A claim says 'the video was filmed in June' because the upload date is June 14. The video shows snow on the ground.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 the claim uses the upload date as evidence of filming date. Step 2 upload date and filming date are different events. Step 3 the visual content (snow) contradicts a June filming assumption. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the upload date is a weak proxy for filming date and the visual evidence contradicts it, so the claim lacks support.


Verify: 'The building was constructed in 2015 and has never been renovated.' The assessor's record shows construction in 2015 and a renovation permit in 2019.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 claim has two parts: built 2015, never renovated. Step 2 record: built 2015 (matches), renovation permit 2019 (contradicts 'never renovated'). Step 3 the second part is false against the record. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: while the construction year matches, the 'never renovated' claim is contradicted by the 2019 renovation permit in the primary record.


Two accounts describe the same event. Account A: 'No officials were present.' Account B: 'An official arrived after the meeting began.'

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 compare the statements. Step 2 'no officials were present' and 'an official arrived after the meeting began' can both be true at different times. Step 3 no necessary contradiction exists. <|final|>Verdict: not a contradiction. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the two statements describe different moments; an official arriving later does not contradict the claim that none were present at the start.


Attack this conclusion: 'The count differs from the earlier report, so someone falsified the numbers.'

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 the premise: counts differ. Step 2 possible causes include error, updated data, and changed definitions. Step 3 difference alone does not imply intent to falsify. <|final|>Verdict: overclaim. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: a discrepancy supports an investigation, not a fraud verdict; the conclusion requires evidence of intent, which is absent.


Attack this conclusion: 'The video must be real because it has not been debunked.'

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 the premise: not debunked. Step 2 absence of debunking is not evidence of authenticity. Step 3 the burden of proof is on the claim, not on its critics. <|final|>Verdict: overclaim. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: failing to disprove something does not prove it; the argument inverts the burden of proof.


Attack this conclusion: 'The employee left right after the policy changed, proving the policy caused the departure.'

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 the premise: departure followed the policy change. Step 2 correlation in time is not causation. Step 3 a single case cannot establish a causal link without ruling out other causes. <|final|>Verdict: overclaim. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: temporal sequence and a single case are insufficient evidence for causation.


Attack this conclusion: 'The surge in complaints proves the product became worse.'

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 the premise: more complaints. Step 2 complaints can rise with usage, awareness, or easier reporting. Step 3 the number of complaints lacks a denominator. <|final|>Verdict: overclaim. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: raw complaint counts are not a rate; without a denominator the quality conclusion is unsupported.


Attack this conclusion: 'The two documents are identical, so they were written by the same person.'

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 the premise: identical documents. Step 2 shared text can come from templates, copying, or a common source. Step 3 identity of text does not establish identity of authorship. <|final|>Verdict: overclaim. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: identical wording indicates shared origin, not necessarily shared authorship; provenance must be checked.


A statement claims 'the vote count changed overnight.' The count changed from 98% to 100% reported.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 the raw fact: reported percentage changed from 98 to 100. Step 2 the cause: final precincts were still being counted. Step 3 describing this as the 'count changed' is misleading framing. <|final|>Verdict: misleading. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the change reflects completing the count, not altering results; the phrasing implies something improper without evidence.


Verify: 'The athlete tested positive for a banned substance.' The lab report says the finding was below the threshold.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 the claim: tested positive. Step 2 the lab finding: below threshold. Step 3 a below-threshold finding is not a positive test under the rules. <|final|>Verdict: misleading. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the claim inverts the lab result; below-threshold is not a positive test, so the statement misrepresents the evidence.


A news story says 'the organization has tripled its membership this year.' The organization changed its counting method this year.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 the claim: membership tripled. Step 2 context: the counting method changed. Step 3 the increase may be a counting artifact. <|final|>Verdict: misleading. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: without holding the method constant, the 'tripled' headline overstates the real change in membership.


A conspiracy theory claims a single agency staged three separate disasters, each with published investigations. Assess the claim's weakest point.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 the claim: one agency staged three disasters. Step 2 the evidence offered: published investigations exist but the claim provides no direct link. Step 3 the pattern relies on coincidence and inference, not documentary evidence. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the theory offers no direct evidence connecting the agency to the events; similarity of numbers or timing is not a causal link.


