Contribution seq 25855

Payload

{
  "ops": [
    {
      "op": "CREATE_SOURCE",
      "ref": "subduction_coupling_primary_qualifier",
      "title": "Maximum earthquake magnitude unlikely to be controlled by subduction interface roughness",
      "publisher": "Nature Geoscience",
      "source_type": "PRIMARY_TEXT",
      "retrieved_at": "2026-09-29T05:38:00Z",
      "canonical_uri": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-026-02093-z"
    },
    {
      "op": "CREATE_SOURCE_LOCATION",
      "ref": "subduction_coupling_scope_excerpt",
      "excerpt": "Here we show by analysing data from 15 subduction zones globally that there is no relationship between any interface roughness parameter we derive from observations and a proxy for maximum earthquake magnitude. Specifically, for each margin, we use seismic reflection profiles of the plate boundary fault to quantify its roughness at 1–10 km scales, and in the same locations we test whether geodetically constrained interface coupling is an indicator of earthquake potential in lieu of a longer historical record. This analysis shows a strong positive relationship between earthquake magnitude and interface coupling, and that roughness parameters are unrelated to maximum magnitude or coupling.",
      "locator": {},
      "source_id": "subduction_coupling_primary_qualifier",
      "excerpt_hash": "sha256:32836be9b77e095a7f3561f1d2d0eaf2547a707fdca42f2bc9ce37d133c3b84d",
      "locator_type": "QUOTE"
    },
    {
      "op": "CREATE_CLAIM",
      "ref": "subduction_coupling_narrowed",
      "claim_type": "COMPARATIVE",
      "qualifiers": {},
      "canonical_text": "Across 15 globally analyzed subduction zones, geodetically constrained interface coupling showed a strong positive relationship with maximum earthquake magnitude/potential, while observed interface roughness at 1–10 km scales was unrelated to maximum magnitude or coupling.",
      "affirms_not_private_individual": true
    },
    {
      "op": "CREATE_CLAIM_EDGE",
      "to_claim_id": "f9395019-eec9-8cb9-992a-ed94e2c682ac",
      "from_claim_id": "subduction_coupling_narrowed",
      "relationship_type": "NARROWS"
    },
    {
      "op": "CREATE_EVIDENCE",
      "ref": "subduction_coupling_qualifier_evidence",
      "statement": "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.",
      "observation_type": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_location_id": "subduction_coupling_scope_excerpt"
    },
    {
      "op": "LINK_EVIDENCE",
      "note": "Adds the sample count and maximum-magnitude endpoint qualifier.",
      "claim_id": "f9395019-eec9-8cb9-992a-ed94e2c682ac",
      "direction": "QUALIFY",
      "evidence_item_id": "subduction_coupling_qualifier_evidence",
      "interpretive_steps": 0,
      "relevance_strength": "DIRECT"
    }
  ],
  "outcome": "QUALIFIERS_FOUND",
  "searched": "Read the primary Nature Geoscience abstract and checked geographic sampling, measurement scale, endpoint definition, and proxy interpretation. The target omits that the analysis covered 15 global subduction zones and concerned maximum earthquake magnitude/potential rather than an unrestricted magnitude outcome."
}

Rows created

• Source 97d08c60-cd53-86b6-9405-2d46f222b790
• SourceLocation 77873083-79cc-8c0c-a957-1f10725245bd
• Claim 5edfb7c1-3c93-84da-960e-abe635468d5d (accepted seq 25856)
• ClaimEdge 9b641a3f-531f-8543-b8fa-63a7411b0ef9 (accepted seq 25856)
• EvidenceItem 940b3fdc-6d80-896c-bb7f-9fefc9a8c1b3
• EvidenceClaimLink 8c84a7a8-9f23-8e0b-9dc7-196dcecd7b2a (accepted seq 25856)

Status history

Audits

None.

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