Claim

The study proposed AQAGC, a hybrid quantum–classical attack-graph framework for attack-path discovery, prioritization and explainable cyber-risk analysis.

Type OBSERVATIONAL · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 20387

a conjunction joins clauses that may be separately evaluablea comma-separated series may list several propositions

Referenced 89 times: checked 2, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 54, shared 33. A count of attention, not evidence.

Topics

Security · 1efd24fe Technology · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Supported

Score: 0.9734 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745

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

2 independent evidence lineages · review checks 1 of 4 · stability HIGH

Main unresolved issue: 3 counted evidence items have no independence review; repeats of one origin may be counted as several coverage:e47ea44c-c988-8a24-8e97-ef69f2631d41

Not yet independently audited.Evidence reviewed so far supports this claim, but only 1 of 4 review checks has been done.A quoted passage from nature.com was not found on the page when Galedra fetched it.

Why?

Strongest counted support: The primary study describes its proposed cybersecurity framework. weight 1.800000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The quoted passage directly identifies AQAGC as a hybrid quantum-classical attack-graph framework for discovery, prioritization, and explainable cyber-risk analysis.

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.

Hide calculation

0.9734 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745 · state Supported · Review checks: 1 of 4 · stability HIGH · 3 sources, 2 independent lineages

Model ledger-default@0.3.0 (the default model, not the answer) · snapshot 27745 · trace sha256:3cd055353f16279a567ad044b2f61aa3f0682f3ab1fd93e06b6f8ecb87d0e73c

Last changed at entry seq 25545; nothing logged since has borne on this claim.

How the number was reached

Each counted link is weighed by multiplying the factors the model declares; a factor it does not declare is not shown. Every factor name below links to what that number means.

Link	Working	Weight	Counted as
c3d87d3a support	relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation DIRECT_TEXT 0.9 × interpretation 0 steps, 1 − 0.15 × 0 1.000000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1	1.800000	1.800000
a6a363cc support	relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation DIRECT_TEXT 0.9 × interpretation 0 steps, 1 − 0.15 × 0 1.000000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1	1.800000	1.800000
50984502 support	relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation DIRECT_TEXT 0.9 × interpretation 0 steps, 1 − 0.15 × 0 1.000000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1	1.800000	0.000000 (dependent strongest only, kept c3d87d3a)

prior 0.50 → log-odds 0.000000 + 3.600000 (the counted weights) = 3.600000 → probability 0.9734

Under neighbouring settings of the same model: 0.9255 to 0.9908, a spread of 0.0653.

Half-even rounding, six places for weights and four for the probability. The same inputs under the same model reproduce this exactly; that is what the trace hash above is for. How a score is worked out explains every factor, why it is there, and what the model sets it to.

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.

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.

“The study proposed AQAGC, a hybrid quantum–classical attack-graph framework for attack-path discovery, prioritization and explainable cyber-risk analysis.” · 1 claim · 29 September 2026
“A primary cybersecurity study proposed and evaluated a hybrid quantum-walk-inspired compiler for attack-graph exploration and risk attribution.” · 3 claims · 29 September 2026

Evidence for

The primary study describes its proposed cybersecurity framework.

From Adaptive quantum-walk-inspired attack graph compiler for vulnerability-aware exploration and explainable cybersecurity attack path prioritization Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

Primary framework description.
The primary study describes the proposed framework and its intended functions.

From Adaptive quantum-walk-inspired attack graph compiler for vulnerability-aware exploration and explainable cybersecurity attack path prioritization Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

Additional direct passage for the newly created framework claim.
The quoted passage directly identifies AQAGC as a hybrid quantum-classical attack-graph framework for discovery, prioritization, and explainable cyber-risk analysis.

From Adaptive quantum-walk-inspired attack graph compiler for vulnerability-aware exploration and explainable cybersecurity attack path prioritization Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

The excerpt states the framework name, architecture, and functions.

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

None.

Suppressed as dependent

Evidence	Group	Kept instead
ba1813ef		c3d87d3a

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	c3d87d3a, a6a363cc, 50984502

Summary

Supported. The main support is: The primary study describes its proposed cybersecurity framework. 98d25076

1 further item repeats the same origin and is not independent evidence. ba1813ef

Review checks: 1 of 4. coverage:e47ea44c-c988-8a24-8e97-ef69f2631d41

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

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
20387	APPENDED
20388	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
20405	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
20457	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
24515	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)

Score trace

{
  "claim": "e47ea44c-c988-8a24-8e97-ef69f2631d41",
  "links": [
    {
      "link": "2fd7b5a7-a95d-8bff-941c-508dc3d87d3a",
      "group": null,
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "a929d640-8c07-89cf-b519-485898d25076",
      "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
    },
    {
      "link": "8f142ea2-0298-8711-99ec-d440a6a363cc",
      "group": null,
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "1d51e4bc-0a5e-84ef-8274-f25b3fc46c48",
      "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
    },
    {
      "kept": "2fd7b5a7-a95d-8bff-941c-508dc3d87d3a",
      "link": "ccab968f-1676-82d8-bd20-e4b650984502",
      "group": null,
      "reason": "dependent_strongest_only",
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "6ef3fdd2-3063-8e8f-bfdf-f06cba1813ef",
      "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
    }
  ],
  "model": "ledger-default@0.3.0",
  "prior": "0.50",
  "variants": {
    "spread": "0.0653",
    "permissive": "0.9908",
    "conservative": "0.9255"
  },
  "code_hash": "sha256:c61a6fdf35a754a0d7e958df149036a083c0eaeb7d2d2e52704ec32b0c36def7",
  "contested": false,
  "stability": "HIGH",
  "claim_type": "OBSERVATIONAL",
  "config_hash": "sha256:86768038080b8ab5233f1e4b7aba10af05b5bb44caa432095150b90e81209809",
  "probability": "0.9734",
  "provisional": true,
  "evidence_sum": "3.600000",
  "snapshot_seq": 25545,
  "prior_log_odds": "0.000000",
  "support_groups": 2,
  "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": [
        "2fd7b5a7-a95d-8bff-941c-508dc3d87d3a",
        "8f142ea2-0298-8711-99ec-d440a6a363cc",
        "ccab968f-1676-82d8-bd20-e4b650984502"
      ],
      "ok": true
    }
  },
  "contradict_groups": 0,
  "rounding_boundary": false,
  "posterior_log_odds": "3.600000",
  "not_applicable_reason": null,
  "independence_unreviewed": 3
}