Platform · Evidence
No answer without a trail. No inference dressed up as fact.
Every finding is a claim card: a plain statement, a confidence band, the sources behind it, the contradictions it survived, and what would raise confidence. When the evidence is thin, the card says so. The refusal to answer is a feature, not a failure.
How it works
Claims, Evidence & Confidence, step by step.
Claim
Statements are extracted as discrete, checkable claims, not paragraphs of plausible prose.
Link
Each claim is bound to its sources: interviews, grants, logs, documents. Click through to the origin.
Band
Confidence is expressed as a range with a reason, never a decimal score that implies false precision.
Contradict
When sources disagree, the contradiction is recorded as a finding in itself, not averaged away.
Refuse
When evidence is insufficient, the system says what it doesn't know and what would change that.
Evidence tiers
Where each claim stands.
Declared
What people tell us, attributed, consented, correctable.
Corroborated
Independent agreement, or declaration plus system signal.
Verified
Confirmed against systems of record.
Documented
Bound to a governed artifact with an owner and a review date.
Stated limits
What it will not do.
Will not present a decimal confidence score, bands, with reasons.
Will not state an inference as a fact.
Will not hide a contradiction to make a cleaner story.
Will not answer when the evidence isn't there.
Features
4 available · 1 in preview.
| Feature | Status |
|---|---|
| Claim cards with confidence bands | Available |
| Source-level citations | Available |
| Contradiction records | Available |
| "What would raise confidence" guidance | Available |
| Evidence-gap heatmap | Design-partner preview |
Questions we actually get
Asked by real skeptics.
Why bands instead of scores?
What happens when people contradict the systems?
Related
See this pillar inside a real diagnostic.
The two-week engagement uses every pillar above, and hands you the evidence-linked output.