The photo shows Osama, the son of Rana Abu Nasser.

No event time was recorded for this claim — the text gave nothing to anchor it to, and a guessed date would be worse than none.

Standing

lens: Evidence-weighted Structural

6.0% belief under Evidence-weighted · -2.75 log-odds · derived, never stored

Every contribution to this claim's belief under **Evidence-weighted**. Starting point: the floor (-3 log-odds — an unsupported claim starts near zero, not at "maybe"). Contributions sum to +0.25; the result is -2.75 log-odds = 6.0%.
Direction	What it rests on	Base	Leg	CQ factor	Contribution
support	Rana Abu Nasser scheme expert-testimony (CQ open ⇒ ×0.5), independent leg #1 ⇒ ÷1	1	#1	×0.5	+0.50
challenge	Is the source genuinely in a position to know? scheme expert-testimony (CQ open ⇒ ×0.5), independent leg #1 ⇒ ÷1	0.5	#1	×0.5	-0.25

Connections the engine saw and refused to count, with its reason. This half of the audit is the more important one: it is where the rules bite.

ignored Rana Abu Nasser says the photo shows her son Osama. — critical question answered unfavourably — the inference is withdrawn (Pollock)

0 evidentiary legs 0 sources 3 challenges contested

Shown to three levels; follow any claim to see its own structure.

No asserter is recorded for this claim.

Nobody asserted this. The model applied the expert-testimony scheme (v1) to premises already in the record, at derivation depth 1.

Premises:

Critical questions — the standard challenges to this kind of inference:

No source is recorded on this claim directly.

Origin: produced by scheme:expert-testimony@v1