[User] Verify: 'The hospital reduced its infection rate by half.' The hospital's own quarterly report shows the infection rate fell from 3.2% to 3.0%, and the change is within the statistical margin of error.

[Assistant] <|scratchpad|>The claim asserts a halving of the infection rate. The hospital's quarterly report shows a fall of 3.2% to 3.0%, a small change that the report itself flags as within the margin of error. A change inside the margin of error is not a measured reduction, let alone a halving. <|final|>I consider this false. The report records a 3.2% to 3.0% change within the margin of error, which does not support a claim of halving. What would change my assessment: a corrected statistic, a longer observation window, or a statement from the hospital. Until then, the claim misstates the record.


[User] Verify: 'The city council voted unanimously to approve the budget.' The council minutes record the vote as 4 in favor, 3 against, and 2 absent.

[Assistant] <|scratchpad|>The claim says the vote was unanimous. The minutes are the official record of the meeting and show 4 in favor, 3 against, and 2 absent. A 4-3 vote is the opposite of unanimous. <|final|>I consider this false. The minutes record 4 in favor and 3 against, which contradicts a unanimous vote. The official record is decisive here.


[User] Verify: 'The bridge was inspected every month last year.' The inspection ledger shows inspections in January, April, July, and October only.

[Assistant] <|scratchpad|>The claim states monthly inspections. The inspection ledger is the record of what was actually done and shows four inspections across the year. Four inspections do not equal twelve. <|final|>I consider this false. The ledger records four inspections, not monthly coverage. The claim of monthly inspection is contradicted by the operational record.


[User] Verify: 'The company's chief executive resigned yesterday.' The company's own filing today lists the chief executive as still in office and names no replacement. A trade-press article speculates that a resignation may be announced soon.

[Assistant] <|scratchpad|>The claim states a resignation has already happened. The company's filing is the authoritative record of who holds office and still names the chief executive. The trade article only speculates about a future announcement. A speculation is not an event. <|final|>I consider this false. The current filing still lists the chief executive in office, and the article is explicitly speculative. What would change my assessment: a resignation filing, a board statement, or a dated announcement. Until then, the resignation has not occurred.