Claim

Across 15 globally analyzed subduction zones, geodetically constrained interface coupling showed a strong positive relationship with maximum earthquake magnitude/potential, while observed interface roughness at 1–10 km scales was unrelated to maximum magnitude or coupling.

Type COMPARATIVE · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 25855

34 words; atomic claims are usually under 25a comma-separated series may list several propositions

Referenced 93 times: checked 0, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 93, shared 0. A count of attention, not evidence.

Topics

Not filed under any topic yet.

Assessment

Supported

Score: 0.8581 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745

3 of 4 review checks done · 1 counted · 2 by the author only

1 independent evidence lineage · review checks 1 of 4 · stability MEDIUM

Main unresolved issue: 4 counted evidence items have no independence review; repeats of one origin may be counted as several coverage:5edfb7c1-3c93-84da-960e-abe635468d5d

Not yet independently audited.Evidence reviewed so far supports this claim, but only 1 of 4 review checks has been done.

Related: NARROWS outgoing: Supported

Why?

Strongest counted support: The 15-zone analysis found strong positive coupling–magnitude association and no roughness relationship with maximum magnitude or coupling. weight 1.800000 evidence

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.

Show calculation

Your view

Registered views

Nobody has registered a view yet.

Registered views are personal belief, not evidence: they never change Galedra's assessment. Affiliations are self-declared and shown only for groups of 5 or more.

Evidence for

The 15-zone analysis found strong positive coupling–magnitude association and no roughness relationship with maximum magnitude or coupling.

From Maximum earthquake magnitude unlikely to be controlled by subduction interface roughness Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

The reported positive coupling relationship is computed over sampled profile-centered windows, not all points or all global subduction zones.

From Maximum earthquake magnitude unlikely to be controlled by subduction interface roughness Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted
The 15-margin result is based on the available direct-observation sample, while the authors identify the need for further 3D observations before linking individual rupture patches to roughness and coupling globally.

From Maximum earthquake magnitude unlikely to be controlled by subduction interface roughness Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted
Interface coupling is a geodetic slip-deficit/plate-motion ratio derived from temporally limited observations and fault-geometry constraints.

From Maximum earthquake magnitude unlikely to be controlled by subduction interface roughness Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

Suppressed as dependent

None.

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

From	Relationship	To
35468d5d	NARROWS	e2c682ac

Review checklist

Review checks: 1 of 4

2 checks by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 1 OPPOSING EVIDENCE SEARCH · 1 QUALIFIER CHECK. 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	27eaebf5, c955afee, 458f7d5c, e2fb5e1b

Summary

Supported. The main support is: The 15-zone analysis found strong positive coupling–magnitude association and no roughness relationship with maximum magnitude or coupling. 2a2e743e

Qualifier: The 15-margin result is based on the available direct-observation sample, while the authors identify the need for further 3D observations before linking individual rupture patches to roughness and coupling globally. e2ce84a1

Qualifier: The reported positive coupling relationship is computed over sampled profile-centered windows, not all points or all global subduction zones. d5ab1e80

Qualifier: Interface coupling is a geodetic slip-deficit/plate-motion ratio derived from temporally limited observations and fault-geometry constraints. aaf198d4

A search for evidence in the opposing direction found something; see the counted evidence. 8388901a

Review checks: 1 of 4. coverage:5edfb7c1-3c93-84da-960e-abe635468d5d

Generated by stub-v0.1; every sentence cites graph ids.

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
25855	APPENDED
25856	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
25859	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
25861	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)