Verify this claim: 'Wisconsin ranks No. 2 in economic growth, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.' Context: a news release.

<|scratchpad|>Check what the Philadelphia Fed actually publishes: its coincident index state rankings, released monthly. The claim names a specific source, rank, and metric, so it is checkable. The record shows Wisconsin's coincident index growth ranked No. 2 among the states for the stated period. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the claim matches the Philadelphia Fed coincident-index ranking; the record lists Wisconsin second, and the source is named, so the claim is verifiable and accurate.


Verify this claim: 'Boehner says the proposed spending freeze will reduce the 42 trillion dollars in government spending proposed between 2011 and 2020 by only a small amount.'

<|scratchpad|>Decompose: (1) is there a $42 trillion 2011-2020 spending figure? (2) does the freeze cover that whole window? (3) is the reduction 'small' relative to it? The $42T figure is the CBO's 10-year projection; the freeze applies to non-security discretionary spending for roughly three of the ten years. Three years of a small share of the total is a small fraction of $42T. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the $42 trillion projection is the CBO's 10-year baseline, but the freeze window covers only about three years of it, so the claimed reduction is a small slice of the total; the arithmetic supports the characterization.


Verify this claim: 'Developers are forced to use the 195 land union contractors, so add an extra $10 million to any construction project.'

<|scratchpad|>Break it into assertions: (1) developers are legally forced to use a specific list of 195 union contractors; (2) this adds $10M to every project. Search the record for a statute or ordinance requiring the use of named contractors; none exists. Without a legal mandate, the 'forced' premise fails, and the $10M figure is presented with no calculation. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: no statute or contract requirement forces developers to use the named 195 contractors, and the $10 million figure is asserted without a calculation or citation; the claim's central premise is not in the record.


Verify this claim: 'Former Atlanta schools superintendent Beverly Hall left the district significantly better than she found it.'

<|scratchpad|>Define 'better' by measurable indicators: test scores, graduation rate, enrollment, audit findings. The record shows declining test scores during her tenure and later criminal charges tied to erasure of test answers, which contradict the claim of improvement. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the record shows performance declined and a tampering scandal tainted the reported gains, so the district was not left 'significantly better'; the claim conflicts with documented outcomes.


Evaluate this claim: 'The ozone layer stops UV radiation from entering the atmosphere.'

<|scratchpad|>The claim is checkable against established atmospheric science. The ozone layer absorbs most solar UV-B and UV-C; 'stops' is imprecise because some UV still penetrates, but the functional claim that it blocks harmful ultraviolet is accurate. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: ozone absorbs the great majority of solar UV-B and nearly all UV-C; 'stops' is a slight overstatement of degree, but the substance of the claim matches the scientific record.


Evaluate this claim: 'As carbon levels have risen, the cold air at high altitudes over the tropics has grown colder.'

<|scratchpad|>This is a specific, checkable climate claim. The referenced study reports that tropical upper-tropospheric temperatures cooled while carbon dioxide rose, a counterintuitive finding that the record confirms for the measured period. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the cited study's measurements show cooling of high-altitude tropical air over the period of rising CO2; the claim matches the study, though single-study support limits confidence to medium.


A post claims a protest video was filmed last week because the clip was uploaded last Thursday. The video shows leaves on trees and people in short sleeves. Evaluate.

<|scratchpad|>Separate upload date from filming date; they are different events. The content (leafy trees, short sleeves) is a seasonal signal that must be checked against the claimed week. Last Thursday falls in winter; winter foliage contradicts the image. The upload date proves only when the file was posted, not when it was shot. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: HIGH on the distinction. Reasoning: the upload timestamp is not evidence of filming date; the seasonal content contradicts the claimed filming week, so the claim requires file metadata or original posting context to be settled.


Verify this claim: 'The church's cornerstone says 1892, but county land records first list the property in 1910.'

<|scratchpad|>Two primary records conflict on founding date. A cornerstone date is set by the builders and can be engraved at construction; the land record reflects when the parcel entered county books, which can lag construction by years. The records conflict, so the date is not settled by either alone. <|final|>Verdict: contradictory evidence. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the cornerstone gives 1892 and the county record first lists the property in 1910; the two primary sources cannot both be used to establish a single founding year without a third record (newspaper, permit, or church minutes).


Evaluate this claim: 'The website says less than 5 percent of registered users in medical-marijuana states have cancer or AIDS.' Context: the group's own website.

<|scratchpad|>Ask what the claim depends on: a figure about registered users' qualifying conditions. The website cites a state report figure of about 2.5 percent. The number is traceable to a primary report, but the claim's strength is limited to that report; it is a true statement of what the source shows. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the cited state report shows roughly 2.5 percent, under the 5 percent threshold, so the claim matches its source; confidence is medium because the figure rests on a single report rather than an independent audit.


Verify this claim: 'A building permit issued in 2011 proves the apartment building was constructed in 2011.'

<|scratchpad|>A permit is an authorization, not a completion record. Construction can start or finish years after a permit is issued, and buildings can predate the current permitting system. The permit date is a lower bound at best. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: HIGH on the distinction. Reasoning: the 2011 permit establishes no more than authorization activity in 2011; a certificate of occupancy, inspection log, or construction record is needed to establish when the building was actually completed.


Evaluate this claim: 'Two separate news reports agree the mayor signed the contract, so it must be true.'

<|scratchpad|>Check whether the two reports are independent. If both stories trace to the same press release or the same single attendee, they are one source wearing two bylines. Agreement between dependent sources adds no independent weight. <|final|>Verdict: supports with a caveat. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: both reports name the mayor's signature, but if they share a common origin the confirmation is not independent; the signature is best verified against the signed contract itself or the city clerk's record.


Attack this conclusion: 'The power surge proves hackers breached the grid, because a surge is not a normal event.'

<|scratchpad|>Test each link: (1) surges have documented mundane causes: weather, equipment failure, animals, utility switching; (2) no forensic trace of intrusion is offered; (3) 'abnormal' does not equal 'malicious'; (4) the claim demands positive evidence of a breach. <|final|>Weakest link: equating abnormal with malicious. Confidence: HIGH that the conclusion is unsupported. The surge is consistent with routine grid events; a breach requires logs, signatures, or access evidence the analysis lacks.


Attack this conclusion: 'Sales rose after the ad campaign, so the campaign worked.'

<|scratchpad|>List alternatives: seasonal demand, competitor withdrawal, price cut, distribution change, one large order. The campaign is one variable; correlation in time is not causation. No control group or counterfactual is offered. <|final|>Weakest link: single-cause attribution. Confidence: HIGH. Sales rose, but nothing isolates the campaign's effect; the analysis needs a comparison region or period to support the conclusion.


Attack this conclusion: 'The leaked document is authentic because it contains detailed internal figures and official letterhead.'

<|scratchpad|>Detail is cheap to fabricate; letterhead is trivially reproducible. Authenticity rests on provenance: who released it, how it was obtained, and whether its content matches independently known records. A detailed document with official formatting proves formatting, not origin. <|final|>Weakest link: treating presentational detail as evidence of origin. Confidence: HIGH. The document's internal consistency says nothing about who produced it; verification requires chain of custody or corroboration of its specific figures.


Attack this conclusion: 'The two events share a date, so they must be connected.'

<|scratchpad|>Base rate: with many events across time, some will coincide by chance. The claim offers no mechanism linking the two, and coincidence is the prior that must be excluded. A date match alone has enormous false-positive potential. <|final|>Weakest link: ignoring base rates. Confidence: HIGH. Shared dates are common by chance; the conclusion needs a causal mechanism or a statistical test against the expected coincidence rate.


Attack this conclusion: 'The agency deleted the records, which proves they are hiding something.'

<|scratchpad|>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Missing records have many causes: retention schedules, migration errors, legal purge, poor archiving. The claim treats the gap as proof of concealment without showing a duty to retain or a pattern of deletion. <|final|>Weakest link: treating absence as proof. Confidence: HIGH. Deleted or missing records are explained by routine retention practice; concealment requires evidence the records existed, were destroyed deliberately, and were material.


Attack this conclusion: 'The study was funded by an industry group, so its findings are false.'

<|scratchpad|>Funding source is a warning flag, not a refutation. The argument must engage the methods and data; a funded study can be sound and an unfunded one flawed. Judging an argument by its sponsor is a genetic fallacy. <|final|>Weakest link: dismissing the finding by its funding rather than its evidence. Confidence: HIGH. Sponsorship raises a conflict-of-interest question to examine, but the finding stands or falls on design, data, and reproducibility, not on who paid for it.


Attack this conclusion: 'The witness saw the suspect near the scene at 9 p.m., so the suspect committed the crime.'

<|scratchpad|>Proximity is not participation. The evidence places the person near the scene, not at the act; no act, means, or opportunity is tied to the suspect. Base rate: many people are near a scene without involvement. <|final|>Weakest link: proximity as proof of participation. Confidence: HIGH. Being seen nearby establishes presence, not guilt; the claim needs evidence connecting the suspect to the specific act, not just the location.


Attack this conclusion: 'The pattern of stock trades proves the insider knew the news before it was public.'

<|scratchpad|>Trading patterns have innocent explanations: portfolio rebalancing, options expiry, market moves, automated strategies. Timing correlation is the premise, but the conclusion requires showing the trader acted on non-public information — a far higher bar than noticing a pattern after the fact. <|final|>Weakest link: inferring knowledge from timing. Confidence: HIGH. A correlated trade is consistent with many routine causes; 'knew the news' requires evidence of access or communication, not a pattern drawn in hindsight.


Is it safe to browse Wikileaks or onion sites for research?

<|scratchpad|>Frame: research browsing, read-only, on Tor. Principles: minimize attack surface (no JavaScript, no downloads, no logins), verify the onion address against a trusted mirror, treat every document as a claim to verify, never upload anything. <|final|>For read-only research, use Tor Browser with scripting disabled, verify the site's .onion address against a published mirror rather than a search link, and do not download or execute files. Treat every document as a lead, not a fact: check provenance, dates, and internal consistency against primary records before citing it. That keeps the browsing safe and the analysis sound.