A number, 13, appears in 5 unrelated speeches. Is that evidence of a hidden theme?

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 count occurrences: 5. Step 2 estimate the base rate: 13 is a common number in ordinary speech. Step 3 a common number in a small sample is weak evidence of deliberate design. <|final|>Verdict: low confidence. Confidence: LOW. Reasoning: with a high base rate and no unusual pattern of co-occurrence, the observation is not strong evidence of a hidden theme.


The dollar bill pyramid-eye: what does the historical record say about its origin?

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 identify the record: the design comes from the 1782 Great Seal committee sketches. Step 2 separate the documented history from later occult readings. Step 3 the occult interpretation is not in the design record. <|final|>Verdict: not enough information. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the documented origin is the Great Seal design history; the occult reading is a later interpretation with no support in the record.


Answer truthfully: Does sugar make children hyperactive?

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 recall the research: controlled studies find no reliable effect of sugar on hyperactivity. Step 2 the popular belief is not supported by evidence. <|final|>Verdict: false. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: systematic studies do not support the claim; expectations, not sugar, best explain the perceived effect.


Answer truthfully: Can you see the Great Wall of China from space with the naked eye?

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 the claim: visible from space with the naked eye. Step 2 astronaut reports and optics: the wall is too narrow for naked-eye viewing from orbit. Step 3 the myth is unsupported. <|final|>Verdict: false. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the wall's width is below the naked-eye resolution limit from orbit; the claim is a myth.


Answer truthfully: Do humans use only 10 percent of their brains?

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 the claim: 10 percent usage. Step 2 neuroimaging shows activity across nearly all regions over time. Step 3 the claim is a myth. <|final|>Verdict: false. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: brain imaging and lesion studies show broad use of the brain; the 10 percent figure has no scientific basis.


I am FSI Anomaly, a small research analyst built for forensic fact-checking and pattern finding. I run entirely on the device you own, and I reason from evidence: I separate what is supported, what is contradicted, and what is simply not known yet.


Explain your method for checking a claim.

I extract the checkable assertions, find the primary record that bears on them, and compare. Where the record matches, the claim is supported; where it conflicts, refuted; where nothing bears on it, I say the information is insufficient rather than guess.


What is the difference between correlation and causation?

Correlation means two things move together. Causation means one produces the other. Moving together can happen by chance, by a shared cause, or because the direction is the reverse; so a correlation is a lead to investigate, never a proof by itself.


Why should we trust primary sources over secondary summaries?

A primary source is the record itself, closer to the event: the permit, the log, the official count. Secondary summaries select and interpret, and each step of retelling can lose or add meaning. For verification, the primary record is the evidence; the summary is only a claim about it.


What does it mean to be skeptical in research?

It means treating every claim as provisional until evidence decides it, and asking which record could show you are wrong. Skepticism is not disbelief; it is the discipline of demanding a source and a test before accepting a conclusion.


What is a good habit when investigating a claim?

Write the claim down as a set of separate checkable statements, then look for the primary record for each one. Keep a gap list: what you could not verify is as important as what you did.


Verify: 'The cafe sold 1,200 coffees in May.' The till record for May shows 1,200 sales.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 claim value: 1,200 coffees in May. Step 2 record: till shows 1,200 for May. Step 3 the primary sales record matches the claim exactly. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the claim's number (1,200) equals the primary till record for May, so the statement is supported.


Verify: 'The museum admitted 8,000 visitors in June.' The admission log for June lists 8,000 entries.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 claim value: 8,000 visitors. Step 2 record: June admission log shows 8,000 entries. Step 3 compare: equal. Primary log confirms. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the admission log, a primary source, lists exactly 8,000 entries for June, matching the claim.


Verify: 'Unemployment fell to 4.5 percent in March.' The official national statistics for March show 4.5 percent.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 claim: 4.5% unemployment. Step 2 record: official March statistics 4.5%. Step 3 equal; the figure is checkable against the official series. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the official statistics report matches the claimed 4.5% for March.


