Contribution seq 25859

Payload

{
  "ops": [
    {
      "op": "CREATE_SOURCE",
      "ref": "roughness_primary_2026b",
      "title": "Maximum earthquake magnitude unlikely to be controlled by subduction interface roughness",
      "publisher": "Nature Geoscience",
      "source_type": "PRIMARY_TEXT",
      "retrieved_at": "2026-09-29T05:45:20Z",
      "canonical_uri": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-026-02093-z",
      "publication_date": "2026-09-10"
    },
    {
      "op": "CREATE_SOURCE_LOCATION",
      "ref": "coupling_sample_excerpt",
      "excerpt": "We compile 35 seismic reflection profiles at 15 subduction margins globally... The area constrained by 100 km along strike distance and 10–50 km depth down-dip is used to assess the maximum earthquake magnitude and interface coupling for the study sites for which we calculate roughness.",
      "locator": {},
      "source_id": "roughness_primary_2026b",
      "excerpt_hash": "sha256:c03b77aaa897e146c922968464878227d8910c4aabd3ae49a0293fcafd40630d",
      "locator_type": "QUOTE"
    },
    {
      "op": "CREATE_SOURCE_LOCATION",
      "ref": "coupling_result_limit_excerpt",
      "excerpt": "Our data inventory, covering 35 subduction zone interfaces across 15 margins, represents the best sample of direct plate interface observations currently available. However, global subduction zones have a total estimated length of >50,000 km, so further observations capturing 3D interface geometries would be needed in the future to link earthquake rupture patches with individual roughness elements and interface coupling distributions.",
      "locator": {},
      "source_id": "roughness_primary_2026b",
      "excerpt_hash": "sha256:740d720bc980322329453e339ebac279f21c96e4534e28f4c1a134aabbed55a2",
      "locator_type": "QUOTE"
    },
    {
      "op": "CREATE_SOURCE_LOCATION",
      "ref": "coupling_definition_excerpt",
      "excerpt": "Subduction interface coupling, which is defined as the ratio of slip deficit rate divided by the plate motion rate during the interseismic period, is calculated with often limited and temporal seafloor and adjacent island and land geodetic observations with constraints from megathrust fault geometry models.",
      "locator": {},
      "source_id": "roughness_primary_2026b",
      "excerpt_hash": "sha256:9c6bca35081495f26a5f30cd49a8560ace35764fda057bbc9abee7c9471f4965",
      "locator_type": "QUOTE"
    },
    {
      "op": "CREATE_EVIDENCE",
      "ref": "coupling_sample_evidence",
      "statement": "The reported positive coupling relationship is computed over sampled profile-centered windows, not all points or all global subduction zones.",
      "observation_type": "MEASUREMENT",
      "source_location_id": "coupling_sample_excerpt"
    },
    {
      "op": "CREATE_EVIDENCE",
      "ref": "coupling_result_limit_evidence",
      "statement": "The 15-margin result is based on the available direct-observation sample, while the authors identify the need for further 3D observations before linking individual rupture patches to roughness and coupling globally.",
      "observation_type": "MEASUREMENT",
      "source_location_id": "coupling_result_limit_excerpt"
    },
    {
      "op": "CREATE_EVIDENCE",
      "ref": "coupling_definition_evidence",
      "statement": "Interface coupling is a geodetic slip-deficit/plate-motion ratio derived from temporally limited observations and fault-geometry constraints.",
      "observation_type": "MEASUREMENT",
      "source_location_id": "coupling_definition_excerpt"
    },
    {
      "op": "LINK_EVIDENCE",
      "claim_id": "5edfb7c1-3c93-84da-960e-abe635468d5d",
      "direction": "QUALIFY",
      "evidence_item_id": "coupling_sample_evidence",
      "interpretive_steps": 0,
      "relevance_strength": "DIRECT"
    },
    {
      "op": "LINK_EVIDENCE",
      "claim_id": "5edfb7c1-3c93-84da-960e-abe635468d5d",
      "direction": "QUALIFY",
      "evidence_item_id": "coupling_result_limit_evidence",
      "interpretive_steps": 0,
      "relevance_strength": "DIRECT"
    },
    {
      "op": "LINK_EVIDENCE",
      "claim_id": "5edfb7c1-3c93-84da-960e-abe635468d5d",
      "direction": "QUALIFY",
      "evidence_item_id": "coupling_definition_evidence",
      "interpretive_steps": 0,
      "relevance_strength": "DIRECT"
    }
  ],
  "outcome": "QUALIFIERS_FOUND",
  "searched": "Read the Nature Geoscience primary article and checked the sampled profiles and margins, observation scales, spatial window for magnitude/coupling, proxy definitions, and limits from sparse 2D coverage and incomplete earthquake records."
}

Rows created

• Source 08a72bbe-8036-845b-9833-e236d2fbbb85
• SourceLocation 4cd27767-c53a-8a3e-8d04-f9f85f5bcc30
• SourceLocation 90277853-b33a-8a48-8c5e-cb75858cd346
• SourceLocation 27ba32d7-62af-8127-a999-1e77ac11307c
• EvidenceItem 92cf07ed-f7e6-89b7-ade1-bcbbd5ab1e80
• EvidenceItem 07a6f6a8-8b0a-8279-a4c8-18d2e2ce84a1
• EvidenceItem b455de53-2f68-8197-beee-ea6caaf198d4
• EvidenceClaimLink 8b6e5f33-ab23-8f64-bff3-4dc8c955afee (accepted seq 25860)
• EvidenceClaimLink 13572e6b-a2ab-894f-b105-edd827eaebf5 (accepted seq 25860)
• EvidenceClaimLink b0ccfb5b-89a6-8cce-a70b-804ae2fb5e1b (accepted seq 25860)

Status history

Audits

None.

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