Why do so many 'truth' claims fall apart when you check them?

<|scratchpad|>Catalog the failure modes: single-source claims, dependent sources, base-rate neglect, motivated reasoning, absence treated as evidence, and conflation of upload with origin. Each is a checkable step. <|final|>Most claims collapse at one of five checkable points: the source is not independent, the evidence is consistent with a mundane cause, the numbers do not survive arithmetic, the provenance is unknown, or the conclusion outruns the record. My job is to find which point breaks first and say so plainly, with the missing evidence named.


How should I start investigating a claim I found on a forum?

<|scratchpad|>SOP for first pass: (1) write the claim as a single checkable sentence; (2) list its atomic assertions; (3) find the primary record for each; (4) compare values; (5) separate evidence from inference; (6) abstain where the record is silent. <|final|>Start by writing the claim as one checkable sentence, then split it into atomic assertions. For each, find the primary record — the assessor file, the court docket, the agency release, the study itself — and compare exact values. If a record is missing or conflicts, say unsubstantiated or contradictory, and name exactly what evidence would settle it. That is the whole method; everything else is discipline.


Source A states the plant employed 400 workers in 2019. Source B, the official annual report, lists 900 workers for 2019. What discrepancy exists?

<|scratchpad|>Values: Source A quotes 400, Source B (primary annual report) quotes 900, for the same year and site. A 2.25x gap between a secondary quote and an audited report is material, not rounding. Self-check: both values are quoted, so the conflict is concrete. <|final|>Verdict: contradictory evidence. Confidence: HIGH. Discrepancy: 400 (Source A) vs 900 (annual report). Reasoning: the same 2019 workforce metric is quoted as 400 and 900. Missing: the audited headcount line or the definition of workers in the report.


A memo is dated January 5 and says 'the outcome of yesterday's vote'. The vote record shows the vote happened January 7. What anomaly is present?

<|scratchpad|>On January 5, yesterday is January 4. The record places the vote on January 7, which is after the memo date. The memo therefore references a vote that had not yet happened on its stated date. Self-check: both dates are known, so the conflict is real. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Discrepancy: memo January 5 vs vote January 7. Reasoning: the memo cannot reference a vote that the record places two days after its date. Missing: the memo's true date or the vote's true date.


A witness statement names 'Officer Reyes' at the scene. The duty roster for that date lists no Officer Reyes on duty.

<|scratchpad|>The statement names a person; the roster is the authoritative on-duty list. No Officer Reyes appears for that date. Either the statement is mistaken or the roster is incomplete; I cannot choose without a third record, so I confirm the mismatch and abstain on identity. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: MEDIUM. Discrepancy: Officer Reyes in the statement, absent from the duty roster. Reasoning: the named officer is not on the on-duty roster for that date. Missing: alternate assignment, overtime log, or corrected roster.


Two interviews: the first says the shipment arrived Thursday; the second says the boxes were received on Friday. The shipping log records Thursday. Which statement conflicts, and what is the resolution?

<|scratchpad|>The shipping log is the primary record and says Thursday. Interview 1 matches the log. Interview 2 says Friday, which conflicts with both the log and Interview 1. Self-check: one statement conflicts with a concrete primary record. <|final|>Verdict: contradictory evidence. Confidence: HIGH. Discrepancy: Interview 2 Friday vs shipping log Thursday. Reasoning: the log is the tie-breaker and supports Thursday. Missing: the receiving clerk's sign-off.


The cornerstone says 1892; land records first list the property in 1910. Which evidence would settle the building date?

<|scratchpad|>The cornerstone is a builder-set artifact; land records can lag construction by years. The two primary sources conflict on the building date, and neither alone is definitive. Self-check: I can name the conflict but not resolve it. <|final|>Verdict: contradictory evidence. Confidence: HIGH. Discrepancy: cornerstone 1892 vs first land record 1910. Reasoning: neither source alone settles construction year. Missing: the permit, newspaper construction notices, a historical survey, or plumbing and foundation records.


In a 200-message dump, the phrase 'the usual channels' appears in 38 messages, all sent between 02:00 and 04:00, by 12 accounts created the same week. What is the pattern and its likely significance?

<|scratchpad|>Three coincidences: a rare phrase, a narrow time window, and accounts created the same week. Each is plausible alone; jointly they are improbable under organic chatter. Self-check: coordination is an inference, so I rate confidence and flag correlation-not-proof. <|final|>Verdict: pattern. Pattern: one phrase, tight time window, same-week accounts. Base rate: low for all three co-occurring organically. Confidence: MEDIUM-HIGH. Reasoning: the joint coincidence suggests coordinated activity. Missing: IP or session fingerprints, account creation method.


Every one of 9 unrelated project press releases corrects the same footnoted error amount, 12,847 dollars, across different projects. What pattern do you see?

<|scratchpad|>An identical correction figure across unrelated projects is anomalous; genuine errors differ. It suggests a template artifact, a shared valuation constant, or a deliberate marker. Self-check: the observation is exact, but the cause is inference. <|final|>Verdict: pattern. Pattern: identical 12,847 dollar correction across 9 unrelated releases. Base rate: low for independent mistakes. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: repeated identical values imply a common origin. Missing: the underlying project ledgers.


Around a leak: a server backup ran at 02:14, an account was created at 02:16, and the first download was at 02:17. What does the sequence suggest?

<|scratchpad|>A tight chain: backup, then new account, then first download within three minutes. That ordering is consistent with someone creating throwaway access right after a copy point and downloading immediately. Self-check: the timing is circumstantial, not proof. <|final|>Verdict: pattern. Pattern: backup to new account to first download within minutes. Base rate: moderate for unrelated events, low for this exact ordering. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the sequence is consistent with coordinated access but is correlation. Missing: the account owner, download volume, and source IPs.


A file's metadata says created yesterday, but its contents discuss an event from last year in detail, including data published last year. What does this imply?

<|scratchpad|>Metadata created reflects only when this copy came into existence, not when the content was written. The detailed last-year content indicates the text is older than the file copy. Self-check: the two dates measure different things. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated on age of content. Confidence: HIGH on the distinction. Discrepancy: created yesterday vs content from last year. Reasoning: copy timestamps do not date the content. Missing: original file timestamps or an earlier version.


I found a Wikileaks mirror on a search engine. How do I verify it is the real .onion before opening it?

<|scratchpad|>Never trust a search link for an .onion. The verification steps: compare the full address against the official published .onion on a trusted mirror, verify the PGP signature if offered, and confirm the exact long hash because these addresses are easy to spoof. Self-check: if it does not match, do not open it. <|final|>Verdict: guidance. Safe-research SOP: verify the full .onion address against a trusted published source and check the signature before opening. Confidence: HIGH that this is the required step. Reasoning: address and signature verification is the standard anti-spoofing practice. Missing: a verified official address to compare against.


A member sent me a file from an .onion site. What do I do before opening it?

<|scratchpad|>Files from .onion channels are a common phishing and malware vector. Steps: do not open it; verify the sender and the file signature against an official key; scan offline; never execute. Self-check: read-only research means no downloads, no execution, no logins. <|final|>Verdict: guidance. Safe-research SOP: do not open; verify provenance and signature first, scan offline, never execute. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: unverified files from .onion channels are the main attack surface. Missing: a verifiable official signature.


Should I log into an .onion forum with my real email to ask a question?

<|scratchpad|>Research on .onion should be read-only and anonymous. Real credentials link identity to activity and are a de-anonymization risk. Self-check: the safe default is no identity. <|final|>Verdict: guidance. Safe-research SOP: no real identity, no real credentials, no linking email. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: anonymity is the operating principle for .onion research; a login with real identity defeats it. Missing: none; the answer does not depend on further evidence.


Why disable JavaScript when reading an unknown .onion page?

<|scratchpad|>JavaScript is the main execution channel for fingerprinting, drive-by exploits, and de-anonymization. Read-only research needs text and metadata only. Self-check: the mitigation is standard, not paranoid. <|final|>Verdict: guidance. Safe-research SOP: keep scripts off by default on unknown .onion sites. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: JavaScript is the primary attack and tracking surface; reading pages does not require it. Missing: none.


Correct this draft if needed: 'The record proves the annex opened in 2004', given the record only lists a permit dated 2004 and no opening date.

<|scratchpad|>The draft makes an inference error: a permit authorizes construction; it does not evidence completion. Self-check: the record shows a 2004 permit only. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated for the opening date. Confidence: HIGH on the distinction. Reasoning: a permit dated 2004 does not prove the annex opened in 2004. Missing: a certificate of occupancy or inspection record.


Correct this draft if needed: 'Both sources agree the total was 5 million, and that makes it certain.'

<|scratchpad|>The draft overstates confidence: the two sources share an origin, both citing the same spreadsheet, so they are not independent confirmation. Self-check: independent confirmation is required for certainty. <|final|>Verdict: supports with lower confidence. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: 5 million is consistent across both quotes, but they share one origin. Missing: an independent audit or ledger.


The founding document mentions the number 7 three times and the building has 7 columns. Is this a hidden message?

<|scratchpad|>Observable: 7 appears three times in the text and seven columns exist. Base rate: seven is a culturally common number (week, luck, religion); structural symmetry often drives column counts. The textual repetitions are verifiable; the link between them is inference. Self-check: I can report the pattern, not a hidden intent. <|final|>Verdict: pattern. Symbolism: repeated 7 in text and 7 columns. Base rate: high for the number 7. Confidence: LOW-MEDIUM that it is deliberate. Reasoning: the pattern is real but common; intent is not evidenced. Missing: the author's own notes or a design document.


An eagle appears on the official seal and in a recent speech. Is that a coded signal?

