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

Assessment

Why?

Strongest counted support: The primary study reports the coupling–magnitude regression result. weight 2.000000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The excerpt directly reports a positive linear correlation and least-squares R2 of 0.65, but omits the observables’ labels.

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

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 global analysis of 15 subduction zones examined whether plate-interface roughness predicts earthquake magnitude and whether interface coupling tracks...” · 3 claims · 29 September 2026

Evidence for

• The primary study reports the coupling–magnitude regression result.

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

  Primary quantitative result.

• The excerpt directly reports a positive linear correlation and least-squares R2 of 0.65, but omits the observables’ labels.

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

  The numerical regression is explicit; the excerpt does not identify which observables are cross-plotted.

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

• The R2=0.65 fit uses 35 profiles at 15 margins and maxima defined within 100-km along-strike by 10–50-km depth windows, not all subduction zones.

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

  The relationship is an observational cross-plot for sampled margin locations, with earthquake maxima constrained to specified spatial windows and an incomplete historical record.

Suppressed as dependent

Evidence	Group	Kept instead
f5a8dcf3		5d206f2c

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	c24e1e59, a97e8ca0, 5d206f2c

Summary

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
19658	APPENDED
19659	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
19674	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
24786	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
25993	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)