# Disputed

**Your knowledge graph, always listening.**

## The Problem

You consume hours of podcasts, articles, videos, conversations. Someone says "studies show X helps Y" and you nod along. Three weeks later, someone else says the opposite. You don't notice the contradiction because your brain doesn't have a database.

Information flows through you. You retain fragments. Contradictions slip past unnoticed. You form beliefs without knowing where they came from or what conflicts with them.

## The Solution

A desktop app that sits in your menubar. When audio plays or you highlight text, it:

1. **Captures** - Transcribes audio, reads highlighted text
2. **Extracts** - Identifies claims ("X causes Y", "studies show...", "A is better than B")
3. **Checks** - Compares against everything you've ever saved
4. **Surfaces** - Shows matches, contradictions, and new information

You're not taking notes. You're building a knowledge graph by just living.

## How It Feels

You're listening to a podcast. The host says "cold exposure increases dopamine by 250%."

A toast appears:

```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ✦ NEW CLAIM                             │
│ "cold exposure" → "increases dopamine"  │
│ Source: Huberman Lab #142               │
│ Confidence: 0.8 (cites study)           │
│                                         │
│ ⚠️ Related: 2 saved claims about        │
│    dopamine mention different numbers   │
│                                         │
│ [Save] [Dismiss] [Explore]              │
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘
```

You tap "Explore" and see the full picture: what you've saved, what agrees, what conflicts, where each claim came from.

Later you're reading an article. You highlight a paragraph. Same flow - claims extracted, checked against your graph, saved if you want.

## Core Principles

### 1. Zero Friction

You don't change your behavior. Listen to podcasts like normal. Read articles like normal. Disputed works in the background, surfacing insights only when they matter.

### 2. Claims, Not Facts

Disputed doesn't tell you what's true. It shows you the landscape of claims - who said what, when, with what confidence. Truth emerges from seeing the full picture.

### 3. Your Graph, Your Sources

You control what goes in. Disputed learns what YOU'VE consumed, not some global dataset. Your knowledge graph reflects your information diet.

### 4. Contradictions Are Features

When sources disagree, that's valuable information. Disputed surfaces disagreement explicitly rather than hiding it behind a single "answer."

## Use Cases

### Health & Wellness
- Track supplement claims across podcasts, studies, forums
- See when a new recommendation contradicts previous advice
- Know which claims are well-supported vs. single-source

### Professional Learning
- Capture insights from conference talks, webinars, courses
- Build institutional knowledge from meetings and calls
- Notice when team members make contradictory claims

### Research
- Extract claims from papers automatically
- Track where the literature agrees vs. fights
- See how consensus shifts over time

### Media Literacy
- Notice when news sources contradict each other
- Track claims politicians make over time
- See your own information bubble

## Technical Foundation

Disputed is built on **Episteme** (StemeDB), an append-only knowledge graph that:

- Stores claims without forcing resolution
- Handles contradictions as first-class data
- Resolves at read-time through configurable "Lenses"
- Supports time-travel queries ("what did I believe last month?")
- Tracks source provenance and trust tiers

This isn't a wrapper around a vector database. It's a proper epistemological data model.

## The Name

**Disputed** - because the most valuable information is often contested. We don't hide disagreement; we surface it.

---

*Your brain doesn't have version control. Now it does.*