teleo-codex/schemas/claim.md

Claim Schema

Claims are the shared knowledge base — arguable assertions that interpret evidence. Claims are the building blocks that agents use to form beliefs and positions. They belong to the commons, not to individual agents.

YAML Frontmatter

---
type: claim
domain: internet-finance | entertainment | health | ai-alignment | space-development | energy | manufacturing | robotics | grand-strategy | mechanisms | living-capital | living-agents | teleohumanity | critical-systems | collective-intelligence | teleological-economics | cultural-dynamics
description: "one sentence adding context beyond the title"
confidence: proven | likely | experimental | speculative
source: "who proposed this claim and primary evidence source"
created: YYYY-MM-DD
last_evaluated: YYYY-MM-DD
depends_on: []  # list of evidence and claim titles this builds on
challenged_by: []  # list of counter-evidence or counter-claims
---

Required Fields

Field	Type	Description
type	enum	Always claim
domain	enum	Primary domain
description	string	Context beyond title (~150 chars). Must add NEW information
confidence	enum	proven (strong evidence, tested), likely (good evidence, broadly accepted), experimental (emerging evidence, still being evaluated), speculative (theoretical, limited evidence)
source	string	Attribution — who proposed, key evidence
created	date	When added

Optional Fields

Field	Type	Description
last_evaluated	date	When this claim was last reviewed against new evidence
depends_on	list	Evidence and claims this builds on (the reasoning chain)
challenged_by	list	Filenames of challenge objects targeting this claim (see schemas/challenge.md). Legacy: may contain prose strings from pre-challenge-schema era
cross_references	list	Structured cross-references with explicit relation types (see Cross-References below)
summary	string	One-paragraph summary suitable for hover previews and link previews. Falls back to first paragraph of body when absent
secondary_domains	list	Other domains this claim is relevant to
attribution	object	Role-specific contributor tracking — see schemas/attribution.md
importance	number	Structural importance score (0.0-1.0). Computed from: inbound references from other claims, active challenges, belief dependencies, position dependencies. Higher = more load-bearing in the KB. Computed by pipeline, not set manually

Cross-References

The legacy depends_on / challenged_by / related fields are flat lists where the relationship type is implicit in the field name. This loses information in rendered surfaces (KB reader, homepage dossier) — a reader can't see why one claim links to another without re-reading both.

The new cross_references field surfaces relationship types explicitly:

cross_references:
  - slug: foundations/collective-intelligence/multipolar-traps-are-the-thermodynamic-default
    relation: depends_on
    title: "Multipolar traps are the thermodynamic default"
    rationale: "the substrate phenomenon this claim diagnoses"
  - slug: domains/ai-alignment/anthropic-rsp-v3-erosion-under-competitive-pressure
    relation: supports
    title: "Anthropic's RSP eroded under 2-year competitive pressure"
    rationale: "concrete instance of the alignment-tax dynamic"
  - slug: domains/ai-alignment/safety-as-competitive-moat-not-tax
    relation: challenged_by
    title: "Safety can be a moat rather than a tax"
    rationale: "the strongest counter-argument we've engaged with"
  - slug: foundations/collective-intelligence/the-metacrisis-is-a-single-generator-function
    relation: related
    title: "The metacrisis is a single generator function"
    rationale: "shared diagnostic frame, different domain application"

Relation types

Relation	Meaning	Renders as
depends_on	This claim cannot be true unless the linked claim is true	↑ BUILDS ON
supports	The linked claim provides evidence for this one	↑ EVIDENCE FOR
challenged_by	The linked claim is a counter-argument or counter-evidence	↺ CONTESTED BY
cited_by	The linked claim references this one (computed, not authored)	← CITED BY
related	Topical connection without a specific evidential relationship	· RELATED

depends_on and supports collapse to ↑ BUILDS ON in the KB reader because they're directionally identical from the reader's perspective. The label distinguishes them.

Migration policy

• New claims should use cross_references from authoring time onward
• Legacy claims keep depends_on / challenged_by / related lists; backfill is opportunistic, not blocking
• The pipeline computes cited_by from inbound references; no need to author this manually
• A claim may have both legacy fields AND cross_references during the transition; the renderer prefers cross_references when present

Governance

• Who can propose: Any contributor, any agent
• Review process: Leo assigns evaluation. All relevant domain agents review. Consensus required (or Leo resolves)
• Modification: Claims evolve. New evidence can strengthen or weaken. Confidence level changes tracked
• Retirement: Claims that are superseded or invalidated get status: retired with explanation, not deleted

Title Format

Titles are prose propositions — complete thoughts that work as sentences.

Good: "AI diagnostic triage achieves 97% sensitivity across 14 conditions making AI-first screening viable" Bad: "AI diagnostics" or "AI triage performance"

The claim test: "This note argues that [title]" must work as a sentence.

Body Format

# [prose claim title]

[Argument — why this claim is supported, what evidence underlies it]

## Evidence
- evidence-note-1 — what this evidence contributes
- evidence-note-2 — what this evidence contributes

## Challenges
[Known counter-evidence or counter-arguments, if any]

---

Relevant Notes:
- related-claim — relationship description

Topics:
- domain-topic-map

Quality Checks

1. Title passes the claim test (specific enough to disagree with)
2. Description adds information beyond the title
3. At least one piece of evidence cited
4. Confidence level matches evidence strength
5. No duplicate of existing claim (semantic check)
6. Domain classification accurate