Flagship application — Scientific Claim Forensics
Does the evidence warrant the claim?
A source can be genuine, correctly quoted, and still not support the conclusion drawn from it. Scientific Claim Forensics measures the distance between what the evidence establishes and what a public claim asserts.
The reasoning chain
From claim to verdict.
Each public claim is decomposed and rebuilt from its evidence, so the exact point where the reasoning outruns the source becomes visible.
01
Claim
02
Proposition
03
Source
04
Evidence
05
Inference
06
Verdict
The reasoning failures we study
Where claims outrun their evidence.
Recurring leaps in scientific and evidence-dependent claims. Each is genuine reasoning that quietly assumes more than the evidence establishes.
“A blood marker fell after eight weeks of use.”
“Improves your health outcomes.”
The source supports the lowest rung. The claim sits on the top one. The missing step is: the marker predicts outcomes for patients, and nothing in this source shows it. A citation to this source does not close the gap.
Schematic examples. The wording is invented to show the shape of each inference gap; it is not drawn from a case file.
Two distinctions that do the work
No evidence found ≠ No evidence exists
A failed search is a statement about the search, not about the world. Absence in one place is not absence everywhere.
Citation present ≠ Claim supported
A real, correctly attributed source can still fail to establish the specific proposition it is cited for.
SCIENTIFIC CLAIM FORENSICS
From exact wording to strongest defensible wording.
Each stage is documented so that another reviewer can inspect the reasoning, challenge individual steps, and reconstruct the evidence path from the same public material.
THE COMPLETE CHAIN
Exact claim → Atomic propositions → Evidence lineage → Primary evidence → Study design and evidence tier → Numerical fidelity → Causality → Population, comparator, and endpoints → Limitations → Counterevidence → Evidence-to-wording assessment → Strongest defensible wording
01
Define the exact claim
Capture the precise public wording and separate composite claims into atomic propositions.
02
Reconstruct the evidence lineage
Trace citations, summaries, secondary sources, and supporting material back toward the primary evidence.
03
Examine the scientific structure
Inspect study design, evidence tier, endpoints, population, comparator, duration, numerical fidelity, and causal language.
04
Test the boundaries
Identify limitations, uncertainty, missing context, contradictory findings, and relevant counterevidence.
05
Assess the wording
Compare what the evidence establishes with what the public claim says and formulate the strongest wording that can reasonably be defended.
An assessment is a documented research interpretation, open to inspection, disagreement, and revision.
WHAT A PUBLIC CASE FILE CONTAINS
A public case file applies the method to a clearly bounded claim or claim set. Its source base, evidence path, analytical boundaries, and reasoning are documented so that they can be inspected and challenged.
One clearly scoped claim or claim set
A defined source base
Explicit analytical boundaries
An inspectable evidence reconstruction
Visible limitations and uncertainty
RESEARCH
Current areas of methodological inquiry.
INSPEKTORIUM develops and tests methods for examining evidence-to-claim fidelity: how the relationship between evidence and public wording can be described consistently enough for other reviewers to inspect the reasoning.
CURRENT RESEARCH THEMES
R01
Evidence-to-claim fidelity
R02
Composite and multi-part claims
R03
Numerical precision and exaggeration
R04
Causal wording
R05
Population and comparator mismatch
R06
Conflicting evidence and counterevidence
OPEN RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Q1
Can evidence-to-claim fidelity be assessed reproducibly?
Q2
When does scientific simplification become evidential overclaiming?
Q3
How should conflicting evidence change the strongest defensible wording?
From today’s kernel to Deep Forensics
Today, INSPEKTORIUM binds claims to their sources and checks that a citation is real and correctly quoted — textual and provenance integrity. Deep Forensics (Phase 8) extends this to the harder question: does the evidence actually warrant the inference? Phase 8 has passed internally; it is not yet in the public repository. Human review remains part of every verdict.