bhagyamudgal Verify claims
A decision-driving claim changes what someone believes or does. I call a claim verified only with support from two distinct evidence surfaces, its basis and the boundary where the user will experience the claimed result. One surface is a hunch with a citation. I need both.
1. Start the claim card
I apply this workflow when a claim affects a diagnosis, recommendation, external mutation, completion verdict, or user decision and contains an inference. I exit the workflow for a directly observed fact or ordinary narration.
I start this card in the existing ledger, report, or durable issue artifact only when the user has already authorized writes to it. Otherwise I keep it inline.
### Claim
- **Claim:** <falsifiable sentence>
- **Consequence:** <decision or action this controls>
- **Counter-hypothesis:** <strongest plausible alternative and distinguishing prediction>
- **Distinguishing observation:** <result, or concrete reason it is unavailable>
- **Basis evidence:** <observation, source, and what it establishes>
- **Boundary evidence:** <observation and acceptance surface, or missing evidence>
- **State:** hypothesis | basis-verified | verified | contradicted | blocked
- **Limitations:** <remaining uncertainty and any explicit reversible-work assumption>
- **Next action:** <action permitted by this state>
- **Independent recheck:** <reviewer verdict and evidence for a material reversal; otherwise not applicable>
Gate. The exact claim and its consequence are recorded, or the workflow has exited.
2. Frame competing predictions
I record the strongest plausible counter-hypothesis, not a token opposite. I name the observation that would distinguish it from the claim.
Gate. The claim and counter-hypothesis predict different observable results.
3. Gather paired evidence
I choose the lane matching the consequence. I inspect the current target. Prior summaries are leads, not evidence.
| Lane | Basis evidence | Acceptance-boundary evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Code behavior | Exact code path and relevant state or test setup | Runtime, test, browser, network, or persisted result at the public seam |
| External mutation | Exact write target, request, and mutation result ledger | Fresh read-back from the authoritative external system |
| Configuration or invocation | Parsed configuration, registration, and discovery result | Picker visibility, manual invocation, or actual consumer behavior |
| Data claim | Source lineage, query, filters, and intended dataset | Direct result from that dataset, including a recomputed count or total when claimed |
I use observations from distinct surfaces. I run the distinguishing observation from step 2 when its surface is available. I record commands, targets, timestamps, file locations, or result identifiers precisely enough for another agent to recheck them.
Gate. Each evidence field contains an observation or a concrete reason it is missing or inconclusive, and the distinguishing-observation field contains either its result or the concrete reason it was unavailable.
4. Assign exactly one state
hypothesismeans basis evidence is absent or inconclusive. I communicate only the hypothesis and the next evidence needed.basis-verifiedmeans the basis supports the claim, while boundary evidence or the distinguishing observation is missing or inconclusive. I label the conclusion provisional.verifiedmeans both evidence surfaces support the claim and a completed distinguishing observation does not support the counter-hypothesis. Definitive language is permitted.contradictedmeans a required observation falsifies the claim or supports the counter-hypothesis. I withdraw the claim.blockedmeans required evidence is unavailable and an external or irreversible action depends on the claim. I name the evidence needed to unblock it.
An unavailable boundary creates an evidence ceiling. The claim cannot reach verified. I continue reversible work only when its assumption is explicit in the card, and I hold external and irreversible actions.
Gate. The state follows from the recorded evidence, and the communicated conclusion and next action do not exceed it.
5. If the claim materially reverses, recheck independently
A reversal is material when new evidence changes the claim truth state, recommended action, or justification for an action already taken. With no material reversal, I record not applicable and continue.
For a material reversal, I dispatch a fresh reviewer who did not produce the original conclusion. I give it exact raw-source identifiers, the decision scope or query, and the counter-hypothesis. I do not pass a directory or any artifact containing a prior or proposed conclusion. I withhold the original rationale, prior conclusion, and proposed replacement value. I ask it to produce a claim card, then reconcile its evidence with the working card before relying on the replacement conclusion.
When no fresh reviewer is available, I set the replacement claim to blocked and name the missing recheck.
Gate. A non-reversal is recorded as not applicable. Otherwise the independent card is reconciled or reliance on the replacement conclusion is blocked.
6. Persist before reliance
I populate every card field. I persist the card in an already-authorized writable artifact before communicating or acting on the claim. Otherwise I communicate it inline without creating or updating external state.
Done. Every field is populated, the distinguishing result or concrete unavailability reason is present, and the communicated conclusion and next action match the recorded state. A claim without a completed distinguishing observation is never verified.