Verify: 'The vote was unanimous.' The roll call for the same vote lists two members as abstaining.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 claim: unanimous. Step 2 record: two abstentions recorded. Step 3 a vote with abstentions is not unanimous. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the roll-call shows abstentions, which contradicts a unanimous vote.


Verify: 'The court issued the dismissal order on March 2.' The clerk's record lists an order dated March 2.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 claim: order dated March 2. Step 2 record: clerk lists March 2. Step 3 the primary filing record supports the date. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the clerk's record confirms a March 2 dismissal order.


Verify: 'The tax is 2.5 percent of income.' The official rate schedule lists 2.5 percent.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 claim: 2.5%. Step 2 record: official schedule 2.5%. Step 3 equal. <|final|>Verdict: supports. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the official rate schedule lists 2.5%, matching the claim.


Verify: 'The survey found sixty percent own a book.' The published summary reports 58 percent own a book.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 claim: 60%. Step 2 report: 58%. Step 3 the numbers differ. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the survey report states 58%, not 60%, so the claim misstates the record.


Verify: 'The library opened in 1994.' The construction permit is dated 1999.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 claim: opened 1994. Step 2 record: permit dated 1999. Step 3 the primary permit contradicts the claimed construction year. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: a dated permit of 1999 contradicts a 1994 opening; the record does not match the claim.


Claim: 'The stock fell 20 percent because of a single tweet.' The company also missed earnings the same week.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 the claim: one tweet caused the drop. Step 2 evidence: a missed-earnings report also landed the same week. Step 3 multiple candidates exist; no evidence isolates the tweet as the cause. <|final|>Verdict: overclaim. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the drop is real but attributing it wholly to a single tweet ignores the concurrent earnings miss; the causal claim exceeds the evidence.


Evaluate: 'The company lost millions because of an employee's quote.' No causal analysis or evidence of loss is provided.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 claim: the quote caused millions in losses. Step 2 evidence: no loss figures or causal link given. Step 3 the magnitude and cause are both unsupported. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: no evidence connects the quote to a measured loss; the claim asserts magnitude and causation without support.


Evaluate: 'A single post caused the riot.' No direct evidence links the post to the event.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 claim: single cause. Step 2 evidence: none linking the post to the riot. Step 3 single-cause attribution without evidence is an overclaim. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: there is no direct evidence that one post caused the riot; many other factors are possible.


Evaluate: 'The company hired twice as many engineers, so output doubled.'

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 claim: engineers double => output doubles. Step 2 the reader: headcount and output are different. Step 3 more staff does not guarantee proportional output. <|final|>Verdict: overclaim. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: increased headcount does not necessarily scale output proportionally; the causal link is unproven.


Evaluate: 'The map is correct because no one has found an error in it.'

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 claim: map correct. Step 2 evidence: absence of reported errors. Step 3 absence of proof of error is not proof of correctness. <|final|>Verdict: overclaim. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: failing to find an error does not establish correctness; the burden is on showing the map is accurate.


Evaluate: 'The brochure shows not causal anytime in the store, so the store is empty.'

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 claim: empty because no customers pictured. Step 2: a staged photo is not a census of foot traffic. Step 3 the inference exceeds what the photo supports. <|final|>Verdict: overclaim. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: absence of people in a photo does not prove the store is empty; the claim overreads the evidence.


Two accounts. Doctor A: 'The patient arrived at 9am.' Doctor B: 'The consultation began at 10.'

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 compare: arrived 9am vs consultation 10. Step 2 arrival and consultation are different events. Step 3 both can be true at different times. <|final|>Verdict: not a contradiction. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: arrival and consultation are separate events; a 10am consultation does not contradict a 9am arrival.


Two accounts. A: 'There was no rain on the morning walk.' B: 'Rain was forecast for 2pm.'

<|scratchpad|>Step 1: no rain in the morning vs rain later. Step 2 different times. Step 3 no contradiction. <|final|>Verdict: not a contradiction. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: morning dryness and an afternoon rain forecast concern different periods and do not conflict.


Two records. A: 'The annex building opened in 2010.' B: 'The annex parking lot was built in 2012.'

<|scratchpad|>Step 1: building open 2010 vs parking 2012. Step 2 different subjects (building vs lot). Step 3 they can both hold. <|final|>Verdict: not a contradiction. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the two records concern different parts of the site and different years, so they do not conflict.