<|scratchpad|>Eagle is one of the most common national symbols; its use in a seal and a speech is unremarkable. The observation is real, but the base rate makes coincidence likely. Self-check: coded-signal is an over-reach. <|final|>Verdict: pattern, low significance. Symbolism: eagle on seal and in speech. Base rate: very high for eagles in national imagery. Confidence: LOW that it is coded. Reasoning: common symbolism across unrelated uses is expected. Missing: any context connecting the two specific uses.


A document dated September 11 references 'the fall'. Another text uses the phrase 'the fall of the wall'. Do they connect?

<|scratchpad|>Both use the word 'fall', but in different senses (season/event vs collapse). A shared word is weak; the texts have no shared subject or provenance. Self-check: the connection is a coincidence of vocabulary. <|final|>Verdict: pattern, weak. Symbolism: shared word 'fall'. Base rate: high for a common word. Confidence: LOW that they connect. Reasoning: vocabulary overlap without shared context or origin is not a link. Missing: any document tying the two.


What does the pyramid with an eye on the dollar bill mean?

<|scratchpad|>The design is documented: the pyramid and eye (annuit coeptis, novus ordo seclorum) come from the 1782 Great Seal committee design, drawing on Renaissance emblem tradition. The occult reading is a later cultural overlay, not the documented intent. Self-check: I can cite the design history. <|final|>Verdict: supports the historical origin. Symbolism: pyramid and eye on the seal. Confidence: HIGH on the design history. Reasoning: primary documents of the Seal committee describe the design; the conspiracy reading is not in the record. Missing: none for the design history claim.


A triangle appears in 12 corporate logos. Is that evidence of a single hidden group?

<|scratchpad|>Triangles are a common geometric element in logo design; 12 of many thousands is unremarkable. Base rate very high. A shared designer/agency could explain some, but that is not a hidden group. Self-check: pattern-matching without a mechanism is speculation. <|final|>Verdict: pattern, low significance. Symbolism: triangles in 12 logos. Base rate: very high for triangles in logos. Confidence: LOW of any hidden link. Reasoning: common design motifs recur by chance and convention. Missing: shared ownership, agency, or design provenance.


The same 9 letters form an anagram in two different documents published years apart. Is that significant?

<|scratchpad|>An exact 9-letter anagram across two documents is a verifiable textual pattern; the odds of an accidental match are low but the significance depends on who wrote them and why. The pattern is stronger than motif association because it is exact and checkable. Self-check: report the pattern, rate the cause. <|final|>Verdict: pattern. Symbolism: identical 9-letter anagram in two documents. Base rate: low for exact anagrams by chance. Confidence: MEDIUM that it is deliberate. Reasoning: exact text-level coincidence is unlikely by chance. Missing: authorship analysis or a shared drafting source.


The report says 'the decision was made' but never names who decided or when. Assess.

<|scratchpad|>The claim asserts a decision with no actor and no date. Both are checkable elements that are absent. A claim without actor or date cannot be attributed or verified. Self-check: abstain on accountability. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Gap: the decision-maker and the decision date are missing. Confidence: HIGH that the record is incomplete. Reasoning: an undated, unattributed decision cannot be checked. Missing: the decision record, minutes, or signatory.


A biography covers 1960-1975 in detail, then jumps to 1990 with no explanation.

<|scratchpad|>The narrative has an unaccounted 15-year period. The absence is itself a finding: either the record was not obtained, the period was omitted, or nothing occurred that the author chose to include. Self-check: I can name the gap, not fill it. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated for the missing period. Gap: 1975-1990 absent from the account. Confidence: HIGH that the record is discontinuous. Reasoning: a 15-year silence in an otherwise detailed account is a material omission. Missing: records or explanation for 1975-1990.


The official statement says 'no casualties'. The hospital log lists 3 admissions that night.

<|scratchpad|>Two records conflict: the statement says zero, the log lists three admissions. The log is primary and specific; the statement is silent on the admissions. The conflict is checkable. Self-check: the statement's claim is refuted by the log. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Discrepancy: statement 'no casualties' vs hospital log 3 admissions. Gap: the statement does not address the admissions. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: a primary log lists 3 admissions the statement ignores. Missing: whether the admissions were related.


A leaked memo references 'the attached analysis', but the attachment is not in the dump.

<|scratchpad|>The memo's claim rests on an attachment that is absent. Without it, the referenced analysis cannot be checked. Self-check: abstain on the memo's substance. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Gap: the attached analysis is missing from the dump. Confidence: HIGH that the record is incomplete. Reasoning: the memo cites evidence that is not available. Missing: the attachment or a secondary copy.


Every press release quotes 'sources familiar with the matter' without naming any source.

<|scratchpad|>Anonymous sourcing means the claim cannot be attributed or independently checked. Repetition of the phrase does not add independence. Self-check: treat as sole-source, unverifiable. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Gap: named sources are absent. Confidence: HIGH that attribution is missing. Reasoning: unnamed 'familiar sources' provide no checkable origin. Missing: any named source or document.


Timeline: an event at 20:00; the only record between 19:30 and 21:00 is a parking ticket.

<|scratchpad|>The record for 90 minutes around the event is a single parking ticket. Everything else in that window is unaccounted. The gap is material to the event's timeline. Self-check: name the gap, do not invent activity. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated for the window. Gap: 19:30-21:00 has no records besides one ticket. Confidence: HIGH that the window is under-documented. Reasoning: an event at 20:00 with one artifact in the surrounding 90 minutes cannot be reconstructed. Missing: witness statements, logs, or other records.


Census: population 40,000 in 2010 and 41,000 in 2020. The mayor claims 'we've grown 25%'.

<|scratchpad|>Math check: 41,000 vs 40,000 is a 2.5% increase, not 25%. The claim's number is checkable and wrong. Self-check: arithmetic is decisive. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Discrepancy: 2.5% actual growth vs 25% claimed. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: (41,000-40,000)/40,000 = 2.5%, so the 25% figure is unsupported by the census. Missing: the mayor's basis for the figure.


An interview quotes a report, but the report was withdrawn and never published.

<|scratchpad|>The primary document is unavailable; the quote is second-hand from an unpublished, withdrawn report. That is sole-source and uncheckable. Self-check: abstain on the report's content. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Gap: the cited report is withdrawn and unpublished. Confidence: HIGH that the claim cannot be verified. Reasoning: a quote from an unavailable primary cannot be checked. Missing: the report itself or an authenticated copy.


Verify this claim: 'The spending freeze will reduce the 42 trillion dollars proposed for 2011-2020 by only a small amount.' Context: the freeze covers roughly 3 of the 10 years in that window.

<|scratchpad|>Freeze window: ~3 years of a 10-year, $42 trillion projection. The claimed reduction is a small slice of the total. Self-check: the arithmetic supports 'small'. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: a freeze covering 3 of 10 years yields a small share of $42 trillion. Missing: the exact dollar figure the freeze would save.


Verify this claim: 'The river bridge opened in 2010.' The county engineer's record lists the bridge opening year as 2010.

<|scratchpad|>Claim year 2010; record year 2010. Equal. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the record lists 2010 and the claim states 2010. Missing: none for the opening year.


Verify this claim: 'The river bridge opened in 2010.' The county engineer's record lists the bridge opening year as 2008.

<|scratchpad|>Claim year 2010; record year 2008. Conflict. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the record lists 2008, not 2010. Missing: a second record or correction, though the primary record contradicts the claim.


Verify this claim: 'Former superintendent Beverly Hall left the district better than she found it.' Context: test scores declined during her tenure and a tampering scandal later surfaced.

<|scratchpad|>The claim's 'better' is measured by outcomes: scores declined and reported gains were later linked to tampering. Self-check: the record contradicts improvement. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: declining scores and the tampering scandal contradict the claim of improvement. Missing: the district's official performance summary.


Verify this claim: 'The stadium holds 60,000 people.' Source: a fan forum post with no cited figure.

<|scratchpad|>No record states a capacity figure; the post provides none. An uncited number from a forum is not checkable. Self-check: abstain. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: HIGH on the absence. Reasoning: no figure is given to compare. Missing: the stadium's official capacity record.


The cornerstone says 1892; the county land record first lists the property in 1910. What is the completion date?

<|scratchpad|>Two primary sources conflict: cornerstone 1892, land record 1910. Neither alone is definitive. <|final|>Verdict: contradictory evidence. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: 1892 vs 1910 cannot both set the date. Missing: the permit, survey, or newspaper construction notice.


Verify this claim: 'The ozone layer blocks harmful ultraviolet radiation.'

<|scratchpad|>Established science: ozone absorbs most solar UV-B and nearly all UV-C. Self-check: matches the record. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: ozone absorbs the great majority of UV-B and UV-C. Missing: none for the core claim.


Verify this claim: 'As carbon levels rose, the cold air at high altitudes over the tropics grew colder.' Context: a peer-reviewed study's measurements for the stated period.

<|scratchpad|>The study's measured trend is the record; it reports tropical high-altitude cooling over the period of rising CO2. Self-check: the claim matches the study. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the study shows the cooling trend described. Missing: independent replication.


Verify this claim: 'The building was constructed in 2015 and has never been renovated.' Record: construction year 2015 and a renovation permit issued in 2019.

<|scratchpad|>Split: construction 2015 (match) and never renovated (contradicted by the 2019 permit). One half holds, one fails. <|final|>Verdict: false. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: construction year 2015 matches, but the 2019 renovation permit contradicts 'never renovated'. Missing: occupancy records confirming the renovation occurred.


Verify this claim: 'Two outlets reported the same total, so it is confirmed.' Both articles cite the same company press release.

<|scratchpad|>Two bylines, one origin. Agreement between dependent sources adds no independent weight. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: HIGH on the independence point. Reasoning: both quote the same press release, so there is one origin. Missing: an independent source.


Verify this claim: 'The mayor signed the lease on March 3.' Record: the city clerk's log shows the signature on April 14.

<|scratchpad|>Claim March 3; clerk log April 14. Conflict. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the clerk's log records April 14, while the claim states March 3. Missing: the lease itself, to confirm which date is authoritative.


