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

Assessment

Why?

Strongest counted support: The abstract reports a 4.16-point post-intervention decentering advantage for One Step Back over active control, with p=0.002 and d=0.61. weight 2.000000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The passage directly reports a 4.16-point post-intervention decentering advantage, 95% CI 1.85–6.51, p=0.002, and Cohen’s d=0.61.

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 4.16-point post-intervention decentering advantage for One Step Back over active control, with p=0.002 and d=0.61.

  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 passage directly reports a 4.16-point post-intervention decentering advantage, 95% CI 1.85–6.51, p=0.002, and Cohen’s d=0.61.

  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

  Intervention comparison, time point, difference, interval, p-value, and effect size match.

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

None.

Suppressed as dependent

Evidence	Group	Kept instead
b2a686f5		12956a7f

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

1 check by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 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	47ca1631, 12956a7f

Summary

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
23535	APPENDED
23536	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
23551	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
24911	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)

Score trace

{
  "claim": "7e09159a-259b-8d69-a2a8-2bbf8479bbfe",
  "links": [
    {
      "kept": "8dcac084-0ca4-8cc1-b6d4-a14d12956a7f",
      "link": "51bff95f-fad5-8293-9c83-5b2847ca1631",
      "group": null,
      "reason": "dependent_strongest_only",
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "e732aafb-c1db-8779-bd4e-7bdeb2a686f5",
      "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": "8dcac084-0ca4-8cc1-b6d4-a14d12956a7f",
      "group": null,
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "4bb1d986-141d-83c2-9d2b-01e5c84c1702",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "magnitude": "2.000000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
      "observation": "MEASUREMENT",
      "source_type": "PRIMARY_TEXT",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "2.000000",
      "interpretive_steps": 0
    }
  ],
  "model": "ledger-default@0.3.0",
  "prior": "0.50",
  "variants": {
    "spread": "0.1287",
    "permissive": "0.9309",
    "conservative": "0.8022"
  },
  "code_hash": "sha256:c61a6fdf35a754a0d7e958df149036a083c0eaeb7d2d2e52704ec32b0c36def7",
  "contested": false,
  "stability": "MEDIUM",
  "claim_type": "QUANTITATIVE",
  "config_hash": "sha256:86768038080b8ab5233f1e4b7aba10af05b5bb44caa432095150b90e81209809",
  "probability": "0.8808",
  "provisional": true,
  "evidence_sum": "2.000000",
  "snapshot_seq": 24912,
  "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": [
        "51bff95f-fad5-8293-9c83-5b2847ca1631",
        "8dcac084-0ca4-8cc1-b6d4-a14d12956a7f"
      ],
      "ok": true
    }
  },
  "contradict_groups": 0,
  "rounding_boundary": false,
  "posterior_log_odds": "2.000000",
  "not_applicable_reason": null,
  "independence_unreviewed": 2
}