Know what is designed, tested, reviewed—and what is still unproven.
Rigor in the reasoning. Proof in the record. This page distinguishes what Circular Deduction has designed and internally tested from what remains unverified. Git-controlled technical assets preserve bounded provenance and admission history under Human Authority. This is internal operational evidence, not certification, a completed external pilot, or proof of a production-qualified decision ledger.
Evidence · Admission before assertion
Evidence is admitted for a defined use.
Explore six sample records. Follow the checks, inspect the recorded result, and see the limits on each claim.
Explore sample evidence · six predefined explanations
Signed supplier report
EA-01 · Synthetic teaching record · Documentary / quantitative
Claim being examinedThe identified equipment met the stated test thresholds under the recorded test conditions.
✓Source / versionEstablished
✓ApplicabilityEstablished
✓Authority / governing basisEstablished
✓Requirement / evidence stateEstablished
AdmissionADMIT
EstablishedLimit recordedHOLDNot assessed
Predefined explanation. Selecting a sample or replaying its review does not assess evidence or change this record.
Recorded evidence disposition
ADMITSpecified test results only
The authored record establishes the source, applicable scope, governing basis and required test evidence. Its signature identifies the signatory; it does not independently validate the results.
Can support
The reported measurements and results for the identified equipment, method and test date.
Does not establish
Independent replication, supplier mobilization, overall launch readiness or permission to commit.
Recorded next action
Evidence owner: retain the test method, conditions and exact revision. Obtain separate support for any broader readiness claim.
Inspect the five checks
Source / version · EstablishedThe supplier, signatory, test date, equipment identifiers and exact report revision are recorded in this synthetic example.
Applicability · EstablishedThe claim is limited to the equipment and operating conditions covered by the report.
Authority / governing basis · EstablishedThe responsible source role and applicable review basis are recorded. Neither the report nor its author is granted commitment authority.
Requirement / evidence state · EstablishedThe specified requirement is documented test results. Method, thresholds, measurements and limitations are present in the authored record.
Admission · ADMITRecorded disposition: ADMIT for the stated test-result claim. This does not establish overall evidence sufficiency for a launch decision.
Customer interview note
EA-02 · Synthetic teaching record · Human / documentary
Claim being examinedThe identified participant reported the recorded service experience during the interview.
✓Source / versionEstablished
−ApplicabilityLimit recorded
✓Authority / governing basisEstablished
−Requirement / evidence stateLimit recorded
AdmissionADMIT
EstablishedLimit recordedHOLDNot assessed
Predefined explanation. Selecting a sample or replaying its review does not assess evidence or change this record.
Recorded evidence disposition
ADMITAttributed account only
The interview record is usable for its narrow, attributed claim. Corroboration and representativeness remain outside its admitted scope.
Can support
An attributable account of what the participant reported, within the recorded interview context.
Does not establish
Independent confirmation of the underlying event, population prevalence or causal explanation.
Recorded next action
Review lead: preserve attribution and handling limits. Obtain independent evidence before making a broader operational claim.
Inspect the five checks
Source / version · EstablishedThe interview date, record revision, recorder and participant reference are identifiable in the authored example.
Applicability · Limit recordedThe account concerns the stated experience. It is not a representative sample of all customers.
Authority / governing basis · EstablishedThe source role, permitted use and handling constraints are recorded for this teaching example.
Requirement / evidence state · Limit recordedThe record supports that the statement was made. The underlying event has not been independently corroborated.
Admission · ADMITRecorded disposition: ADMIT, with use limited to the attributed account. Limitations travel with the claim.
Prior-cycle conclusion
EA-03 · Synthetic teaching record · Documentary
Claim being examinedA particular decision and governing condition were recorded in the prior cycle.
✓Source / versionEstablished
−ApplicabilityLimit recorded
✓Authority / governing basisEstablished
−Requirement / evidence stateLimit recorded
AdmissionADMIT
EstablishedLimit recordedHOLDNot assessed
Predefined explanation. Selecting a sample or replaying its review does not assess evidence or change this record.
