The Secret Service did not receive 102 local radio transmissions about Thomas Crooks.
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
| Direction | What it rests on | Base | Leg | CQ factor | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| support | government watchdog report scheme position-to-know (CQ open ⇒ ×0.5), independent leg #1 ⇒ ÷1 | 1 | #1 | ×0.5 | +0.50 |
| challenge | Is the account corroborated by an independent source or artifact? scheme position-to-know (CQ open ⇒ ×0.5), independent leg #1 ⇒ ÷1 | 0.5 | #1 | ×0.5 | -0.25 |
Deliberately not counted
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 The Secret Service did not receive 102 local radio transmissions about Thomas Crooks. — critical question answered unfavourably — the inference is withdrawn (Pollock)
0 evidentiary legs 0 sources 3 challenges contested
What bears on it
- supports government watchdog report
- challenges Is the account a restatement of someone else’s, rather than first-hand?
- challenges Is the account corroborated by an independent source or artifact?
- supports The Secret Service did not receive 102 local radio transmissions about Thomas Crooks.
- challenges Was the source actually positioned to observe or receive this?
Shown to three levels; follow any claim to see its own structure.
Voices
No asserter is recorded for this claim.
How it was derived
Nobody asserted this. The model applied the position-to-know scheme (v1) to premises already in the record, at derivation depth 1.
Premises:
- The Secret Service did not receive 102 local radio transmissions about Thomas Crooks.
- government watchdog report
Critical questions — the standard challenges to this kind of inference:
- Was the source actually positioned to observe or receive this? open
- Is the account corroborated by an independent source or artifact? open
- Is the account a restatement of someone else’s, rather than first-hand? open
Sources
No source is recorded on this claim directly.
Who and what it involves
Origin: produced by scheme:position-to-know@v1