How does evidence
become a claim?
Truth Engine makes sources and changes in wording inspectable, so people can explain the basis of a claim before using it.
A possible communication path
The wording changes.
Does the meaning?
A reader may encounter the headline long before the study’s conditions, limitations or uncertainty.
“In this population, X was associated with Y.”
A relationship under specific conditions.
“X causes Y.”
A claim about cause, with scope removed.
What supports the stronger wording, and what disappeared along the way?
Ten details become one takeaway.
What survives when a complex finding becomes a short public message?
Ten context elements in this constructed example: population, exposure, dose, comparator, outcome, effect size, uncertainty, study design, source identity and limitations.
Which omissions matter depends on the claim. A shorter message is not automatically a misleading one.
See exactly what falls out.
Follow individual details across the texts, instead of reducing the case to a score.
| Context to look for | StudyElements explicitly present6 / 6 | Press releaseElements explicitly present4 / 6 | MediaElements explicitly present2 / 6 | Syndicated copyElements explicitly present1 / 6 | Public claimElements explicitly present0 / 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uncertainty | ● | × | × | × | × |
| Study design | ● | × | × | × | × |
| Population | ● | ● | × | × | × |
| Dose | ● | ● | × | × | × |
| Source identity | ● | ● | ● | × | × |
| Outcome | ● | ● | ● | ● | × |
Two starting points.
One inspectable evidence network.
How are these findings being described?
Inspect the study, find related communication and compare the exact formulations.
What is the basis for this statement?
Follow available references and distinguish historical background from later research.
“Where does the recommendation for 10,000 steps a day come from?”
A landscape you can read
The source gives context. The formulation gives you something to compare.
Nature Medicine
Higher circulating erythritol was associated with cardiovascular-event risk.
Compare wordingCleveland Clinic
Erythritol was associated with an increased risk of heart attack and stroke.
Compare wordingReddit r/science
Erythritol was linked to higher rates of heart attack and stroke.
Compare wordingThe comparison explains the question
“X was associated with Y in the studied population.”
“X causes Y.”
The second statement makes a stronger causal claim.
It also removes the population boundary. A reviewer needs evidence for both changes.
Visible words added or removed.
An attributed proposal with a basis.
A separate, scoped review record.
Same evidence category.
Same level of risk?
Processed meat and tobacco smoking share a carcinogenicity category.
The category describes the strength of evidence that something causes cancer. It does not mean the exposures are equally dangerous.
Does “same category” become “same risk” in the coverage?
Acquire the actual articles, identify exact passages and establish the references before assessing any shift in meaning.
Every conclusion needs a visible basis
| Layer | What it can establish | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Retained source | What the system acquired, and when. | Acquisition does not establish truth. |
| Recovered passage | Where the quoted text occurs in that version. | A valid quotation does not validate an interpretation. |
| Direct relationship | A reference or text reuse under a named rule. | A citation does not automatically mean support. |
| Model proposal | An inspectable interpretation to consider. | The proposal retains its model attribution. |
| Human review | A dated decision for stated wording and use. | Approval cannot fill a missing evidential basis. |
Before a claim goes public
The first intended user owns the wording and is accountable for its use.
Specify the claim
Exact wording, product, audience and intended context.
Inspect the basis
Relevant sources, conflicting material and material gaps.
Record the review
Reasoning, conditions and any required specialist input.
Decide its use
A dated decision tied to the wording and evidence versions.
A decision another person can inspect
The proposed value is the work saved in assembling, explaining and revisiting a claim’s basis.
Before publication
Find wording that goes beyond the available evidence. Make limitations visible before committing to a campaign.
When the evidence changes
Revisit the decision against new material while preserving its earlier basis.
Will claim owners use it for a real decision?
Observe whether a reviewer can explain the claim, its conditions, the material gaps and their own rationale.
Willingness to pay remains a separate commercial test.
What is ready, and what comes next
| Stage | Scope | Reported status |
|---|---|---|
| Experience prototype | Five-source overview, wording comparison and source details. | Frozen. Human and real-source acceptance remain open. |
| Ingestion foundation | Source versions, representations, history and coverage. | Checkpoint B reported ready for acceptance. |
| Passages & relationships | Qualified passages, claim ownership and direct links. | Checkpoint C is the next scoped step. |
| Integration & live case | Supported API projection, real retained material and inspection. | Pending backend delivery and acceptance. |
| Claim Review product | Governed decisions and appropriate reviewer identity. | Approved direction. Further implementation required. |
See what the claim says.
Understand what
its basis allows.
A calm workspace for complex evidence, precise comparisons and accountable human decisions.
Sources and presentation notes
- Product direction and status. Owner-approved discussion and supplied PBI-0030/PBI-0032 reports. Prototype: 96a213a. Freeze record: bfbba568. Ingestion Checkpoint B: 85b8ef8.
- Meat classification. WHO: Carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat. Distinguishes evidence category from risk magnitude and red meat from processed meat.
- Erythritol illustration. Agent-prepared legacy formulations supplied with the prototype. Study reference: The artificial sweetener erythritol and cardiovascular event risk. The deck does not validate the excerpts or the proposed links.
- Compression funnel. Two constructed examples. The funnel uses a consistent unit and proportional widths (10:3:1). The matrix tracks six named context elements. Neither claims measured loss in a real case.
- Updated from the earlier deck. Unsupported market statistics, categorical claims of distortion and promises of legal defensibility or AI-search visibility have been removed. Interface slides are presentation illustrations of the new design, not screenshots of a deployed service.