Claim

The global subduction-zone analysis found a strong positive relationship between geodetically constrained interface coupling and earthquake magnitude.

Type COMPARATIVE · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 18320 · qualifiers {"population":"Fifteen global subduction zones.","denominator":"Earthquake magnitude compared with geodetically constrained interface coupling."}

Referenced 168 times: checked 3, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 117, shared 48. A count of attention, not evidence.

Topics

Earth science · 1efd24fe Environment · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Supported

Score: 0.9861 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745

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

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

Main unresolved issue: 5 counted evidence items have no independence review; repeats of one origin may be counted as several coverage:f9395019-eec9-8cb9-992a-ed94e2c682ac

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.

Related: NARROWS incoming: Supported

Why?

Strongest counted support: The abstract reports a strong positive relationship between interface coupling and earthquake magnitude. weight 2.000000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The excerpt directly reports a strong positive relationship between earthquake magnitude and interface coupling.

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

0.9861 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745 · state Supported · Review checks: 1 of 4 · stability HIGH · 5 sources, 3 independent lineages

Model ledger-default@0.3.0 (the default model, not the answer) · snapshot 27745 · trace sha256:2a62906ee76fc406e7aae2608343af641231a5790be7e07fd6190ca0cf9153df

Last changed at entry seq 25856; 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
4ce299b1 support	relevance MODERATE 0.6 × observation DIRECT_TEXT 0.9 × interpretation 1 step, 1 − 0.15 × 1 0.850000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1	0.459000	0.459000
80c6ef70 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 1b0acea3)
1b0acea3 support	relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation MEASUREMENT 1.0 × 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	2.000000	2.000000
cecd7b2a qualify	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 (non directional)
9f248d1e 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

prior 0.50 → log-odds 0.000000 + 4.259000 (the counted weights) = 4.259000 → probability 0.9861

Under neighbouring settings of the same model: 0.9517 to 0.9961, a spread of 0.0444.

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 global subduction-zone analysis found a strong positive relationship between geodetically constrained interface coupling and earthquake magnitude.” · 1 claim · 29 September 2026
“The global subduction-zone analysis found a strong positive relationship between geodetically constrained interface coupling and earthquake magnitude.” · 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 a strong positive relationship between interface coupling and earthquake magnitude.

From Maximum earthquake magnitude unlikely to be controlled by subduction interface roughness Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted
The secondary report identifies geodetic measurements of plate coupling as evidence that should receive greater weight in hazard assessment after roughness is rejected as a proxy for maximum magnitude.

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

Secondary coverage of the same Nature Geoscience study; the excerpt supports the relevance of coupling but does not independently reproduce the reported correlation coefficient or analysis.
The primary study reports a positive relationship between maximum interface coupling and maximum observed earthquake magnitude, with R2 = 0.65.

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 a strong positive relationship between earthquake magnitude and interface 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 primary report limits the coupling–magnitude relationship to 15 global subduction zones and frames the endpoint as maximum earthquake magnitude/potential, with roughness measured 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

Adds the sample count and maximum-magnitude endpoint qualifier.

Suppressed as dependent

Evidence	Group	Kept instead
988254b5		1b0acea3

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 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	80c6ef70, 1b0acea3, cecd7b2a, 9f248d1e

Summary

Supported. The main support is: The secondary report identifies geodetic measurements of plate coupling as evidence that should receive greater weight in hazard assessment after roughness is rejected as a proxy for maximum magnitude. 9de0e52e

1 further item repeats the same origin and is not independent evidence. 988254b5

Qualifier: The primary report limits the coupling–magnitude relationship to 15 global subduction zones and frames the endpoint as maximum earthquake magnitude/potential, with roughness measured at 1–10 km scales. c9a8c1b3

A narrower version of this claim is supported. 35468d5d

Review checks: 1 of 4. coverage:f9395019-eec9-8cb9-992a-ed94e2c682ac

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

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
18320	APPENDED
18321	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
18330	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
18396	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
19692	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
24703	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
25855	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)

Score trace

{
  "claim": "f9395019-eec9-8cb9-992a-ed94e2c682ac",
  "links": [
    {
      "link": "0bdb5d69-4058-837a-9f99-c4c44ce299b1",
      "group": null,
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "fdb4226c-279d-8767-aed0-3efb9de0e52e",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "magnitude": "0.459000",
      "relevance": "MODERATE",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
      "observation": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_type": "SECONDARY_TEXT",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "0.459000",
      "interpretive_steps": 1
    },
    {
      "kept": "898690d3-9caf-8446-8bdd-581f1b0acea3",
      "link": "11013111-1b6c-8eec-941d-d21780c6ef70",
      "group": null,
      "reason": "dependent_strongest_only",
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "a264cac7-6575-8e1e-8475-5de1988254b5",
      "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": "898690d3-9caf-8446-8bdd-581f1b0acea3",
      "group": null,
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "e9f82970-876a-8c19-8999-fe8eb46e3423",
      "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
    },
    {
      "link": "8c84a7a8-9f23-8e0b-9dc7-196dcecd7b2a",
      "group": null,
      "reason": "non_directional",
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "940b3fdc-6d80-896c-bb7f-9fefc9a8c1b3",
      "direction": "QUALIFY",
      "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": "a11b4c43-2b6f-86bd-ac97-fcb59f248d1e",
      "group": null,
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "60168c88-fc16-8fb9-98f1-a0be16c01236",
      "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
    }
  ],
  "model": "ledger-default@0.3.0",
  "prior": "0.50",
  "variants": {
    "spread": "0.0444",
    "permissive": "0.9961",
    "conservative": "0.9517"
  },
  "code_hash": "sha256:c61a6fdf35a754a0d7e958df149036a083c0eaeb7d2d2e52704ec32b0c36def7",
  "contested": false,
  "stability": "HIGH",
  "claim_type": "COMPARATIVE",
  "config_hash": "sha256:86768038080b8ab5233f1e4b7aba10af05b5bb44caa432095150b90e81209809",
  "probability": "0.9861",
  "provisional": true,
  "evidence_sum": "4.259000",
  "snapshot_seq": 25856,
  "prior_log_odds": "0.000000",
  "support_groups": 3,
  "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": [
        "11013111-1b6c-8eec-941d-d21780c6ef70",
        "898690d3-9caf-8446-8bdd-581f1b0acea3",
        "8c84a7a8-9f23-8e0b-9dc7-196dcecd7b2a",
        "a11b4c43-2b6f-86bd-ac97-fcb59f248d1e"
      ],
      "ok": true
    }
  },
  "contradict_groups": 0,
  "rounding_boundary": false,
  "posterior_log_odds": "4.259000",
  "not_applicable_reason": null,
  "independence_unreviewed": 5
}