Recorded evidence disposition
ADMITHistorical reference only
The prior record establishes a historical fact. Prior acceptance does not turn the conclusion into independent evidence for itself.
Can support
The existence and recorded content of that prior decision, within its dated governing context.
Does not establish
That the prior conclusion is correct, remains applicable or independently validates a new conclusion.
Recorded next action
Review lead: identify independent or newly observed evidence before reusing the conclusion as substantive support.
Inspect the five checks
Source / version · EstablishedThe dated prior record and its governing-system version are identifiable in this authored example.
Applicability · Limit recordedThe admitted claim concerns what was recorded then. Current applicability is not established.
Authority / governing basis · EstablishedThe authority and governing context recorded at that time are retained as historical attributes, not transferred to a new decision.
Requirement / evidence state · Limit recordedThe prior record satisfies a historical-reference requirement. Independent support for its substantive conclusion is outside this admission.
Admission · ADMITRecorded disposition: ADMIT for historical reference only. A later substantive claim needs its own evidence basis.
AI-generated summary
EA-04 · Synthetic teaching record · Analytical
Claim being examinedThe listed supplier dependencies are supported by the cited source records.
✓Source / versionEstablished
✓ApplicabilityEstablished
×Authority / governing basisHOLD
–Requirement / evidence stateNot assessed
AdmissionNot assessed
EstablishedLimit recordedHOLDNot assessed
Predefined explanation. Selecting a sample or replaying its review does not assess evidence or change this record.
Recorded evidence disposition
HOLDClaim support withheld
This sample's governing rule requires an accountable review of derived claims. That reviewer and remit are missing. AI authorship alone does not determine admission.
Can support
Not admitted to support this claim. The submitted item and the reason for HOLD remain in the record.
Does not establish
Verified dependencies, an accountable review or decision authority. Model confidence is not a substitute.
Recorded next action
Evidence review owner: establish the required reviewer and remit, then review the derived claims against the cited sources.
Inspect the five checks
Source / version · EstablishedThe generated item, revision and cited source records are traceable in the synthetic example.
Applicability · EstablishedThe identified source scope concerns the supplier dependencies in the stated claim.
Authority / governing basis · HOLDThe governing rule in this example requires an accountable reviewer for derived claims. No reviewer or remit is recorded.
Requirement / evidence state · Not assessedNot assessed in this illustration. The missing review basis remains unresolved.
Admission · Not assessedAdmission has not been completed. The overall recorded disposition remains HOLD.
Industry report
EA-05 · Synthetic teaching record · Third-party / quantitative
Claim being examinedThe industry benchmark supports the capacity assumption for this asset and operating environment.
✓Source / versionEstablished
×ApplicabilityHOLD
–Authority / governing basisNot assessed
–Requirement / evidence stateNot assessed
AdmissionNot assessed
EstablishedLimit recordedHOLDNot assessed
Predefined explanation. Selecting a sample or replaying its review does not assess evidence or change this record.
Recorded evidence disposition
HOLDClaim support withheld
The report covers a different operating environment, and no transfer basis is recorded. Its reputation neither establishes nor defeats applicability.
Can support
Not admitted to support this claim. The report and the unresolved applicability question remain recorded.
Does not establish
A transferable benchmark for this asset. Source reputation does not establish scope compatibility.
Recorded next action
Analyst: document a defensible applicability basis or obtain evidence matched to the asset and operating conditions.
Inspect the five checks
Source / version · EstablishedThe publisher, publication date and exact report edition are identifiable in the authored example.
Applicability · HOLDThe report concerns a different operating environment. A basis for applying its benchmark to this asset is not established.
Authority / governing basis · Not assessedNot assessed in this illustration. Applicability must first be resolved for the stated claim.
Requirement / evidence state · Not assessedNot assessed. The report's measurements have not been admitted as support for this asset assumption.
Admission · Not assessedAdmission has not been completed. The overall recorded disposition remains HOLD.
Unversioned spreadsheet
EA-06 · Synthetic teaching record · Quantitative / documentary
Claim being examinedThe cost subtotal represents the agreed initial-phase scope at the review date.
