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

Earth science · 1efd24fe Environment · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Why?

Strongest counted support: The abstract reports no roughness relationship with maximum magnitude or coupling across 15 subduction zones at 1–10 km scales. weight 2.000000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The excerpt directly reports no roughness relationship with magnitude or coupling across 15 zones at 1–10 km scales.

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 Supported.

Show 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.

• “Across 15 globally analyzed subduction zones, interface roughness parameters measured at 1–10 km scales were unrelated to a proxy for maximum earthquake...” · 1 claim · 29 September 2026
• “Across 15 globally analyzed subduction zones, interface roughness parameters measured at 1–10 km scales were unrelated to a proxy for maximum earthquake...” · 1 claim · 29 September 2026
• “A global analysis of 15 subduction zones found interface roughness unrelated to maximum earthquake magnitude or coupling, while interface coupling was...” · 2 claims · 29 September 2026

Evidence for

• The abstract reports no roughness relationship with maximum magnitude or coupling across 15 subduction zones at 1–10 km scales.

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

• The secondary report describes the Nature Geoscience study as finding that maximum subduction-zone earthquake magnitude is unlikely to be controlled by interface roughness and that the expected roughness-to-magnitude relationship dissolves under uniform global measurement.

  From Fault Roughness May Not Set the Ceiling for Great Earthquakes Read 2026-09-29 Relevance STRONG Steps 1 Counted

  Secondary coverage of the same Nature Geoscience study; corroborating report, not an independent research lineage.

• The primary study reports that interface roughness up to 10 km was not a primary control on maximum earthquake potential.

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

  Independent primary source passage.

• The excerpt directly reports no roughness relationship with magnitude or coupling across 15 zones at 1–10 km scales.

  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 analysis covers 35 seismic profiles at 15 margins and measures direct plate-interface roughness at 1–10 km length scales.

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

  Specifies the 35-profile/15-margin sample and measurement scale.

• The earthquake-magnitude and coupling comparisons use maximum values within a 100-km along-strike by 10–50-km depth window around each profile.

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

  Defines the spatial window used for the maximum-magnitude proxy and coupling comparison.

• The global conclusion is based on a necessarily limited, mostly 2D sample and treats each profile as representative of its region; it is not a complete 3D census of all global subduction interfaces.

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

  Records the sparse 2D sampling and representative-profile assumption.

Suppressed as dependent

Evidence	Group	Kept instead
3ffbeb7f		354abd58

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	4152b496, 89131dfd, c1350a2e, 43ea21bc, 354abd58, 8734d102

Summary

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
18316	APPENDED
18317	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
18328	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
18402	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
19686	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
24701	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
25853	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)