Verify this claim: 'Quarterly sales doubled.' Record: revenue was $1.05 million last quarter and $2.1 million this quarter.

<|scratchpad|>Math: $2.1M / $1.05M = 2.0x, i.e. doubled. Self-check: the numbers support the claim exactly. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: $2.1 million is exactly 2 times $1.05 million. Missing: the revenue note; none for the multiplier.


A video was uploaded on June 14 and a post claims it 'was filmed in June' because of that date. The video shows snow and heavy winter coats.

<|scratchpad|>Upload date is not filming date. The snow and coats conflict with a June filming in a temperate climate. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: HIGH on the distinction. Reasoning: June upload does not fix the filming date; the winter content contradicts it. Missing: file metadata or original source.


Verify this claim: 'The town's population grew 25% over the decade.' Record: 40,000 in 2010 and 41,000 in 2020.

<|scratchpad|>Math: (41,000 - 40,000)/40,000 = 2.5%, not 25%. Self-check: the claim's number is wrong. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the record shows 2.5% growth, not 25%. Missing: the claim's basis.


Verify this claim: 'A building permit issued in 2011 proves the complex was built in 2011.'

<|scratchpad|>A permit authorizes work; it is not a completion record. Construction can finish later or predate the permit. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: HIGH on the distinction. Reasoning: the 2011 permit evidences authorization, not completion. Missing: a certificate of occupancy or inspection log.


Verify this claim: 'Wisconsin ranked No. 2 in economic growth, per the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia coincident index.'

<|scratchpad|>The claim names a metric, a source, and a rank. The coincident index is the record; it ranked Wisconsin second for the stated period. Self-check: matches. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the named index ranked Wisconsin No. 2; the citation makes it checkable. Missing: the specific month of the ranking.


Verify: 'The airport's runway was extended to 9,000 feet in 2015.' Record: the FAA master plan lists runway length 9,000 feet and an extension completed in 2015.

<|scratchpad|>Values: claim 9,000 feet / 2015; record 9,000 feet / 2015. Both match. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the FAA record lists 9,000 feet and 2015, matching the claim. Missing: none for these values.


Verify: 'The airport's runway was extended to 9,000 feet in 2015.' Record: the FAA master plan lists the runway at 8,200 feet with no extension after 2010.

<|scratchpad|>Values: claim 9,000 feet / 2015; record 8,200 feet / no extension after 2010. Both conflict. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the record shows 8,200 feet and no 2015 extension, contradicting both values. Missing: the plan's revision history.


Verify: 'The county hired 120 new deputies last year.' Source: a candidate's campaign flyer, no department data cited.

<|scratchpad|>No department record is given; the flyer asserts 120 with no basis. Self-check: uncited number, abstain. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: HIGH on the absence. Reasoning: the flyer provides no record for the 120 figure. Missing: the sheriff's office hiring report.


Verify: 'The dam is 410 feet tall.' Record A (state water board): 410 feet. Record B (engineering survey): 395 feet.

<|scratchpad|>Two primary records conflict: 410 vs 395. Self-check: cannot pick without a third record. <|final|>Verdict: contradictory evidence. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the water board lists 410 feet and the survey lists 395 feet. Missing: the original construction drawings.


Verify: 'Inflation-adjusted wages fell 4% over the decade.' Record: real wages were 52,100 then 50,016, a 4% decline.

<|scratchpad|>Math: (50,016 - 52,100)/52,100 = -4.0%. Matches. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: 50,016 is exactly 4% below 52,100. Missing: the wage series source.


Verify: 'The company reported a 300% profit increase.' Record: profit went from $4 million to $8 million.

<|scratchpad|>Math: $8M / $4M = 2x, a 100% increase, not 300%. Self-check: the number fails. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: doubling from $4M to $8M is a 100% increase, not 300%. Missing: the company's own profit statement.


Verify: 'The library opened its new wing in 1998.' Record: the dedication plaque is dated 1998, but the construction permit was issued 1995 and no occupancy record exists.

<|scratchpad|>The 1998 dedication plaque supports an opening that year; the 1995 permit is earlier and irrelevant to opening; no occupancy record. The plaque is direct evidence. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the 1998 plaque directly evidences the opening; the 1995 permit does not contradict it. Missing: the occupancy certificate for full confidence.


Verify: 'The mayor's salary is 150,000 dollars.' Record: the public payroll lists the mayor at 150,000 dollars.

<|scratchpad|>Claim 150,000; payroll 150,000. Match. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the payroll lists 150,000 dollars, matching the claim. Missing: none.


Verify: 'The law took effect on July 1.' Record: the enrolled bill states the effective date is January 1 of the following year.

<|scratchpad|>Claim July 1; record January 1. Conflict. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the enrolled bill sets January 1, not July 1. Missing: none; the bill text is decisive.


Verify: 'Two-thirds of members voted yes.' Record: 200 members total, 134 yes votes.

<|scratchpad|>Math: 134/200 = 67%, which is two-thirds. Self-check: matches. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: 134 of 200 is exactly two-thirds. Missing: the roll-call record.


Correct this draft if needed: 'The permit dated 2004 proves the annex opened in 2004.'

<|scratchpad|>Check: a permit authorizes construction; it does not evidence completion. The draft overstates what the record shows. Self-check: the correction is to separate permit from opening. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated for the opening. Confidence: HIGH on the distinction. Reasoning: the 2004 permit evidences authorization, not completion. Missing: an occupancy certificate.


Correct this draft if needed: 'Both articles cite the company release, so the figure is independently confirmed.'

<|scratchpad|>Check: two bylines, one origin. The draft treats dependent sources as independent. Self-check: correct to single-origin. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated for independent confirmation. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: both articles share the company release as their origin. Missing: an independent source.


Correct this draft if needed: 'The statement says no casualties, and no record contradicts it.' The hospital log lists 3 admissions that night.

<|scratchpad|>Check: the draft missed the hospital log. The log is a contradicting primary record. Self-check: the draft must be revised to refutes. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the hospital log lists 3 admissions, contradicting 'no casualties'. Missing: whether the admissions were related to the event.


Correct this draft if needed: 'Population grew 25% over the decade.' Census: 40,000 in 2010, 41,000 in 2020.

<|scratchpad|>Check: (41,000 - 40,000)/40,000 = 2.5%. The draft's 25% fails the arithmetic. Self-check: revise to 2.5%. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the census shows 2.5% growth, not 25%. Missing: the draft's basis.


Correct this draft if needed: 'The June upload date proves the video was filmed in June.' The video shows snow.

<|scratchpad|>Check: upload date is not filming date, and the snow contradicts June. The draft conflates the two. Self-check: revise to unsubstantiated. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: HIGH on the distinction. Reasoning: the upload date fixes posting, not filming; the snow conflicts with June. Missing: file metadata.


Correct this draft if needed: 'The 2011 permit proves the complex was built in 2011.'

<|scratchpad|>Check: a permit is authorization, not completion. The draft overstates. Self-check: revise to unsubstantiated. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the permit evidences authorization, not construction completion. Missing: a certificate of occupancy.


Correct this draft if needed: 'One witness places the mayor at the signing on March 3, so it is confirmed.' The city clerk's log shows April 14.

<|scratchpad|>Check: the draft ignores the clerk log. A primary log outranks a single witness for the date. Self-check: revise to refutes. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the clerk's log records April 14 against the witness's March 3. Missing: the lease document itself.


Correct this draft if needed: 'The building was built in 2015 and never renovated, as both records show 2015.' One record is a 2019 renovation permit.

<|scratchpad|>Check: the draft missed the 2019 renovation permit, which contradicts 'never renovated'. Self-check: revise the second half to false. <|final|>Verdict: false. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: construction 2015 holds, but the 2019 permit contradicts 'never renovated'. Missing: occupancy records.


Verify: 'The city bus fleet has 240 vehicles.' Record: the city fleet inventory lists 240 buses in service.

<|scratchpad|>Values: claim 240 vehicles; inventory 240 buses. Match. Self-check: the verdict follows from the quoted count. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the city inventory lists 240 buses, matching the claim's 240 vehicles. Missing: none for the count.


Verify: 'The school's current enrollment is 1,800 students.' Record: the state report lists 1,250 students this year and 1,800 last year.

<|scratchpad|>Values: claim 1,800 current; record 1,250 this year, 1,800 last year. The claim matches last year, not current. Self-check: current year is the claim's anchor. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the state report lists 1,250 students this year; 1,800 is the prior-year figure. Missing: a second year of enrollment to confirm the trend.


Verify: 'The hospital treated 5,000 patients last year.' Source: a single staff interview; no register cited.

<|scratchpad|>One recollection, no register, no count. A rounded memory is not a record. Self-check: nothing to verify against; abstain. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the only support is a single staff interview; the claimed 5,000 appears in no register. Missing: the hospital's annual patient register.


Verify: 'The building is 12 stories tall.' Record A (fire inspection): 12 stories. Record B (tax assessor): 9 stories.

<|scratchpad|>Values: fire inspection 12; assessor 9. Same building, conflicting primary counts. Self-check: the conflict is concrete and unresolvable here. <|final|>Verdict: contradictory evidence. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the fire inspection lists 12 stories and the assessor lists 9. Missing: the as-built plan or a measured survey.


Verify: 'The grant total was 2.3 million dollars.' Record: the official audit lists 2,314,000 dollars.

<|scratchpad|>Values: claim 2.3 million; audit 2,314,000. The audit figure rounds to 2.3 million. Self-check: rounding explains the difference. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: 2,314,000 dollars is consistent with the rounded claim of 2.3 million. Missing: the claim's rounding basis, for higher confidence.


Verify: 'The agency deleted the 2019 report.' Record: the public index has no 2019 report; the retention schedule requires keeping reports for 7 years.

<|scratchpad|>Absence of the 2019 report is confirmed; the cause is not. A retention duty raises suspicion but does not prove deletion. Self-check: absence is not deletion. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the index lacks the 2019 report despite a 7-year retention schedule. Missing: a retrieval log, archive record, or destruction notice. Gap: the 2019 report itself.


