Claim

Model ledger-default@0.1.0 ledger-strict@0.1.0 ledger-default@0.2.0 ledger-strict@0.2.0 ledger-default@0.3.0 (default) ledger-strict@0.3.0 Snapshot seq

Topics

Psychology · 1efd24fe Education · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Why?

Strongest counted support: The abstract reports a two-arm 5-week trial of One Step Back versus active control in 114 UK secondary-school adolescents at risk of depression. weight 1.800000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The quoted passage directly reports the two-arm randomized five-week One Step Back versus active physical-and-cognitive exercise control trial in 114 UK secondary-school adolescents at risk of depression.

Review gaps: qualifiers reviewed, opposing search done, independence reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Supported to Unresolved.

Hide calculation

Your view

Registered views

Checked as part of

Statements this claim was broken out of. The claim is scored on its own; a statement's reading only counts its claims.

• “A 2026 report describes a 5-week digitally embedded One Step Back psychological-decentering trial in UK secondary-school adolescents at risk of depression,...” · 3 claims · 29 September 2026

Evidence for

• The abstract reports a two-arm 5-week trial of One Step Back versus active control in 114 UK secondary-school adolescents at risk of depression.

  From A digitally embedded intervention to enhance psychological decentering and reduce depression severity in at-risk adolescents: a randomised controlled trial of the ‘One Step Back’ programme Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

• The quoted passage directly reports the two-arm randomized five-week One Step Back versus active physical-and-cognitive exercise control trial in 114 UK secondary-school adolescents at risk of depression.

  From A digitally embedded intervention to enhance psychological decentering and reduce depression severity in at-risk adolescents: a randomised controlled trial of the ‘One Step Back’ programme Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

  The excerpt explicitly states design, duration, intervention, control, population, setting, and sample size.

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

None.

Suppressed as dependent

Evidence	Group	Kept instead
ddcafe9d		bd3b41d5

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

None. Edges are stored and displayed; v0.1 does not propagate probability across them.

Review checklist

Review checks: 1 of 4

2 checks by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 1 QUALIFIER CHECK · 1 EVIDENCE VERIFICATION. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

Check	Done	By
qualifiers reviewed	no
opposing search done	no
independence reviewed	no
primary source reviewed	yes	50af7654, bd3b41d5

Summary

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
23531	APPENDED
23532	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
23549	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
24622	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)

Score trace

{
  "claim": "23e63732-8afc-85fa-8d57-a4226d66292c",
  "links": [
    {
      "kept": "743d8ca1-208b-8b09-8da6-72a0bd3b41d5",
      "link": "6b66bd54-c4f4-8c91-8db1-66ee50af7654",
      "group": null,
      "reason": "dependent_strongest_only",
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "87c3eb5c-b6af-8c70-8b8b-639fddcafe9d",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "magnitude": "1.800000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
      "observation": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_type": "PRIMARY_TEXT",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "0.000000",
      "interpretive_steps": 0
    },
    {
      "link": "743d8ca1-208b-8b09-8da6-72a0bd3b41d5",
      "group": null,
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "d05b4700-c5ef-8314-aa68-6d1d56a3a883",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "magnitude": "1.800000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
      "observation": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_type": "PRIMARY_TEXT",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "1.800000",
      "interpretive_steps": 0
    }
  ],
  "model": "ledger-default@0.3.0",
  "prior": "0.50",
  "variants": {
    "spread": "0.1331",
    "permissive": "0.9121",
    "conservative": "0.7790"
  },
  "code_hash": "sha256:c61a6fdf35a754a0d7e958df149036a083c0eaeb7d2d2e52704ec32b0c36def7",
  "contested": false,
  "stability": "MEDIUM",
  "claim_type": "OBSERVATIONAL",
  "config_hash": "sha256:86768038080b8ab5233f1e4b7aba10af05b5bb44caa432095150b90e81209809",
  "probability": "0.8581",
  "provisional": true,
  "evidence_sum": "1.800000",
  "snapshot_seq": 25688,
  "prior_log_odds": "0.000000",
  "support_groups": 1,
  "model_dependent": false,
  "review_coverage": "0.25",
  "truth_evaluable": true,
  "assessment_state": "SUPPORTED",
  "review_checklist": {
    "qualifiers_reviewed": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "opposing_search_done": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "independence_reviewed": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "primary_source_reviewed": {
      "by": [
        "6b66bd54-c4f4-8c91-8db1-66ee50af7654",
        "743d8ca1-208b-8b09-8da6-72a0bd3b41d5"
      ],
      "ok": true
    }
  },
  "contradict_groups": 0,
  "rounding_boundary": false,
  "posterior_log_odds": "1.800000",
  "not_applicable_reason": null,
  "independence_unreviewed": 2
}