Auditor and reviewer guide
Try to break the claim.
A review identifies the maximum public claim, follows its evidence, tests the strongest alternative explanation, and records a disposition such as clean, wording fix, evidence gap, blocked, unresolved, invalid, uncheckable, or not claimed.
Review sequence
Start with scope, then attack the derivation.
- Name the maximum claim. Copy the exact sentence or claim ID. Record the legal work, address, date range, source profile, and strongest conclusion a reader could take from it.
- Bind the inspected state. Record the dated website, software, source or corpus snapshots, configuration, release status, and unavailable artifacts.
- Trace consequential statements. Follow each number, capability statement, and disposition to a public source, specification, implementation path, test, or external notice.
- Construct the strongest alternative. Ask whether source incompleteness, manifestation drift, parser error, temporal mismatch, editorial convention, stale comparison data, or a different authority model could explain the result.
- Check mechanism-to-wording fit. A hash supports identity; conservation supports an account over a declared universe; a mutation audit supports a footprint relation. None alone establishes legal meaning.
- Record the disposition. Use the reviewer values: clean, wording fix, evidence gap, blocked, unresolved, invalid, uncheckable, or outside scope. Silence and lack of refutation are not confirmation.
- Update the public record. After adjudication, update the public claim, evidence record, limitations, and review date or release binding.
Eight attack surfaces
Challenge the layer that actually carries the claim.
| Surface | Question | Common false inference |
|---|---|---|
| Source | Are the exact artifacts identified, and is the declared horizon adequate? | A valid hash proves a complete or legally correct source universe. |
| Account | Does the declared effect population balance without drops or double claims? | A complete partition proves the population itself was complete. |
| Semantic boundary | Did ambiguity stay blocked or residual rather than becoming an operation? | Typed closure independently proves the source prose entailed the operation. |
| Admission | What phase-local evidence allowed execution or publication of the claim? | Confidence or upstream evidence is portable authority. |
| Mutation | Do the bound target, writer receipt, and independent observed diff agree? | Writer bookkeeping is an independent mutation check. |
| Time and identity | Are effective time, expiry, overlays, branch, and identity explicit? | One date or identifier silently covers every legal coordinate. |
| Checker | What does a separate implementation reconstruct, and what remains trusted? | A structural fixture checker is a legal certificate. |
| Presentation | Would a cold reader infer a broader claim from the headline, badge, or diagram? | A distant caveat repairs an overbroad visual conclusion. |
Missing artifacts
Stop where reconstruction would invent evidence.
Required rule
Unavailable means uncheckable.
If a claim depends on source bytes, a corpus archive, a trace, or a frozen implementation that is unavailable, record the missing artifact and the narrow checks still possible. Do not rebuild a substitute and present it as the committed witness.
- Can still review
- Public wording, linked source pages, schema shape, logical consistency, and disclosed non-claims.
- Cannot conclude
- Integrity, exact reproduction, or validity of the missing artifact-dependent derivation.
Submit a challenge
Make disagreement adjudicable.
Include the claim URL or ID, dated software/source snapshot, evidence locators, challenge dimension, strongest alternative explanation, requested disposition, and any source you can share publicly. Describe confidential material first; do not attach restricted source files to an unsolicited email.