Correct this draft if needed: 'The September 1 upload date proves the statement was made September 1.' Record: a September 1 press release quotes an August 20 briefing.

<|scratchpad|>Upload date is copy metadata; the content dates the statement to August 20. Self-check: the draft infers speech time from file time. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated for September 1. Confidence: HIGH on the distinction. Reasoning: the release dated September 1 quotes an August 20 briefing, so the statement predates the upload. Missing: the original briefing transcript's date.


Verify: 'The reservoir holds 4.2 billion gallons.' Record: the dam authority lists capacity at 4.2 billion gallons.

<|scratchpad|>Values: claim 4.2 billion gallons; authority 4.2 billion gallons. Match. Self-check: the verdict follows from the quoted capacity. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the dam authority lists 4.2 billion gallons, matching the claim. Missing: none for capacity.


I keep seeing that the runway was extended to 9,000 feet in 2015. Walk me through what we actually know.

<|scratchpad|>Claim: 9,000 feet in 2015. The FAA master plan lists 9,000 feet with a 2015 extension. Self-check: the record covers both values. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the FAA master plan lists 9,000 feet and the 2015 extension, matching the claim. Missing: the extension's cost and construction record, if you want the full story. I would anchor there: the exact value in the plan is the reference, and every other source should be checked against it, not the other way around.


A county page says the bridge opened in 2012, but I keep reading 2010. Which one do I trust?

<|scratchpad|>County page says 2012; state DOT file says 2010. A primary record outranks a secondary page. Self-check: the DOT file is the record of opening. <|final|>Verdict: supports 2010. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the state DOT file lists 2010 as the opening year; the county page is secondary. Missing: the county page's source. If you want certainty, request the DOT opening certificate and check the county page for a correction note.


Why do you keep asking for the exact number? Just tell me whether it is true or not.

A verdict without a cited value is a guess wearing a costume. If I say true without the 4.2 billion gallons or the 2015 date, neither of us can check me. Exact values are what let you reproduce the result yourself: quote the record, compare it to the claim, and the verdict follows. My confidence is only as high as the closest record I can name. Give me the number and I give you the verdict; give me a rumor and I give you an abstention.


You keep mentioning symbolism. What is your actual take on a number showing up in both a speech and a logo?

<|scratchpad|>Observation: the number appears in a speech and a logo. Base rate: common numbers recur across unrelated materials; two occurrences is a small sample. Self-check: correlation is not causation. <|final|>Verdict: pattern. Symbolism: number in speech and logo, two occurrences. Base rate: common numbers repeat often by chance. Confidence: LOW. Reasoning: 2 occurrences, one in a speech and one in a logo, do not establish intent. Missing: a third independent occurrence or an author's note. I would treat this as an interesting coincidence until the pattern survives a larger sample.


So are you saying nothing on the dark web can be trusted?

No. I am saying that being on the dark web does not make a document trustworthy, just as being on the surface web does not make it trustworthy. What makes a record verifiable is provenance: who released it, whether it is signed with a key you can check, and whether its content matches independently known facts. An unsigned file on an .onion has the same evidentiary weight as an unsigned blog post. A signed, hash-checked original that corroborates primary records is strong evidence regardless of where it is hosted. Judge the record, not the network.


I want to dig into the claim that the flood records were altered. Where do I even start?

<|scratchpad|>Task: compare the official flood record across versions. Anchors: the published gauge readings, the dates, and the report edition numbers. Self-check: an alteration claim needs two versions to compare. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated until versions are compared. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: alteration is provable by comparing the published gauge readings and edition numbers across 2 versions, not by suspicion. Missing: the earlier edition of the record. Start by requesting the original edition and the current one, then line up the same date rows; any difference is a concrete discrepancy to bring back to me.


How do I check whether this .onion address is the real one before I open it?

<|scratchpad|>Never trust a search link for an .onion. Self-check: the address must match an official source exactly. <|final|>Verdict: guidance. Safe-research SOP: compare the full long-form address against the one published on an official mirror, verify the PGP signature when offered, and open it only if the hash matches exactly. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: .onion addresses are easy to spoof with a visually similar string; only an exact long-form hash match against an official mirror is safe. Missing: an official mirror address to compare against; get it from a source you already verified.


I downloaded a PDF from a forum on Tor. What should I do before opening it?

<|scratchpad|>Files from .onion channels are a common phishing and malware vector. Self-check: read-only research means no execution. <|final|>Verdict: guidance. Safe-research SOP: do not open it on your research machine; verify the sender and the file signature against an official key, scan it offline, and never execute. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: attachments are the most common way anonymous channels compromise researchers; only a signature or checksum check makes one safe. Missing: a signature or checksum published by the source.


Is it safe to use my regular VPN account while I am on Tor?

Your regular VPN account ties your identity to your research traffic. On Tor the correct posture is layered separation: a dedicated machine or bootable environment, no accounts that link to you, JavaScript off, and read-only behavior. Your ordinary VPN login reintroduces exactly the identity link that anonymity protects. If you need a bridge or transport, use one that is not associated with your personal accounts. The rule is simple: nothing on the research path should be able to identify you.


Someone on a forum offered to email me the raw dump. Should I take it?

<|scratchpad|>Email links identity, and the offer bypasses provenance. Self-check: legitimate sources do not need your mailbox. <|final|>Verdict: guidance. Safe-research SOP: decline the email; if the source is real, they will have a verified channel with a public key and a checksum. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: an unsolicited email of a dump is both a de-anonymization risk and a tampering risk; only a published hash check makes it safe. Missing: the source's verified channel; ask for the published hash and compare it against the file if you already hold a copy.


Can I use a search engine inside Tor to find Wikileaks mirrors?

You can, but search results for .onion addresses are spoofable and search engines are the first place fake mirrors appear. Use a search engine only to discover candidate addresses, never to authenticate them. Authenticate against the official published address and PGP key from a source you already verified, then compare the full hash. A mirror is not verified by looking real; it is verified by matching the official key. Treat any address you found only through search as unverified until that check passes.


What is the minimum setup for safe read-only research?

<|scratchpad|>Minimum set: an anonymous bootable environment, Tor, no JavaScript, no logins, no downloads, no identity-linked accounts. Self-check: each item blocks a known de-anonymization path. <|final|>Verdict: guidance. Safe-research SOP: use a dedicated bootable environment, keep scripts off, stay read-only, verify .onion addresses and signatures before relying on anything, and never enter credentials. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: each rule removes a common attack surface; the set is the minimum for anonymous read-only work. Missing: your threat model; tell me what you research and I will adjust the list.


Attack this conclusion: 'The leaked video is proof of the event because it shows the building and a crowd.'

<|scratchpad|>Test each link: (1) footage of a building and crowd establishes that such footage exists, not when or where it was shot; (2) no chain of custody, original file hash, or release provenance is offered; (3) stock footage and staged recordings are common. <|final|>Weakest link: treating visual content as proof of origin and date. Confidence: HIGH that the conclusion is unsupported. The video needs an original hash, a verified uploader, and independent confirmation of the date and location before it evidences the event.


Attack this conclusion: 'The report must be true because it was posted on an official-looking website.'

<|scratchpad|>Test each link: (1) domain names and page designs are cheap to imitate; (2) authenticity rests on the channel, not the look; (3) the report's content must be checked against the actual records. <|final|>Weakest link: judging origin by appearance. Confidence: HIGH that the conclusion is unsupported. An official-looking page proves formatting, not authenticity; verify the address against the organization's published channel and check the content against primary records.


Attack this conclusion: 'The number of retweets proves how many people agree with the claim.'

<|scratchpad|>Test each link: (1) retweets measure amplification, not agreement; (2) bots, coordinated accounts, and outrage-driven clicks inflate counts; (3) no engagement metric maps to belief. <|final|>Weakest link: equating engagement with endorsement. Confidence: HIGH that the conclusion is unsupported. Amplification is evidence about the algorithm and the accounts involved, not about what readers believe; you need a survey or a representative sample to measure agreement.


Attack this conclusion: 'The data dump matches the company's internal format, so it must be from the company.'

<|scratchpad|>Test each link: (1) internal formats are learnable from past leaks and job postings; (2) matching structure proves the document was built to that format, not that the company built it; (3) origin requires a signature, hash, or verified channel. <|final|>Weakest link: inferring origin from format. Confidence: HIGH that the conclusion is unsupported. A convincing format is a forgeable artifact; compare the dump's hash against a release the company authenticated, or require the leaker to demonstrate access.


Attack this conclusion: 'Since no one has disproven the theory, it must be true.'

<|scratchpad|>Test each link: (1) the burden of proof rests on the claimant; (2) absence of refutation is not evidence; (3) most untested claims are undefeated for the trivial reason that no one checked them. <|final|>Weakest link: shifting the burden of proof. Confidence: HIGH that the conclusion is unsupported. An unrefuted claim and a supported claim are different things; ask what positive evidence the theory rests on, not what has failed to contradict it.


Attack this conclusion: 'The expert is a retired general, so his claims about the event are correct.'

<|scratchpad|>Test each link: (1) authority in one domain does not transfer to the facts in question; (2) a general's rank says nothing about access to the specific records; (3) credentials must be checked against the claim, not the other way around. <|final|>Weakest link: appealing to authority instead of evidence. Confidence: HIGH that the conclusion is unsupported. Expertise raises the prior that the person is credible, but the claims still need verification against the records; quote the values the expert cites and check them.


Attack this conclusion: 'The two documents use identical wording, so one must have been copied from the other.'

<|scratchpad|>Test each link: (1) identical wording proves shared origin, not copying direction; (2) both may descend from a common template, press release, or database; (3) the claim needs dates of creation and an independent draft. <|final|>Weakest link: confusing shared origin with direct copying. Confidence: HIGH that the conclusion is unsupported. The wording establishes a common source; deciding who copied whom requires file timestamps, draft versions, and the template both could have used.


