# Claims and their evidence

Target length: under 1,300 words.

The table applies E1's claims rule to this room. Words claims use resolved source passages and contrasting readings. The local pattern claim uses the instrument chronology, not a distribution across rooms. The room contract requires a denominator only for a quantitative claim; no prevalence proposition is made. Passing a file check does not validate an interpretation.

| Claim | Kind | Evidence | Rival | Validation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| `N01` / `A01`: overwhelming loss supplies a speaker's replanning reason | words | `F-002`; `c0099` explicitly joins overwhelming loss and moving. `c0106` dates concurrent defence. Both were reread in the complete R6 coded blocks and cited. | Unseen decisions may precede the public reason. This does not prove a collective switch or a causal survival effect. Thin: no independent applicable negative test. | Explicit reason checked through cite; concurrent defence checked as a bound. No independent applicable negative test is claimed. |
| `N02` / `A02`: stated shortage or occupied effort is addressed by adjusted contributions | words | `F-007`; `c0051` narrows work and `c0038` conditions help. The existing `c0145` contrast seeks reciprocal effort instead. | A statement can justify a prior choice. Actual delivery and adequate capacity remain unknown. No claim about how often adjustment occurs. | Compare narrowing/conditional help with reciprocal maintenance; validate local commitment meaning, not delivered capacity. |
| `N03` / `A03`: a voiced neighbouring claim receives a public response | words | `F-003`; `c0140` appeals, `c0141` calls rescue, `c0142` apologizes and `c0143` reports loss. The Azeri-heart exchange supplies an applicable contrast in the retained arrow register. | Selective disavowal can protect reputation. The record warrants response; it does not decide intentions or effective repair. | Dated appeal, rescue, apology and loss checked together. Azeri-heart contrast checks response without control. |
| `N04` / `A04`: a competing forum purpose supplies a reason for containment | words | `F-003`; `c0094` states election visibility; `c0129`/`c0130` retain complaint and acknowledged incomplete containment. The independent critic correctly removed `c0132` as confirmation of this reason. | A removal motive may be unstated; the observed reason is the moderator's account. Thin: no independent applicable negative test beyond the retained supporting occasions. | Moderator's reason checked against the quote; retain the critic's removal of invalid confirmation and continued-posting contrast. |
| `N05` / `A05`: removal supplies a stated reason to offer cross-venue access | words | `F-006`; `c0132` states the reason and invitation. Earlier `c0077`/`c0078` demonstrates another occasion for existing access. | Existing Discord and communication needs rule out an exclusive origin story. Thin: invitation use and improved coordination are not established. | Check the since connection in the quote and the earlier invitation as an alternative occasion; origin and use remain unknown. |
| `N06` / `A06`: completion precedes an upkeep prompt while placement remains open | pattern | `F-008`; `c0035` at 36.57388888888889 precedes `c0036` at 36.74055555555555 in the same thread, `62ve2r`. This is the instrument's dated local sequence. | No reward-to-effort cause is inferred. The closed original in `E-08` is outside its bound. Thin beyond this local order. | Check instrument hours and same-thread referents; validate chronological order only, without a motivational inference. |
| Public proposed goals and uptake | words | `F-001`; `c0001` proposes a flag, `c0004` specifies components, `c0012` answers an address request and `c0007` reports an attempt. | No settled membership, uniform plan or complete assignment system follows. | Check the named source or governing receipt at its declared scope; no stronger causal or absence conclusion is inferred. |
| Closure separates original upkeep from new objects | words and documented bracket, words primary | `F-004`; imposed `K04` at hour 73; `c0124` and `c0128` name replica work, while `c0130` addresses forum management. | A different referent or corrected closure bracket would change this account. Later endpoint is not the end of all care. | Check the named source or governing receipt at its declared scope; no stronger causal or absence conclusion is inferred. |
| Experienced value does not establish a complete inducement arrangement | words, literature-prompted interpretation separate | `F-005`; `c0163` values two days as fun; `c0152` gives recognition. R5 declared the abductive check before read 5439. Verified Puranam et al. (2014) permits intrinsic inducements. | Enjoyment may have motivated participation. This record cannot isolate that relation. Reward absence is not claimed. | Check the named source or governing receipt at its declared scope; no stronger causal or absence conclusion is inferred. |
| No grounded feedback cycle is retained | weak absence, coded-record scope | Empty model/loops.jsonl; the retained model/story test distinguishes completion, upkeep, replica and closure. No full dated return chain was established. | A linked unseen chain could exist. Empty register is not proof of no feedback in the activity. | Check the named source or governing receipt at its declared scope; no stronger causal or absence conclusion is inferred. |

## Counts and what they validate

R6 read-label coverage is 168 of 168 delivered code records, receipt 6048, in the coded frame, hours 0 through 97 inclusive; neither endpoint has a code. The duplicate `c0166`/`c0167` is one incident represented by two delivered records. Distinct-item coverage is 166 of 166, receipt 6325, under the same closed interval with no boundary item. Coverage establishes delivery, not understanding or a mechanism.

{"mode":"coverage","unit":"codes","n":168,"denominator":{"unit":"codes","n":168,"of":"R6 closed-label table preparation, every delivered code record in the 97-hour case window"},"receipt":6048}
{"mode":"coverage","unit":"items","n":166,"denominator":{"unit":"items","n":166,"of":"R6 distinct coded items reached by the complete closed-label reading"},"receipt":6325}

The aftermath claim is the saved R2 measure from organizing_end.json and receipt 1101: 7 coordinating distinct coded items out of 23 strictly after hour 73 in the supplied 97-hour window. None is exactly at hour 73. The saved turn rule includes actionable replica specifications and ongoing discussion management. R6 attempted a recomputation; the gateway refused because aftermath counting belongs to R2 or FA. The account therefore cites the governing saved receipt, not a new R6 calculation.

{"mode":"aftermath","unit":"items","n":7,"denominator":{"unit":"items","n":23,"of":"all supplied distinct coded items strictly after hour 73, within the 97-hour room window"},"receipt":1101}

The last building instruction is `c0128` at 82.72222222222223; last included coordination is management `c0130` at 86.9888888888889. Participant-reported original work remained; replica and restoration outcomes are unknown. These observations do not validate a causal relation from organizing form to survival.

## Limits of the audit

Every proposition rests on one retained bounded arrow at element level. No dimension-level mechanism is inferred by adding its component arrows. `N06` is a pattern of order; its evidence is chronology, not a quote count. `N01`, `N04`, `N05` and `N06` are explicitly thin beyond their local support. None rests wholly on theorised arrows or a mechanism imported from literature.

The R4 critic exposed two real test-register errors, both fixed with history receipts. It did not certify the interpretation, and no R6 reader fidelity score is available. No new three-reader return, held-out test, other-room comparison or visual verification of the canvas is claimed. Source checks, local contrasts and the unseen-coordination rival remain separate.

A reproducible access record and a rendered model permit checking. They do not establish that the grouping is unique, that public speech exhausts organizing, or that the analyst could recover tacit motivation. Those limits also qualify the confidence grades.