claims-and-grounding

Type: types/tag-readme.md

How KB content commits to claims and how those claims stay tied to what supports them: titles written as claims, the modes a claim can take, what counts as ground truth, grounding a claim in a source, and what happens to a claim once it is superseded. The establishing notes are title as claim exposes commitments, enabling Popperian maintenance for claim titles and commitment, not derivation, creates new ground truth for ground truth. The grounding procedure is cp-skill-ground. Running a grounding check as an LLM gate, and when its verdict goes stale, belongs to review-system; this tag is about what the check asks. A child of kb-maintenance.

Claims as commitments

• Title as claim exposes commitments, enabling Popperian maintenance — a list of claim titles can be scanned with "do I still believe this?" without opening files
• Title as claim makes overlap between notes visible — similar assertions show at the index level, where topical titles hide them
• Claim modality is the inference form of the refuter — the three claim modes follow from how a claim would be refuted, which closes the mode list for empirical claims
• Ad hoc explanation can be rational when error is cheap and local — a disposable guess may pick the next probe; a retained explanation needs reach checks
• Write-time vocabulary collision controls — proposal for mechanical controls that keep one term to one sense, so a claim's words keep their registered meaning

Ground truth and supersession

• Commitment, not derivation, creates new ground truth — derived claims leave the source as ground truth; unentailed resolutions become ground truth at commit
• A derived copy of recomputable truth must be checked or absent — a copy of recomputable information is machine-checked against its source or does not exist
• Superseded choices need a historical witness; refuted beliefs lose subject-matter standing — what to keep after supersession depends on the claim's remaining truth role

Grounding in sources

• A linked note discharges its own grounding, so a citing note owes representation, not re-grounding — citing a source imposes a grounding obligation; citing a grounded note imposes only faithful representation
• A quotes-route rollout grounded more claim uses without earning claim identifiers — evidence for verbatim quotes over a paraphrased claims ledger: 75% versus 30% grounded uses, descriptive only
• A five-link cap missed four grounding findings in twelve reviews — evidence that capping linked reading hides grounding findings
• An independent pass tightened three of four Pirolli grounding verdicts — evidence that separating source reconstruction from claim judgment changes grounding verdicts; a candidate control, not a proven cause

Related Tags

• kb-maintenance — the parent: claims and their grounding are what maintenance keeps true
• review-system — sibling: the gates that run grounding checks and track verdict freshness
• curation — sibling: indexes and tag heads, where claim titles are scanned
• evaluation — the grounding evidence notes are also evaluation results
• links — link semantics behind citing a note versus citing a source