A claim type distinct from structured-claim

Layer: structure.

structured-claim is an argument for a position (Evidence / Reasoning / Caveats). Casework needs a claim as a node in a disagreement graph: the proposition, who asserts it, its support, its rebuttals, and a status (contested / settled / open), with the proposition deliberately decoupled from any verdict.

Keep support and rebuttal on edges (dialectical link vocabulary), attributed to a party (party/position attribution) — do not put a stance scalar on the claim itself (see the rejection of polarity / status fields in rejected-candidates).

Contradiction flagged 2026-07-08 (unresolved)

The status enum above (contested / settled / open) contradicts rejected-candidates, which rejects status: disputed as a stance-carrying field. Resolution sketch from the framework-side review, via the mark discipline (kb/types/tag-readme.md): contested and open are recomputable from edge structure (contested = has ≥1 rebuttal edge), so they can be legitimate validator-enforced marks. settled is not recomputable — the workshop's own settlement-illusion review gate exists because settlement is a judgment call — so settled must either be dropped or live in the assessment layer as an attributed judgment, never on the neutral claim node. Decide when the type is prototyped.

Related: the framework-side assertion force separate from lifecycle status proposal — the base status field's "commitment level" semantics are first-person and ambiguous for attributed claims ("current" = "I still endorse" vs "attribution still accurate"); the casebook's contract must say which it means.