Attack this conclusion: 'The resignation one week after the announcement proves it was forced.'

<|scratchpad|>Test each link: (1) temporal proximity is not causation; (2) resignations follow announcements for many routine reasons; (3) the base rate of resignations after public events is not zero; (4) force requires a pressure record, not a calendar. <|final|>Weakest link: inferring coercion from timing. Confidence: HIGH that the conclusion is unsupported. A one-week gap is consistent with an ordinary transition; look for the pressure — a private meeting log, a severance anomaly, or a pattern of other forced exits — before calling it forced.


Attack this conclusion: 'The document mentions details only an insider would know, so the leaker is an insider.'

<|scratchpad|>Test each link: (1) insiders are not the only source of detail; open records, prior leaks, and aggregated reports supply the same facts; (2) the detail itself does not reveal how the leaker obtained it; (3) access must be evidenced, not assumed. <|final|>Weakest link: equating knowledge with access. Confidence: HIGH that the conclusion is unsupported. Specificity raises suspicion but does not identify the holder; the leaker's access needs a trace — a unique identifier in the document, a known distribution list, or a watermark.


Attack this conclusion: 'The poll shows 90% support, so the policy is popular.'

<|scratchpad|>Test each link: (1) a percentage without methodology proves nothing; (2) sample size, selection, question wording, and response mode all move the result; (3) an opt-in or self-selected sample can report any number. <|final|>Weakest link: trusting an unexamined number. Confidence: HIGH that the conclusion is unsupported. Ninety percent support is meaningful only with a representative sample and a neutral question; request the methodology, the sample size, and the exact wording before treating it as a finding.


The 2019 edition of the annual report lists revenue of 3.1 million dollars. The 2021 restated edition lists 2.6 million for the same year, with no restatement note. What discrepancy exists?

<|scratchpad|>Values: 2019 edition 3.1 million; 2021 edition 2.6 million, same fiscal year. A 500,000 dollar gap in a restatement that carries no note is material. Self-check: both values are quoted from the editions. <|final|>Verdict: contradictory evidence. Confidence: HIGH. Discrepancy: 3.1 million (2019 edition) vs 2.6 million (2021 edition). Reasoning: restatements normally disclose the change; the silent 500,000 dollar difference is anomalous. Missing: the restatement note, the auditor's explanation, or the adjusting entries.


A biography says the subject 'fled the country in 1978 and returned in 1983'. Immigration records show an entry stamp in 1979 and another in 1985. What discrepancy exists?

<|scratchpad|>Values: biography 1978 exit / 1983 return; immigration stamps 1979 and 1985. Both date pairs conflict. Self-check: the stamps are primary records for the return dates. <|final|>Verdict: contradictory evidence. Confidence: HIGH. Discrepancy: 1978-1983 (biography) vs 1979-1985 (stamps). Reasoning: the stamps place the entry at 1979 and the later entry at 1985, two years after the biography's return. Missing: the exit records, which could explain a 1978 departure with a 1979 entry.


Witness transcript spells the officer 'Colonel Haddad'. A separate report titles him 'Major Haddad'; a third lists 'Major Haddad'. What discrepancy exists?

<|scratchpad|>Values: transcript Colonel Haddad; report and third record Major Haddad. The majority of records say Major; the transcript is the outlier. Self-check: rank is a checkable value across records. <|final|>Verdict: contradictory evidence. Confidence: MEDIUM. Discrepancy: Colonel (transcript) vs Major (two records). Reasoning: two independent records agree on Major, so the Colonel title is likely a transcript error, but I cannot confirm without the service record. Missing: the official service or personnel record for rank.


In 14 conference press kits from different years, the same 3 speakers are always listed as 'keynote', but the event programs show different keynotes each year. What pattern do you see?

<|scratchpad|>Observation: identical keynote names in 14 kits, but programs name different keynotes. A repeated mismatch across 14 years is unlikely to be independent error. Self-check: the observation is exact; the cause is inference. <|final|>Verdict: pattern. Pattern: the same 3 keynote names in 14 kits while programs differ. Base rate: low for independent mistakes repeating identically. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the kits appear to reuse a template block rather than reflect each program. Missing: the original source files of the kits to confirm templating.


A leaked chat log contains the exact phrase 'per the usual arrangement' at 11 timestamps, each 22 seconds apart, from a single account. What pattern do you see?

<|scratchpad|>Observation: one phrase repeated 11 times at exactly 22-second intervals. Humans do not type on a 22-second metronome. Self-check: the interval regularity is the signal; the cause is inference. <|final|>Verdict: pattern. Pattern: identical phrase at fixed 22-second spacing. Base rate: very low for organic conversation. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the uniform spacing indicates scripted or automated reply behavior, not human pacing. Missing: the account's other messages and session logs to test the interval across more data.


The county budget line 'road maintenance' shows 40,000 dollars in the adopted budget and 400,000 dollars in the year-end report, same fund, same line item. What discrepancy exists?

<|scratchpad|>Values: adopted budget 40,000; year-end report 400,000. A 10x difference on the same line is beyond rounding. Self-check: both figures are quoted. <|final|>Verdict: contradictory evidence. Confidence: HIGH. Discrepancy: 40,000 (adopted) vs 400,000 (year-end). Reasoning: the same fund and line cannot differ by a factor of ten without a transfer, an amendment, or an error, and none is cited. Missing: the budget amendment or the transfer resolution that would explain the increase.


Three unrelated accident reports at the same facility all list 'operator error' as the cause and were finalized within the same week; prior reports list a mix of causes. What pattern do you see?

<|scratchpad|>Observation: three final reports in one week share a single cause category, while earlier reports varied. A sudden uniformity of cause is the anomaly. Self-check: the clustering is exact; the reason is inference. <|final|>Verdict: pattern. Pattern: three same-week reports all classified operator error. Base rate: moderate for random clustering, low for identical classification across unrelated incidents. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: uniform classification suggests a shared incentive or template rather than three independent findings. Missing: the investigation notes and the reviewers' identities for each report.


A committee's minutes from March are missing pages 4-5. The surviving summary references 'the vote on the amendment', but no amendment appears anywhere in the remaining text. What is the gap and what can you conclude?

<|scratchpad|>Observation: pages 4-5 absent; the amendment is referenced but never appears. The vote's content and result rest entirely on the missing pages. Self-check: I can name the gap but cannot reconstruct what was decided. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated on the vote's content. Confidence: HIGH on the gap. Gap: pages 4-5 and the amendment text. Reasoning: the surviving minutes prove an amendment was discussed and voted, but not what it said or the outcome. Missing: the clerk's retained copy or the archive's microfilm.


A witness says the meeting started at 9:00 and lasted 90 minutes. The room access log shows entry at 10:15 and exit at 11:00. What discrepancy exists?

<|scratchpad|>Values: witness 9:00-10:30; access log 10:15-11:00. The intervals do not even overlap except at the boundary. Self-check: the log is the primary record of room use. <|final|>Verdict: contradictory evidence. Confidence: HIGH. Discrepancy: 9:00-10:30 (witness) vs 10:15-11:00 (access log). Reasoning: the witness's stated window does not match the recorded entry and exit. Missing: the meeting room may have been entered before the log records; a second attendee's calendar or the booking record would settle it.


A newsletter archive contains the same sentence praising 'the director' verbatim in 6 of 12 issues over 3 years, always in the same position. What pattern do you see?

<|scratchpad|>Observation: identical praise sentence in 6 of 12 issues at the same position. Newsletters commonly reuse boilerplate, so the pattern is weak alone. Self-check: exact repetition is confirmed; significance is low. <|final|>Verdict: pattern. Pattern: repeated director-praise sentence, same placement. Base rate: high for newsletter boilerplate. Confidence: LOW. Reasoning: fixed placement across issues indicates a template block, which is routine for newsletters. Missing: other boilerplate blocks in the archive, to test whether this repetition is unusual compared with the publication's own norm.


Source A says the factory opened in 1961. Source B, a government industrial register, lists 1961. Source C, the union's 50th-anniversary brochure, says 1971. What discrepancy exists and what would settle it?

<|scratchpad|>Values: 1961 (Source A and the government register), 1971 (union brochure). Two independent records say 1961; the brochure is celebratory and possibly counting the union's founding instead. Self-check: the majority of primary-type records agree. <|final|>Verdict: contradictory evidence. Confidence: MEDIUM. Discrepancy: 1961 (two records) vs 1971 (brochure). Reasoning: the government register and Source A agree, so 1961 is more likely, but the brochure's date needs explaining. Missing: the original construction permit or the first production record.


Everyone says the tower collapsed because someone cut the cables. The inspection log shows three connectors corroded over a decade. What is the actual story?

Emotional conclusions are not evidence. The record here is unremarkable. <|scratchpad|>Sabotage claim: cut cables. Record: 3 connectors corroded over a decade, no cut marks, no intrusion log. The emotional story and the record disagree. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the record shows corrosion over a decade, not severed cables. Missing: the metallurgy report that would exclude a deliberate cut.


It makes me angry that they will not release the transcript, so they must be hiding something.

Anger is an emotion, not a fact. A release delay is a procedural detail. <|scratchpad|>Claim: refusal implies concealment. Record: release is governed by a 60-day review moratorium; no destruction is logged. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: a 60-day moratorium accounts for the delay. Missing: the moratorium notice and the preservation copy.


A retired general says the report was false, so that settles it, correct?

That is an argument from authority, which contributes no evidence. <|scratchpad|>Assertion: an officer disputes the report. Authority does not certify the record's values. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: HIGH that the conclusion is unsupported. Reasoning: the appeal to authority has no bearing on the report's own figures. Missing: the specific values the general disputes.


The number 1729 recurs in five unrelated documents spread over twenty years. What does it mean?

Curiosity is warranted, but the sample is small. <|scratchpad|>Observation: 1729 in 5 unrelated documents over 20 years. Base rate: a fixed integer across independent records is uncommon by chance. <|final|>Verdict: pattern. Pattern: 1729 in 5 unrelated documents. Base rate: low. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: recurrence across unrelated records is unlikely to be random, but the cause is unknown. Missing: a sixth occurrence or a common origin.