×Source / versionHOLD
–ApplicabilityNot assessed
–Authority / governing basisNot assessed
–Requirement / evidence stateNot assessed
AdmissionNot assessed
EstablishedLimit recordedHOLDNot assessed
Predefined explanation. Selecting a sample or replaying its review does not assess evidence or change this record.
Recorded evidence disposition
HOLDClaim support withheld
The working file cannot be tied to an exact source revision at the review date. A numbered version is one option; an identifiable, preserved snapshot can also establish identity.
Can support
Not admitted to support this claim. Receipt of the file and the provenance gap remain recorded.
Does not establish
A reconstructable cost baseline or a connection to the agreed scope. The missing identity does not prove the numbers false.
Recorded next action
Cost-model owner: supply a dated source snapshot or another stable revision identifier and reconnect it to the claimed scope.
Inspect the five checks
Source / version · HOLDThe exact source revision cannot be established from the supplied working file. Source identity is unresolved in this example.
Applicability · Not assessedNot assessed. The artifact must first be identifiable so its relation to scope can be examined.
Authority / governing basis · Not assessedNot assessed in this illustration. No source authority or review authority is inferred from the filename.
Requirement / evidence state · Not assessedNot assessed. The cost requirement has not been evaluated against a reconstructable artifact.
Admission · Not assessedAdmission has not been completed. The overall recorded disposition remains HOLD.
Current evidence state
Proof advances by state—not by implication.
The current record includes controlled architecture, internal operational controls, executable reference tests, qualified adversarial challenge, real-decision pressure, preserved real-source replay, bounded interoperability qualification, and public external-operator reconstruction.
Evidence lineage can preserve source → normalization → review → triage → handoff → admission while keeping provenance, classification, uncertainty, and HOLD/ADMIT status visible.
These evidence classes do not by themselves satisfy independent human review, completed prospective operational-pilot, client-validation, or measured-outcome gates. Ledger of Judgment and Double-Entry Deduction are proposed architectural and reconciliation concepts, not demonstrated production assurance capabilities; DAL integrity, atomicity, replay, and independent verification remain acceptance requirements.
Established · Internal
Method baseline
Current public architecture: Circular Deduction is a 6+1 governed state architecture—Frame → Derive → Contradict → Reconcile → Commit → Extract govern the consequential decision; +1 Reinsert governs authorized adaptation from validated learning. CD-METHOD-001 v1.4 is the controlling method baseline; prior method/specification artifacts remain historical provenance. Public claims and released specifications remain subject to separate evidence and release controls.
Established · Internal
Design verification
CD-VR-001 v1.0 records 8 of 8 representative design scenarios as PASS. This verifies specified control behavior—not empirical efficacy or field performance.
Completed · Qualified
Adversarial challenge
CD-ICR-001 v1.0 produced a material contradiction review that drove corrective work. Its AI-service lineage means it is not represented as independent human approval.
Pending
Independent human review
CD-IHR-001 v1.0 defines the controlled review record, but qualified independent human execution and signature remain pending.
Pending
Operational pilot evidence
CD-PLT-RPT-001 v1.0 is field-evidence pending. No completed operational-pilot result is asserted by the current controlled record.
Not established
Client-validated outcomes
No cleared client-validation or quantified business-outcome evidence is currently established for public reliance.
What we do not claim yetIndependent human validation, universal efficacy, realized ROI, client-validated outcomes, certification, or production-scale software performance are not inferred from design maturity or internal verification.
Behavioral-interface controls are design controls. They do not establish that the interface causes a particular behavior, improves decision quality, or produces superior outcomes.
Evidence maturity path
Not all evidence proves the same thing.
Claims advance only when each evidence state meets its own requirements. Publication or recognition does not skip a stage.
01 · Designed + Tested
Architecture and controls
Current position: CD-METHOD-001 v1.4 is the controlling 6+1 method baseline. CD-VR-001 v1.0 records 8 of 8 internal design scenarios as PASS, and later executable reference tests validate bounded mechanics. This supports architecture and control behavior—not field efficacy.
