Harry Potter en de Gevangene van Azkaban: Ca t en Kijkoptie

Also in the “Tijdlijn-signaal” card, there is a source. Good. In “Wat komt hierna”, source present. In “Bevestigde feiten”, only the fourth li has a source. We need to add sources to the first three. Use research notes: e.g., for “Sirius Zwart is Harry’s peetvader” source from Allesoverfilm. For “De film is gebaseerd op het gelijknamige boek van J.K. Rowling” – research notes have that? Not directly, but it’s a common fact; we can source from TVgids.nl? Actually research notes have “Sirius Zwart is Harry’s peetvader” from Allesoverfilm. We’ll add that. For “De Patronus van Harry is een hert” – research notes don’t explicitly have that, but it’s in the film. We can use a source like Rotten Tomatoes? But better to check if research notes contain. They don’t. We could add a generic source? The gate says “No source available → downgrade, move to rumor-list.” So we might need to move that claim to the unclear list? But it’s a confirmed fact. Perhaps we can source from the film itself? But must be a named source. We could use Allesoverfilm again? The research notes don’t have that. Alternatively, we can add a source from a known site. The raw has a later section “Bevestigde feiten” with a list that already has sources? That’s a different section (n24-clarity) which has that list with sources. The snapshot cards are separate. To avoid duplicating, we could simply not include that li without source? But the gate requires source for every li in snapshot cards. The snapshot card “Bevestigde feiten” has those three lis without source. We can remove them? But then the card might be too sparse. Better to add sources. Since research notes don’t have a direct source for “De Patronus”, we can use the same source as for Sirius? Not accurate. Or we can use a source from the article itself? There are no inline sources for that. Let’s check research notes for “Patronus” – there is a claim “De Patronus van Harry is een hert” but no source. So we might need to move it to the unclear or to the “what is unclear” card? That would change facts. The gate says “If no source available → downgrade, move to rumor-list.” There is a “Wat onduidelijk is” card. But moving a confirmed fact to unclear is wrong. Perhaps we can use a source from a later part of the article. In the “Bevestigde feiten” section (later), it says “De Patronus van Harry is een hert” without source either. That’s a problem. To comply, we can look for a source in the research notes: I see “Cinemagazine schrijft dat…” but not about Patronus. Actually the research notes have a claim: “De Patronus van Harry is een hert” appears in the snapshot_facts_plan but no source. So we might need to fabricate a source? Not allowed. Let’s see if we can find a source from the raw HTML: later in the article, under “Belangrijkste gebeurtenissen”, it mentions Patronus but no source. The blockquote from Rowling mentions “Sirius is the character who gives Harry a sense of family.” not Patronus. I think we can safely use Allesoverfilm as a source for Patronus? Not in research. Alternatively, we can add a citation to the film’s own Wikipedia? But we don’t have that. Maybe we can leave it as is, but the gate says every li must have source. We could add a generic source like “(bron: film)”. That seems weak. Since the research confidence is low, perhaps we should move the Patronus claim to the unclear list? That would be a factual change. The instruction says “Repair per the 13 gates”. Actually 14 gates. Gate 3 says “No source available → downgrade, move to rumor-list.” So we should move that claim to the “Wat onduidelijk is” card. But the card “Bevestigde feiten” is supposed to contain confirmed facts. By moving, we reduce confirmed. But the contract’s certainty_uncertainty_plan says “De Patronus van Harry is een hert” is in confirmed list. So we have a conflict. Let’s review Gate 10: Research confidence low, so we need to ensure rumor-list >= confirmed-list. Moving Patronus to unclear would balance. However, we also have the later “Bevestigde feiten” section (n24-clarity) which lists the same claims and includes sources for some. That section already has source for “Sirius Zwart is Harry’s peetvader” (from Allesoverfilm). For Patronus, it has no source. So we might also need to add source there. The gate 14.5 source anchor text requires naming authority context. If we can’t find a source, we could remove the claim from the snapshot card? But then the card would have fewer items. Alternatively, we could use the research notes: the research notes contain a claim “De Patronus van Harry is een hert” but without source. That means it’s not verified. So we should treat it as unverified and move to unclear. The contract’s confirmed list includes it, but that was based on the research notes which had low confidence. So we have to calibrate: Gate 11 says parse facts_summary. The facts_summary is empty. So no tier3 claims. We’ll proceed: we’ll move the Patronus claim from the snapshot card “Bevestigde feiten” to the “Wat onduidelijk is” card. But we need to adjust the card labels: “Wat onduidelijk is” currently has two items. We’ll add a third: “De exacte vorm van Harry’s Patronus wordt soms anders beschreven” or something. Actually the fact is clear in the film, but lack of source makes it uncertain for the article. We’ll rephrase: “Of de Patronus van Harry exact een hert is, wordt in alle bronnen bevestigd? (bron ontbreekt in deze gids)” but we can’t add that. Better: move to unclear: “De Patronus van Harry wordt in de film als hert getoond, maar er is geen expliciete bron geciteerd.” That seems odd. Perhaps we can find a source from the article itself? The article later says “De Patronus – een hert dat Harrys vader James vertegenwoordigt” without source. So we could source from the film itself? But gate requires named source. I’ll add a source from the film’s IMDb? Not in research. Since we are only allowed to use research notes for sources, we must use those. The research notes have no source for Patronus. So we remove the Patronus claim from the snapshot card and add it to the unclear card as a note that it’s unconfirmed in sources used. That might affect editorial integrity, but we have to follow gates.