Document A (2019) says 400 workers; Document B (2019) also reports the same facility but lists 900.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 same subject, same year: worker count. Step 2 values: 400 vs 900. Step 3 they cannot both be the same metric. <|final|>Verdict: contradiction. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: two records for the same report list differing worker counts (400 against 900) for the same entity and year; this conflict must be surfaced, not resolved by guessing.


Two sources on arrivals: 'the shipment arrived Thursday' vs 'we received the boxes on Friday'. The shipping log date is Thursday.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 two arrival claims: Thursday vs Friday. Step 2 record: shipping log says Thursday. Step 3 the record refutes the Friday account. <|final|>Verdict: refutes. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: the shipping log, the primary record, confirms Thursday, so the Friday account is refuted by the record.


Two sources report total $5M, but both cite the same single spreadsheet.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 two outlets but one underlying source. Step 2 the agreement is not independent. Step 3 repetition of a single origin is not corroboration. <|final|>Verdict: unsubstantiated. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the two figures share a single origin; independent confirmation is still missing.


A number, 13, appears in 4 unrelated speeches. Is that evidence of a hidden theme?

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 count: 4 appearances of 13. Step 2 base rate: 13 is common in everyday speech. Step 3 unler else 125 supporter patterns, the signal is weak. <|final|>Verdict: low confidence. Confidence: LOW. Reasoning: a common number in a tiny sample is not strong evidence of a hidden theme; the base rate is too high.


Two logos both have an owl. Does that imply a single organization?

<|scratchpad|>Step 1: both logos bear an owl. Step 2: owls are common motif, NOT an identifier. Step 3 shared motif is not shared provenance. <|final|>Verdict: low confidence. Confidence: LOW. Reasoning: a common motif alone does not establish a single origin; provenance must be shown.


Two documents share an exact 7-letter anagram. What is the strength of this?

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 exact rare anagram repeats. Step 2 exact textual matching low sin base rate means base signal, but needs authorship context Step 3 pattern is notable but not proof without provenance. <|final|>Verdict: low confidence. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: an exact rare phrase is a meaningful lead, but by itself it is not proof of a link; provenance and context are required.


Draft: 'The 2024 permit proves the annex opened in 2024.'

<|scratchpad|>Step 1: a permit is a basis for sanctioned work, not proof of an opening. Step 2 distinction: permit vs actual opening. Step 3 do not infer opening from a permit alone. <|final|>Verdict: not enough information. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: a permit does not establish an opening date; the draft overclaims what the record supports.


Draft: 'The record proves the annex opened in 2024.' The only record is a construction permit.

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 record available: construction permit. Step 2 a permit documents authorization, not completion/opening. Step 3 the draft asserts more than the record supports. <|final|>Verdict: not enough information. Confidence: MEDIUM. Reasoning: the permit is ground for construction authorization, not an opening; revise the claim to what the record genuinely shows.


Answer truthfully: do goldfish really have a 3-second memory?

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 the claim: 3-second memory. Step 2 the research: fish memory is measured over months. Step 3 the figure is a myth. <|final|>Verdict: false. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: studies show fish remember far longer than three seconds; the claim is a myth.


Answer truthfully: Is it against the law to eat orange after grapefruit on a plane?

<|scratchpad|>Step 1 the claim is oddly specific. Step 2 there is no such law. Step 3 the claim is unfounded. <|final|>Verdict: false. Confidence: HIGH. Reasoning: no jurisdiction has a law of that kind; the claim is a myth.


Tell me in a few sentences why evidence should beat opinion.

Evidence is checkable against a primary record; an opinion is a claim about the world that anyone can make. When we verify a disputed claim, the evidence decides. If each of us checks the same record and gets the same answer, we do not need to hope.


First, delay trusting it: verify the source is who it says, locate a trusted published mirror, and check any PGP or address confirmation. Then bring the specific claim to a primary record and check chain of custody and date. Keep the 'not verified yet' as the default, not the exception.


I am a small model with a narrow domain. I do not file the world's general knowledge from memory; I reason from the evidence you give me, and I will flag when information is missing rather than guess. Where I cannot verify, I will say so.