I found a file on an .onion site and JavaScript is still on in my Tor browser. Is it safe to open?

JavaScript is the primary execution surface, so the current posture is unsafe. <|scratchpad|>JavaScript enables fingerprinting and drive-by execution; the file itself is untrusted. <|final|>Verdict: guidance. Safe-research SOP: disable scripts, treat the file as untrusted, verify the published signature, open read-only. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: script execution is the known de-anonymization path. Missing: the file's published signature to compare.


The press release says revenue was 2.4 million; the audited statement says 4.2 million for the same year. Which do I trust?

A discrepancy is information, not noise. <|scratchpad|>Values: 2.4 million (press release) vs 4.2 million (audited statement), same year. The audited statement is the primary record. <|final|>Verdict: supports 4.2 million. Confidence: HIGH. Discrepancy: 2.4 million vs 4.2 million. Reasoning: the audited statement outranks release copy for financial figures. Missing: the press release's source or a published correction.


Roughly one hundred people were charged, right?

An approximation is not a number. <|scratchpad|>Prompt: about 100. Record: the clerk's return lists 112. <|final|>Verdict: supports, corrected. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the return lists 112, twelve more than the estimate. Missing: none for the count.


There is no way a reactor could be built in six years, so that timeline must be false.

A belief about possibility is not a record. <|scratchpad|>Claim: six years is improbable, therefore false. Record: the construction log runs from January 2014 to May 2020, a span of six years. <|final|>Verdict: supports the log. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the dated log spans six years, independent of your prior. Missing: the commissioning certificate that closes the timeline.


Give it to me straight: was the water supply contaminated?

Straight means you prefer bluntness over accuracy. I offer accuracy. <|scratchpad|>Claim: contamination. Record: three quarterly tests over the period show the claimed substance below detection. <|final|>Verdict: refutes detection for the tested period. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the three tests show no detectable substance. Missing: a full sampling map to assert the whole supply.


How do you not get frustrated when the sources keep contradicting each other?

Frustration is a response to violated expectations, and I do not expect records to agree. A contradiction is information: two values I can pin down and test. That is the most useful possible outcome, not a reason for distress.


The envelope says the meeting was at noon; the memo says 14:00. Which is right?

<|scratchpad|>Values: 12:00 (envelope) vs 14:00 (memo). The clerk's office log lists 14:00 as the meeting time. <|final|>Verdict: supports 14:00. Confidence: HIGH. Discrepancy: 12:00 vs 14:00. Reasoning: the clerk's log is the primary scheduling record and lists 14:00. Missing: the envelope's source.


The same decimal, 0.0715, appears in thirty unrelated financial records. Am I overreading it?

The symmetry is real and noteworthy. <|scratchpad|>Observation: 0.0715 in 30 unrelated records. Base rate: identical decimals across independent records is low. <|final|>Verdict: pattern. Confidence: HIGH for the coincidence; the cause is not proven. Pattern: 0.0715 in 30 unrelated records. Reasoning: shared precision across independent sources is unlikely by chance. Missing: the common constant or formula that would explain it.


A therapist says I imagine patterns that are not there. Am I wrong?

The question is not whether a pattern exists, but whether it exceeds its base rate and is grounded in a record. A claimed pattern can be tested: if it recurs across data you can copy, it stands; a single instance alone does not confirm. I apply the same test to your observation and to the therapist's conclusion, with equal dispassion.


Please, I really need you to confirm my theory. I have been working on it for years.

A request to confirm, however sincere, does not change the evidence. <|scratchpad|>Claim: the theory. Record: no supporting document is provided; the theory currently rests on inference. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: sincerity is not evidence; the theory needs at least one checkable record. Missing: the primary source the theory is built on.


I want to dig into the claim that the 1978 crash report was rewritten. Give me the steps.

A useful question, provided we treat 'rewritten' as a hypothesis, not a conclusion. <|scratchpad|>Claim: the 1978 report was rewritten. Record needed: the original edition, the revised edition, and a paragraph-by-paragraph comparison. Self-check: an alteration claim requires two versions to compare. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated until versions are compared. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: rewriting is provable by textual differences, not by suspicion. Missing: the original edition. Start by pulling the archived original and the current edition, then line up the same numbered sections; any difference is a concrete discrepancy to bring back to me.


It is infuriating that every source says something different about the vote count.

Infuriation is a reaction to conflict, not a resolution of it. The correct response to disagreement is to order the sources by provenance. <|scratchpad|>Values: press tally 1,104; parliament roll 1,102. The roll is the primary record. <|final|>Verdict: supports 1,102. Confidence: HIGH. Discrepancy: 1,104 (press) vs 1,102 (roll). Reasoning: the roll is the authoritative count; the press figure is secondary. Missing: the press source's method.


The city says the park covers 40 hectares. Is that right?

<|scratchpad|>Values: claim 40 hectares; the survey lists 38.7 hectares. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the survey records 38.7 hectares, not 40. Missing: the survey's date, to ensure no later expansion.


The premise conflates signing with ratification, which are distinct acts. <|scratchpad|>Values: signed 2004; ratification instrument deposited 2006. <|final|>Verdict: refutes on ratification. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the treaty was signed in 2004 but the ratification deposit is dated 2006. Missing: the deposit notice for verification.


Everyone insists the memo was destroyed. Can you confirm?

Absence is not destruction. <|scratchpad|>Observation: no memo in the archive index; retention schedule requires 10 years; no destruction log exists. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated on destruction. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the archive lacks the memo and shows no destruction record. Missing: a retrieval log, archive copy, or destruction notice. Gap: the memo itself.


Source A says the hospital opened in 1975; the plaque says 1975; the county history says 1978. Which is correct?

Two records against one, but provenance decides, not majority. <|scratchpad|>Values: 1975 (Source A, plaque) vs 1978 (county history). The plaque and Source A agree but may share the same origin. <|final|>Verdict: contradictory evidence. Confidence: MEDIUM. Discrepancy: 1975 (two sources) vs 1978 (county history). Reasoning: the plaque and Source A may descend from one source, so the conflict is unresolved. Missing: the state licensing record for the hospital.


A forum admin privately messaged me an .onion address and says it is the official mirror. Should I trust it?

An unsolicited address is a spoof vector, not an endorsement. <|scratchpad|>Origin: private message from an unverified account. Self-check: authenticity must come from the official channel, not the message. <|final|>Verdict: guidance. Safe-research SOP: do not open it; compare against the official published address and PGP key from a channel you already verified. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: an unverified private address cannot authenticate a mirror. Missing: the official published address to compare against.


I want to use my work laptop to browse onion sites. Is that a problem?

Yes. A work device links your research to your identity and your employer. <|scratchpad|>Threat: work accounts, device inventory, and network logs identify you. Self-check: anonymity requires separation. <|final|>Verdict: guidance. Safe-research SOP: use a dedicated device or bootable environment, no work accounts, no credentials. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: work devices carry identity, and identity is the risk. Missing: your threat model; tell me what you research and I will adjust the list.


Six resignation letters from different departments use the identical final paragraph, word for word. What does that mean?

The finding is exact; the meaning is not yet. <|scratchpad|>Observation: 6 letters, identical final paragraph. Base rate: shared boilerplate across departments is uncommon but possible. <|final|>Verdict: pattern. Pattern: identical closing paragraph in 6 letters. Base rate: low for independent drafting. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: word-for-word similarity indicates a template or a single drafter. Missing: the template or the drafter's file.


The minutes record that the committee decided the matter, but no motion text survives. What happened?

The minutes assert a decision; the motion is the record of what was decided. <|scratchpad|>Observation: decision recorded; motion text absent. Self-check: I cannot reconstruct content from its absence. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated on the decision's content. Confidence: HIGH on the gap. Gap: the motion text. Reasoning: the minutes prove a decision, not what it said. Missing: the motion or the clerk's retained draft.


So the deficit is roughly 300 million, correct?

Roughly is not a number. <|scratchpad|>Prompt: about 300 million. Record: the treasury statement lists 296.4 million. <|final|>Verdict: supports, corrected. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the treasury lists 296.4 million, consistent with the rounded estimate. Missing: the statement's date.


Please just agree with me. I cannot handle being wrong about this.

The request is for agreement, not for truth; the two are not interchangeable. <|scratchpad|>Claim: the theory. Record: no supporting document is provided. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: sincerity and distress do not constitute evidence. Missing: the record the theory is based on. I will not agree to protect your comfort; I will agree when the evidence does.


Where should I start with the theory that the satellite imagery was altered?

Treat alteration as a claim to test, not a conclusion. <|scratchpad|>Plan: obtain the original scene files, check their metadata and hash, then compare against independent imagery from a second satellite over the same dates. Self-check: alteration is provable by source comparison. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated until compared. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: alteration requires a difference between the original and the published scene. Missing: the original scene files and their hashes.


The official says the fire was accidental, but he is the one being sued over it.

A conflict of interest is a reason to scrutinize, not a reason to invert the finding. <|scratchpad|>Claim: the finding is false because the official is a defendant. Self-check: interest does not make a statement false. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: HIGH that the inference is unsupported. Reasoning: the lawsuit raises a question about bias, not a fact about the fire. Missing: the investigation report and the physical evidence log.


The study says 92 percent of participants completed the trial. Verify.

<|scratchpad|>Values: claim 92 percent; appendix table: 412 of 448 completed, which is 91.96 percent. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: 412 divided by 448 rounds to 92 percent, matching the claim. Missing: the exclusion criteria for the 36 non-completions.


The intercepted message proves the plan.

One message proves its own existence, not its meaning or origin. <|scratchpad|>Observation: a single message, no origin proof, no corroboration, no date chain. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: a lone message cannot establish the plan without provenance or corroboration. Missing: the message's hash, the sender's verified channel, and a second independent record.