02 · Independently Reviewed
External scrutiny
Current position: adversarial AI-assisted review, isolated external-model challenge, benchmark context, and bounded interoperability qualification provide qualified challenge evidence. Independent human review remains pending and is not implied.
03 · Operationally Observed
Governed operational use
Current position: retrospective real-decision pressure, preserved real-source replays, and one external public-operator reconstruction now exist. They do not satisfy the completed prospective operational-pilot gate; CD-PLT-RPT-001 remains field-evidence pending.
04 · Client Validated
Client-cleared outcomes
Required evidence: authorized client or user results, precise scope, confidentiality review, and release approval. No client-validated or realized-outcome claim is currently established.
GOVERNED DECISION ENVIRONMENT
The full decision lifecycle stays connected.
Circular Deduction unifies evidence, AI-assisted reasoning, contradiction, human authority, commitment, reconsideration, and organizational learning in one reconstructable record. It supports the decision without replacing the accountable decision-maker.
Evidence status travels with the claim.
Evidence class, maturity stage, and claim status are separate. Governance ≠ correctness, and control existence ≠ control effectiveness. Declared → Implemented → Exercised → Verified remains the control-maturity sequence. Hypothesis is a claim status—not an evidence class. Verified semantic mapping is claim-specific. Every material public claim should identify its evidence class, support record, status, maturity implication, and prohibited inference.
Evidence class & qualification
What has been tested—and what it does not prove.
External Governing Systems are evaluated across three separate axes: semantic qualification, connection state, and operating evidence state. The current five inherited reference profiles remain MAPPED / NONE / REFERENCE_ONLY.
Earlier bounded FEED / HOST / GOVERN / GATE tests support architectural fit, but they do not establish production integration, independent review, client validation, universal compatibility, standards conformity, certification, efficacy, or legal novelty.
Interop Qualification · HOST
FMEA
Qualified as a hosted analytical technique inside Derive / Contradict. Running FMEA does not satisfy a Circular Deduction state by name.
Interop Qualification · FEED/GOVERN/GATE
NATO Lessons Learned
Qualified as a learning / implementation precedent: identified learning can feed Extract, while existing authority governs approved remedial action and implementation.
Interop Qualification · GOVERN/GATE
NIST SP 800-53 CM-3
Qualified as an example of existing formal change control that Reinsert can reference rather than duplicate. This does not establish NIST conformance.
Interop Qualification · FEED/GOVERN
NIST AI RMF 1.0
Qualified as lifecycle governance input that can feed and constrain a review without being converted into Circular Deduction states.
Held Claims
What remains unclaimed
No universal compatibility, standards conformance or certification, external validation, superior outcomes, product efficacy, or novelty conclusion is established by these mappings.
Qualification ruleA technique may contribute evidence, analysis, constraints, or an existing change path. It does not independently satisfy state conditions, inherit Human Authority, or validate Circular Deduction.
Next evidence gates
Stronger claims require stronger evidence.
01
Independent human review
A qualified reviewer independent of authorship executes the controlled review record and dispositions material findings.
02
Bounded operational pilot
Prospective use is recorded with contemporaneous evidence, explicit authority, defined measures, failures, and interpretation limits.
03
Client evidence clearance
Client or user evidence becomes claimable only after permission, confidentiality review, sanitization, and release authorization.
04
Outcome measurement
ROI, effectiveness, or outcome claims require a defined baseline, measurement method, realized result, calculation, and bounded claim scope.
Promotion ruleDesign → Verify → Challenge → Independent Human Review → Operational Observation → Client Validation → Approved Public Claim. A later state is never inferred from an earlier one.
EVIDENCE → VERIFIED CHANGE
Evidence should be able to change the system.
The Evidence page distinguishes what is supported from what remains unproven. The Development Cycle shows what happens next: findings are challenged, consequential corrections require Human Authority, and accepted learning is tested before being reused.
A validated finding does not authorize its own implementation.