Narrow overclaims

Type: types/instruction.md

Make every load-bearing sentence assert only what its evidence can show, and mark what it cannot as a gap rather than filling it.

Effort: judgment. Deciding what the evidence bounds needs the session model, and the parent context, where the conversation that raised the overclaim is the evidence.

Apply these moves, each to the sentence that needs it:

• From held to judged. A claim about what a system holds, believes, or lacks becomes a claim about what its gate, code, or outputs judge. "None holds a theory" becomes "none is set up to test that; what they retain is judged by score, not by explanation."
• No attributed expectations. Do not say what builders or authors expect unless a publication says it. State the rival hypothesis on its own as the simplest alternative, and let the artifact deny it.
• Name the instrument actually used. Where the artifact claims its method can decide something precisely, replace the claim with the instrument that produced the result in the artifact and a sentence saying what is not yet stated.
• Narrow, do not delete. A weakened sentence keeps its place and its link. The reader should still see the point and its limit.

A flagged sentence whose evidence supports it as written stays as written. The assessment's flag is a claim to check, not a finding to satisfy; report the sentence with the evidence that holds it.

Report each changed sentence as before and after, one line each, with the evidence that bounds it.

Preserve: claims the packet marks as defended. Narrow a defended claim's wording only if the operator confirms.