EXPERIMENTAL_CONTEXT · CONTEXT-cherry--pear
Pear ↔ Cherry
VERIFIED claims and registered sources shown here are context for human inspection. Their presence does not verify the candidate pair, and their absence does not disprove it.
No pair-mentioning VERIFIED claim in the registry.
A gap means only that no matching VERIFIED claim is present in the current public source registry for this context. It is not negative evidence and does not mean the candidate is false. Even when one VERIFIED claim mentions both smell slugs, the relation candidate is not automatically VERIFIED; claim text and scope must be evaluated separately.
Registry gap
Missing VERIFIED claim context is an evidence-coverage gap only, not negative evidence, rejection, falsification or a low-confidence signal.
candidate
PRED-cherry--pear
StatusPREDICTED
review-packet
REVIEW-cherry--pear
StatusREVIEW_PENDING
verified-claim-context
No matching public records
StatusCONTEXT_ONLY
registered-source-context
No matching public records
StatusCONTEXT_ONLY
Read claim scope
What does each VERIFIED claim actually support, and what does its scope explicitly not establish?
Inspect source origin
Which registered source supports the claim, and what source tier, publisher and date are public?
Test pair relevance
Does the evidence concern one smell, both smells, or neither candidate relation itself?
Interpret gaps carefully
Is a missing claim being treated only as missing public evidence context rather than evidence that a relation is false?
Keep verification separate
Would any relation judgment remain separate from the claim-specific VERIFIED evidence process?
Context does not become a verdict.
Context Lab is read-only and records no reviewer decision, annotation, approval or rejection. Context inspection has zero promotion effect on PREDICTED, REVIEWED_EDITORIAL, canonical relations or VERIFIED evidence.