# Claims and their evidence

Target length: under 1,500 words.

## Validation by claim kind

Each proposition is a words claim about local acts or attributed reasons. Source clock order constrains a linked exchange without making it a frequency claim. No proposition is validated by code mass. There is no pattern proposition about a distribution across communities. The sibling return and a new R6 reader fleet are unavailable here; the accepted R4 critic and source checks are the independent challenge actually received, not an estimate of fidelity.

| Claim | What carries it | Evidence named and validation received | Strongest rival and disposition | Limit or remaining defect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| `N01`, specified call and linked response | words | `A01`; `c0144`, `c0146`; distinct source items `62s8z5`, `dfotweb`, in `62s8z5`. The clock and commitment words support the bounded order. `F-006` holds it. | Prior willingness or selection of an enthusiastic reply could explain participation; the source establishes the response, not a unique causal effect. Critic error-001 removed the launch as a response instance. | No attendance, adoption or victory effect; the four-group method remains proposed. |
| `N02`, interference and attempted explanation | words | `A02`; `c0702`, `c0703`, `c0451`; the advocate's therefore account and portrait-recognition advice link the acts. `F-007` holds the limit. | Publicity could have been planned anyway; explicit source words support an attributed reason, not a population tendency. | Message exposure and successful reception remain unmeasured. |
| `N03`, local reported switch after a corrected reading | words; conjectural | `A03`, wholly reading-alone; `c0704`, `c0709`; same actor's before/now report in `dfrmo45`, `636a8n`. `F-001` holds the interpretation. | Other information or changed preference remains possible. Continued Arch removal `c0403` and explicit objections `c0707`, `c0713` refute a broad approval-to-compliance claim. | The exact informational trigger and pixels are unobserved; no deterministic effect or tendency is claimed. |
| `N04`, protection terms and upkeep commitments | words | `A04`; `c0588`, `c0589`, `c0590`, comparison `c0494`. `F-002@R4#2` corrects the overinclusive original evidence. | Existing friendliness could also motivate repair; no unique causal effect is identified. Critic error-002 correctly removed Germany's reciprocal attack acceptance as upkeep corroboration. | Neither fulfilled benefits nor actual repairs are independently verified. Pledges and reports remain distinct. |
| `N05`, judged palette limit and cancellation | words | `A05`; `c0436`; comparison replies `c0437`, `c0438`, `c0440`; the author's explicit reason supports `F-003`. | Labour and project size are competing attributed concerns; their relative effect remains unknown. | Thin, undated cancellation edit. Creation time cannot date the ending or order it before replies. |
| `N06`, routing could alter contributions | words; theorised and excluded | `A06`; `c0627` promises reposting, `c0597` reports ignorance; neither is a route-to-pixel instance. `F-008` holds this unmeasured relation. | Reposting, nonexposure or an unrelated source of changed work remain possible. | Weak absence limited to inspected `E-11` and `E-16`; no claim that venue effects never occur. The arrow is undrawn. |

## Claim about the local whole

The account says public organizing occurred around identifiable undertakings, with task-specific calls, commitments, explanation attempts and stated obligations. It does not say every person shared one goal. The evidence includes the timed call, the horse switch and Maryland terms rather than a code total offered as proof. R2's aftermath count answers a different question: distinct coded items arranging prospective work after closure. Its receipt, fixed rule and denominator appear in account.md. The work-kept judgement rests on participant reports, including `c0824`, never an independent view of the artifact.

The rival off-platform-plan account wins the origin claim where an advocate relays an already approved design. It does not erase the observed local recognition and priority dispute. The strongest contrary evidence remains part of the explanation rather than a reason to invent a scope condition. A deliberate opponent falls outside a mistaken-maintenance interpretation because the source explicitly distinguishes the acts.

## Literature and missing tests

Verified Puranam, Alexy and Reitzig (2014) supplies a comparison vocabulary, not local causal support. `F-005` records compatibility with proposed mappings, with no test of necessity and sufficiency. No mechanism is from-literature. The original sensemaking/sensegiving source remains recalled and unverified. R5 contains no empirical switch of warrant.

No population baseline, independent pixel observation, complete incentive inventory or common event-wide membership is measured. Every absence claim is weak. The source-bound PNG lacks the external-clock annotation; figure-C5.md states that limitation and supplies both textual views with the external boundary. No new R6 reader-fidelity or cross-room composition result exists. The file checks cannot decide whether the mechanism is right or whether a stranger understands the account.