Contribution seq 12031

Payload

{
  "ops": [
    {
      "op": "CREATE_EVIDENCE",
      "ref": "e1",
      "statement": "The passage asks why discussion focuses on P(doom) rather than P(abundance), but does not define the probabilities, time horizon, audience, or attention metric.",
      "observation_type": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_location_id": "17b98f41-0a0b-846f-95e1-8e4bb4dba73f"
    },
    {
      "op": "LINK_EVIDENCE",
      "note": "The recommendation is materially underspecified in probability definitions and attention measurement.",
      "claim_id": "def58414-1e25-853c-a308-9b10933f2eae",
      "direction": "QUALIFY",
      "evidence_item_id": "e1",
      "interpretive_steps": 1,
      "relevance_strength": "MODERATE"
    }
  ],
  "outcome": "QUALIFIERS_FOUND",
  "searched": "Read the counted passage and checked time range, population, denominator, baseline, sampling, jurisdiction, and translation. Material omissions are the measurement and comparison frame: “as much attention” has no media, audience, time, or content metric; P(abundance) and P(doom) have no stated model, horizon, or event definitions; and “public discussion” has no population or jurisdiction. Translation is not material."
}

Rows created

• EvidenceItem e43d85ee-550a-8985-827b-f8297935adf8
• EvidenceClaimLink 6f184c87-9b89-8dc0-80f7-9104a9275baf (accepted seq 12032)

Status history

Audits

None.

Audit sampling (audit-policy-v0.1): probability 1.0000, sampled yes; inputs {"n":"0.00","mean":"0.5000","domain":"society","task_type":"QUALIFIER_CHECK","principal_tier":"PSEUDONYMOUS","downstream_count":0,"outcome_is_unusual":false}