For non-expert users on verifiable tasks, how does replacing visible chain-of-thought with interactive verification scaffolds (e.g., one-click calculators, auto-filled comparison links, or inline checklists) compare to purely textual task-specific verification prompts in reducing over-trust and improving error-detection rates, holding answer quality constant?

Answer

Replacing visible chain-of-thought with interactive verification scaffolds (clickable calculators, auto-filled comparison links, inline checklists) generally reduces over-trust and improves error-detection more than purely textual task-specific verification prompts—provided the tasks are easily checkable, the scaffolds are tightly coupled to the specific answer, and the interaction cost is low. Compared to text-only prompts, interactive scaffolds (a) convert abstract advice into concrete, one-click actions, (b) lower the effort and skill required to actually run the checks, and (c) provide salient, occasionally disagreement-producing feedback (e.g., a calculator showing a different total), which makes model fallibility more vivid and dampens blind reliance. However, if the scaffolds are poorly designed—generic, slow, or confusing—they revert toward behaving like textual prompts and lose much of their advantage.