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 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.

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.

• “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

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)