show confidence warning for medium/low confidence const confidence = document.getElementById('confidence'); if (confidence.textContent === 'Medium') { document.getElementById('confidence-warning').hidden = false; } Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode Accessibility requirements The source list uses semantic with an aria-label The confidence indicator uses role="status" so screen readers announce changes The alert uses role="alert" for low-confidence warnings The output preview is keyboard-focusable (tabindex="0") The reject button has aria-describedby linking to help text What to check When your agent produces output for a non-developer, can they see which parts have a source and which were generated without evidence? If they cannot, the output is unverifiable, and trust becomes the only option.