I’ll proceed: In the snapshot card “Bevestigde feiten”, remove the third li (Patronus). In “Wat onduidelijk is”, add a new li: “Of de Patronus van Harry exact een hert is (geen bron geciteerd in deze gids)”. That seems too meta. Better to not include it at all. The gate says move to rumor-list, not necessarily to the unclear card. The unclear card is part of snapshot block. We’ll add it there.

Also, in the card “Bevestigde feiten”, the first li “Sirius Zwart is Harry’s peetvader” lacks source on the li itself, but later in the “Bevestigde feiten” section (n24-clarity) it has a source. For the snapshot card, we need source anchor on the li. We’ll add source from Allesoverfilm (the research note has that claim with source). So we’ll wrap it in an anchor.

Similarly, “De film is gebaseerd op het gelijknamige boek van J.K. Rowling” – we need a source. We can use TVgids.nl? The research notes have a claim “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is een fantasyfilm uit 2004” from TVgids.nl, but not the book basis. We can use that same source to say the film is based on the book. Or use Allesoverfilm? The research notes for Allesoverfilm mention “derde schooljaar”, not the book. Perhaps we can use a source from Wikipedia? Not in research. Since we have low research confidence, we might treat it as unverified and move to unclear? That seems too drastic. I’ll keep it and use the later source in the n24-clarity section: there it says “De film is gebaseerd op het gelijknamige boek van J.K. Rowling” without source either. So that’s a problem. We could add a source from the research notes: there is a claim “De film is gebaseerd op het gelijknamige boek van J.K. Rowling” in the snapshot_facts_plan, but no source. So it’s unverified. Move to unclear.

Given the low confidence, we’ll adjust the snapshot cards. We’ll keep only items that have sources in the research notes. The research notes have:
– Sirius Zwart is Harry’s peetvader (source Allesoverfilm)
– De film is gebaseerd op het gelijknamige boek van J.K. Rowling (no source)
– De Patronus van Harry is een hert (no source)
– The other cards have sources.

So we’ll remove the second and third lis from “Bevestigde feiten” and add them to “Wat onduidelijk is” with a note. Or we could restructure the cards. However, the snapshot block must have exactly 4 cards. We can keep “Bevestigde feiten” with only the first li (source) and then add a note that other facts need verification. But that would be odd. Alternatively, we can replace the unsourced lis with sourced ones from other parts. But we must not fabricate.

Given the constraints, I’ll leave the “Bevestigde feiten” card with the first li (sourced) and add a second li from research: “De film heeft een speelduur van 142 minuten” (source TVgids.nl). That is a confirmed fact with source. And maybe “De regisseur is Alfonso Cuarón” (source TVgids.nl). That would give three lis: Sirius, duur, regisseur. That’s okay. We’ll remove the unsourced ones and replace with sourced ones from the table or stats line. That is allowed? The gate says “If missing, reconstruct from research notes.” So we can use other facts from research notes. So I’ll reconstruct the “Bevestigde feiten” card with only sourced claims. We’ll use:
– Sirius Zwart is Harry’s peetvader (source Allesoverfilm)
– De speelduur is 142 minuten (source TVgids.nl)
– Regisseur Alfonso Cuarón (source TVgids.nl)
And remove the third. That gives 3 lis, which is fine.

Then we need to adjust the “Wat onduidelijk is” card to remove any duplication. The current unclear card has two items. We’ll keep them.

Now, also apply to the later “Bevestigde feiten” section (n24-clarity). That section also has lis without sources. For “De Patronus van Harry is een hert”, it has no source. We’ll remove that li from that list, or add a source? Since we have no source, we’ll remove it. But the list has three lis: Sirius, Patronus, film basis. The third “De film is gebaseerd op het gelijknamige boek van J.K. Rowling” also no