# Claims and the evidence of their declared kind

The main account and propositions make words claims: what specified acts mean and how explicit replies relate to requests. Their source-grounded examples and counterexamples warrant bounded interpretations, not prevalence or completed execution. No independent return or cross-case validation has occurred at R6. The accepted R4 critic remains intact. CROSSWALK.md explicitly exempts the case aggregator from C5 account readers; none was required or dispatched. The independent substantive postclose review remains mandatory and is not claimed here.

| Object or claim | Declared kind | Evidence named | Strongest rival or limit | Validation of this kind |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| `T4-001` and `P01`: specifying contributions | words | `c0006`, `c0010`, `c0044`, `c0047` | A common object does not imply an agreed design or actual task allocation. | Exact instruction, preservation and priority challenge exemplars resolved; static grouping compares their contribution-specifying practice. No behavior-frequency claim. |
| `T4-002`, `P02`, `P03`: making spatial terms explicit | words | `c0011`, `c0012`, `c0037`, `c0039`, `c0105` | Opposed claims can be different speakers' positions, not community policy change or successful negotiation. | Contrasting pleas, exclusion and reported accommodations read as distinct acts addressing room or support. |
| `T4-003`, `P04`: locating answerability | words | `c0007`, `c0067`, `c0080`, `c0092` | Formal jurisdiction and delivery are unverified; referrals can also dismiss. | Destination and purpose statements resolved. Reported relay in `c0056` limits pure-deflection reading. |
| `D01`: contribution versus entitlement | words, interpretive aggregate | `c0010` contrasted with `c0059`, plus `c0006`, `c0011`, `c0012` | Could be treated as independent distinctions rather than an aggregate; no causal sequence is demonstrated. | Retained as arguable. Prose test states the difference without using code coverage as proof. |
| `F-001`: instruction coexists with external attribution | words | `c0006`, `c0007`, thread `62pf3j` | Early coexistence does not date a transfer of organizing. | Bounded source comparison; current revision unchanged. |
| `F-002` and `N01` on `A01` | words | `c0066`, `c0067`, `c0073`, `c0056`; `E-32`, `E-35`, `E-29` | Mere rejection versus practical routing; partial integration remains possible. | Recorded request-answer relations and reported relay, not a denominator or verified receiving-venue response. FFXIV limits obligatory routing. |
| `N02` on `A03` | words | `c0011`, `c0012`, `c0037`, `c0039`, `c0059`, `c0105` | Plans may predate the request; the reply does not show that the complaint caused policy. | The mechanism is making terms explicit in the exchange. It is not a claim of plan formation or authority. |
| `F-003`, `P05` and `N03` on `A02` | words | `c0039`, `c0040`, `c0105`, `c0106`; `E-20`, `E-47` | Courtesy may not change conduct. The direct-negative test is incomplete. | Explicit acknowledgment and search intention resolved. Thin beyond these cases; no implementation or successful relocation asserted. |
| `F-004` and `P06`: retrospective affiliation | words primary; measured timing is context | `c0107`, `c0108`, `c0109`; organizing_end.json | Valued affiliation could be an implicit reward, but does not show continuing maintenance. | Exact retrospective words and source clock; aftermath measure inherited from R2, not proof of no outside activity. |
| `F-005`: unresolved limits | words | `E-11`, `E-13`, `E-42` | Missing request, unobserved conduct and uncertain deleted-author identity cannot be repaired by a general story. | Retained limitations, not zero behavior. Historical rationale correction is already accepted and is not repeated. |
| `F-006` and `P07`: effort reports distinct from instructions | words | `c0014`, `c0016`, `c0110` | Reports may be inaccurate or rhetorical; capacity and effect are unverified. | Exact reported limit and contribution contrast. Original coder homes remain unchanged. |
| `F-007`: partial literature mapping | words, theory comparison | mapping-C3.jsonl; supplied Puranam paper; `c0006`, `c0067`, `c0108` | An emergent or implicit arrangement may exist without being stated here. | Framework comparison, not independent empirical corroboration. No literature-supplied mechanism or new model node. |
| Last observed coordinating act and aftermath measure | recorded clock and bounded measurement, not prevalence of organization | `c0106`; organizing_end.json; R2 count receipt 1320 | Last observation does not date the end of all organizing; coded aftermath is partial. | Instrument's hour and distinct-item aftermath measurement, with denominator and scope in implications-C5.md. Survival remains unknown. |

## Prior, switches and unsupported extensions

The prior expected local contribution talk alongside directions to r/norge and Discord, differing refusal and accommodation, and retrospective affiliation. Those expectations rest primarily on words. The episode record supplies the particular FFXIV acknowledgment and separates reported effort from instruction; it does not turn an expected order into a distributional result. The last-observation claim uses the measured clock and the fixed coordinating-turn rule, not a presumed trajectory.

No R5 switch changed a claim from words to pattern or the reverse. The literature comparison added a bounded finding while preserving the empirical model. No proposition is carried wholly by a theorised arrow or marked from-literature. None claims a four-problem solution. No counts of activities, policy change, effectiveness or organizational survival are inferred from assignment coverage. The data structure displays range exemplars, not a sample estimating frequencies.

The room has something to explain at the level of public organizing acts. The stronger claim that this is one group with a shared goal and complete arrangements remains unresolved. That is an inferential boundary, not evidence that no organization existed.