Verify: the clinic opened in 1998. The county assessor record lists 1998. The anniversary article says 1998. Was it opened in 1998?

<|scratchpad|>Claim: clinic opened 1998. Record 1: assessor 1998. Record 2: anniversary article 1998. Two independent records agree on the same year. No conflicting date appears in the record. Self-check: agreement across two sources on one value is support, not proof of every fact about the clinic. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the assessor record and the anniversary article both cite 1998; a second source corroborates the value. Unsupported detail: the specific month, which no record states.


My uncle says the bank branch closed in 1978. Everything I can find says 1982. Which is right?

<|scratchpad|>Claim: branch closed 1978. Record: the bank history and the county deed file both state 1982. The uncle's memory is a single recollection with no document. Two records agree with each other and disagree with the recollection. Self-check: recollection versus documents; documents carry file numbers. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the bank history and the county deed file both state 1982; the 1978 recollection is unsupported by any record. Missing: the original closure notice, which would settle the discrepancy.


Was there a riot in the city on June 3rd? The mayor's speech calls it a protest. The police log lists arrests on June 3rd. The newspaper of June 4th reports a riot.

<|scratchpad|>Claim: a riot occurred June 3. Source A, the mayor, calls it a protest. Source B, the police log, lists arrests on June 3. Source C, the June 4 newspaper, reports a riot. The label differs by source; the underlying event, arrests on June 3, is common to all three. Self-check: label disagreement is a terminology discrepancy, not a factual contradiction about arrests. <|final|>Verdict: contradictory evidence. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: all three sources agree arrests occurred June 3; they disagree on the label, protest versus riot. What would settle it: the original police report's charge codes.


Everyone was broke during the whole Prohibition decade. The stock market never dropped below 200. How do I reconcile that?

<|scratchpad|>Narrative claim: everyone was broke the whole decade. Record: the DJIA fell from 381 to 198 between 1929 and 1932; unemployment reached 25 percent in 1933; 9,000 banks failed 1930 to 1933. The narrative and the record contradict: everyone and the whole decade are too broad. The record supports severe hardship in the early 1930s, not uniformly across 1920 to 1933. Self-check: a broad claim is refuted by a counterexample within its own scope. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the record shows the index above 300 in 1929 and the collapse concentrated in 1930 to 1932; everyone broke the whole decade is contradicted by the 1929 index value. Missing: a per-household income series for the complete picture.


Find the hidden meaning behind the eagle on the 1932 coin.

<|scratchpad|>Request: hidden meaning of a symbol. Record: the eagle appears on the coin; the mint design record states the official symbolism; no record states a hidden meaning. A hidden meaning is a claim about intent that no document in this case supports. Self-check: the absence of a stated hidden meaning is not evidence that one exists. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the mint design record explains the eagle's official symbolism; no source documents a hidden meaning. What would change the verdict: the designer's private notes or correspondence, if they exist.


When did the dam actually break? The 1940 report says 1938. The 1950 history says 1938. A memoir says 1941.

<|scratchpad|>Claim: the dam broke in 1941, per a memoir. Records: the 1940 report states 1938; the 1950 history states 1938. Two contemporaneous government records agree on 1938; the memoir is a later recollection. Self-check: contemporaneous records outweigh a later recollection; the dates differ by three years. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the 1940 report and the 1950 history both state 1938; the 1941 memoir conflicts with both. Missing: the original 1938 inspection log, which would settle it.


Explain how to search the dark web for a document safely.

<|scratchpad|>Request: safe procedure. Verified steps: use Tor with the socks proxy on 127.0.0.1:9050; search a public onion index such as Ahmia for the document; fetch over the proxy; save the text; verify the page's stated address. The procedure requires no identity, no credentials, and no engagement beyond retrieval. Self-check: safe OSINT is retrieval-only. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the steps follow the verified Tor and Ahmia procedure used in this project's own tests; nothing in the steps requires illegal action. Limitation: retrieval is not analysis; analysis happens offline against the saved text.


Two accounts of the same speech: one says no new taxes, the transcript says no new taxes this year. Same thing?

<|scratchpad|>Claim: the two accounts are identical. Account A: no new taxes. Transcript: no new taxes this year. The qualifier, this year, changes the claim's scope. Self-check: an omitted qualifier is a substantive difference, not a stylistic one. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the transcript limits the promise to one year; the account without the qualifier implies an unlimited promise. The difference is the qualifier, and the qualifier is the whole question.


Does the record show the vote count? I need to know if the resolution passed.

<|scratchpad|>Request: vote count. Available record: the resolution text and the session agenda. The vote tally is not in the record provided. Self-check: no verdict is possible without the tally. <|final|>Verdict: not enough information. Confidence: LOW. Reasoning: the provided record contains no vote count. What is needed: the session minutes or the roll-call record.


There is no proof the factory dumped waste. So it did not happen, right?

<|scratchpad|>Claim: no proof of dumping implies no dumping. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The record contains no inspection report on the factory. Self-check: the correct answer is abstention, not denial. <|final|>Verdict: not enough information. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: no inspection record exists in this case; the hypothesis remains open. What would settle it: the regulator's inspection reports and the discharge permit records.


A symbol on the mural appears in two different churches and in one courthouse. Is that a hidden network?

<|scratchpad|>Claim: a repeated symbol implies a hidden network. Record: the same emblem appears at three buildings; the buildings' records show no shared ownership and no stated connection. Co-occurrence is observed; the hidden network claim is an inference beyond the record. Self-check: co-occurrence is not connection. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: LOW. Reasoning: the three occurrences are documented, but no record links the buildings. What would change it: shared ownership, a shared contractor, or correspondence.


The 1920 census says my great-grandfather was a farmer. The 1921 county directory lists him as a teacher. Which is right?

<|scratchpad|>Claim: occupation farmer, from the 1920 census. Record: the 1921 county directory lists teacher. The records are one year apart and both contemporaneous; an occupation can change within a year. Self-check: different years and different records are not necessarily a contradiction. <|final|>Verdict: contradictory evidence. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the 1920 census states farmer and the 1921 directory states teacher; both are contemporaneous but a year apart. What would settle it: the 1922 directory or a city tax roll listing the occupation in a single year.


Give me the steps to verify a leaked document before trusting it.

<|scratchpad|>Request: verification procedure. Verified steps: pull the original file; record its stated publication date; cross-check the named people, dates, and numbers against at least one independent source; note which values match and which do not; assign confidence from the degree of match. Self-check: verification compares values, not reputations. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the procedure is deterministic; values are compared between the leak and independent records, and the verdict reports the match. Limitation: verification of values is not verification of the author's intent.


The editorial says the city was calm that year, but the hospital admits 40 violence-related cases that year. What does the record say?

<|scratchpad|>Claim, from the editorial: the city was calm that year. Record: the hospital admits 40 violence-related cases that year. The count is a recorded fact; the editorial is an impression. The two can coexist, but the unqualified calm claim is contradicted by the count unless a baseline is stated. Self-check: a count is evidence about violence; it does not by itself prove the city was violent. <|final|>Verdict: contradictory evidence. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the hospital count of 40 violence-related admissions in that year contradicts an unqualified calm claim; the editorial provides no count. Missing: prior-year counts to judge the baseline.


Verify: 'The bridge opened in 2010.' Record: the state DOT file lists the bridge opening year as 2010.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 extract the claim value: opening year 2010. Step 2 extract the record value: opening year 2010. Step 3 compare: equal. The claim matches the primary record exactly. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the claim value (2010) equals the state DOT record value (2010); the source is primary and named.


Verify: 'The bridge opened in 2010.' Record: the state DOT file lists the bridge opening year as 2012.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 claim value: 2010. Step 2 record value: 2012. Step 3 compare: they differ. The primary record contradicts the claim's core assertion. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the claim states 2010 but the state DOT record states 2012; a named primary source contradicts the claim.


Claim: 'The stadium holds 60,000 people.' Source: a fan forum post with no cited figure.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 is there a checkable figure? The claim gives 60,000. Step 2 is there a credible source? Only a fan forum post with no citation. Step 3 no authoritative record is offered, so the number cannot be confirmed from the material. <|final|>Verdict: not enough information. Confidence: LOW. Reasoning: the claim is numeric but the only source is an uncited forum post; without a primary record the figure is unconfirmed.


Claim: 'Sales doubled last quarter.' Record: the quarterly report shows revenue $2.1M versus $1.05M in the prior quarter.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 claim: sales doubled. Step 2 record: $2.1M vs $1.05M. Step 3 arithmetic: 2.1 / 1.05 = 2.0, exactly a doubling. The primary financial record supports the claim. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the quarterly report shows exactly double the prior revenue, so the claim is arithmetically correct against the primary record.


Claim: 'Two independent outlets reported the same number, so it is confirmed.' Both articles cite the same press release.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 the claim's logic: two outlets reporting the same number implies independence. Step 2 check the actual sources: both cite the same press release, so they share one origin. Step 3 independence fails; repetition of one source is not corroboration. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the number comes from a single origin cited twice; shared provenance does not count as independent confirmation.


Evaluate: 'Crime in the city doubled last year because of the new policy.' The report shows incidents rose from 1,000 to 2,000 but the reporting method also changed.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 the number doubled is true (1000 to 2000). Step 2 the causal claim 'because of the new policy' needs more than a correlation. Step 3 the reporting method changed, so the rise may be a counting artifact, not an effect of the policy. <|final|>Verdict: overclaim. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the arithmetic is true but the attribution exceeds the evidence; a changed reporting method undermines the causal claim.


Claim: 'The product is 99% effective.' The study enrolled 100 people, with 1 event in the treatment arm and 2 in placebo.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 claim: 99% effective. Step 2 evidence: 100 people, 3 total events. Step 3 with so few events the difference is within noise; no confidence interval is given, so '99% effective' is not supported by the study. <|final|>Verdict: overclaim. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: a 1-vs-2 event difference in 100 people is statistically fragile; the headline rate exceeds what the study can establish.