116bad1de3
Key changes: - Fix Ingestor background task to release lock per iteration, preventing deadlock when process_pending() needs the lock during shutdown - Add blessed assertion predicate index and fetch_blessed_assertions() for policy export workflows in Aphoria - Add patent documentation (markdown + Word exports) for probabilistic knowledge graph system - Update community scripts for claim extraction pipeline Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
64 KiB
Episteme Patent Figures
Subject: System and Method for Storing and Resolving Conflicting Assertions in a Probabilistic Knowledge Graph Date: 2026-02-04
These figure descriptions are intended for a patent draftsperson to render as formal patent drawings.
FIG. 1: System Architecture Block Diagram
Purpose: High-level view of the invention's components and data flow.
Elements:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ ┌──────────────────┐ │
│ │ Agent (Writer) │ │
│ │ [Ed25519 Keys] │ │
│ └────────┬─────────┘ │
│ │ (1) Sign & Submit │
│ │ Assertion │
│ ▼ │
│ ┌──────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ INGESTION GATEWAY (102) │ │
│ │ ┌────────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │Sig Verification│ │Source Class │ │ │
│ │ │ Module │ │ Validator │ │ │
│ │ └───────┬────────┘ └──────┬───────┘ │ │
│ └──────────┼─────────────────┼─────────┘ │
│ │ (2) Validated │ │
│ │ Assertion │ │
│ ▼ │ │
│ ┌──────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ WRITE-AHEAD LOG (104) │ │ BALLOT BOX (106) │ │
│ │ [Append-Only, Fsync Durable] │ │ [Separate Vote Stream] │ │
│ └──────────────────┬───────────────────┘ │ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ │ │
│ │ (3) Persisted │ │ Vote 1 │ │ Vote 2 │ ... │ │
│ ▼ │ └─────────┘ └─────────┘ │ │
│ ┌──────────────────────────────────────┐ └────────────────┬───────────────┘ │
│ │ ASSERTION STORE (108) │ │ │
│ │ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐ │ │ │
│ │ │H:{hash} │ │SP:{subj}:{pred} │ │◄─────────────────────┘ │
│ │ │Assertion │ │[hash1,hash2,...] │ │ (4) Index Update │
│ │ └──────────┘ └──────────────────┘ │ │
│ │ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │SC:{class}│ │TR:{agent_id} │ │ │
│ │ │Index │ │TrustRank │ │ │
│ │ └──────────┘ └──────────────────┘ │ │
│ └──────────────────┬───────────────────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ▼ │
│ ┌──────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ MATERIALIZER (110) │────►│ MATERIALIZED VIEWS (112) │ │
│ │ [Async Background Worker] │ │ MV:{subj}:{pred} → Winner │ │
│ └──────────────────────────────────────┘ └────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │ │
│ │ (5) O(1) Lookup │
│ ▼ │
│ ┌──────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Agent (Reader) │◄───────────────────────│ LENS ENGINE (114) │ │
│ │ [Query Client] │ (6) Resolution Result │ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ │ │
│ └──────────────────┘ │ │Consensus│ │Skeptic │ ... │ │
│ │ │Lens │ │Lens │ │ │
│ │ └─────────┘ └─────────┘ │ │
│ └──────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Reference Numerals:
- 100: System for storing and resolving conflicting assertions
- 102: Ingestion gateway with signature verification
- 104: Write-ahead log (append-only, durable)
- 106: Ballot box (separate vote stream)
- 108: Assertion store with indexes
- 110: Materializer (async background worker)
- 112: Materialized views (pre-computed winners)
- 114: Lens engine with resolution strategies
Description: FIG. 1 illustrates a system (100) for storing and resolving conflicting assertions. Writers submit signed assertions through an ingestion gateway (102) that verifies cryptographic signatures and validates source class. Validated assertions are written to an append-only write-ahead log (104) and stored in the assertion store (108) with compound indexes. Votes flow to a separate ballot box (106) to avoid write contention. A background materializer (110) pre-computes resolution results into materialized views (112). Readers query through the lens engine (114), which applies configurable resolution strategies and returns results from materialized views in O(1) time.
FIG. 2: Signed Assertion Data Structure
Purpose: Detailed view of the atomic unit of the database.
Elements:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ SIGNED ASSERTION (200) │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ THE PROPOSITION (202) │ │
│ │ ┌───────────────┐ ┌────────────────┐ ┌────────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ Subject │ │ Predicate │ │ Object │ │ │
│ │ │ "Semaglutide" │ │ "side_effect" │ │ "gastroparesis" │ │ │
│ │ │ (EntityId) │ │ (RelationId) │ │ (ObjectValue) │ │ │
│ │ └───────────────┘ └────────────────┘ └────────────────────┘ │ │
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ THE LINEAGE (204) │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ ┌────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ Source Hash │ │ Source Class (206) │ │ │
│ │ │ [32 bytes BLAKE3] │ │ ┌────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │
│ │ │ → PDF/URL/Document │ │ │ Tier 0: Regulatory W=1.0 │ │ │ │
│ │ └────────────────────┘ │ │ Tier 1: Clinical W=0.9 │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ Tier 2: Observational W=0.7 │ │ │ │
│ │ ┌────────────────────┐ │ │ Tier 3: Expert W=0.5 │ │ │ │
│ │ │ Parent Hash │ │ │ Tier 4: Community W=0.2 │ │ │ │
│ │ │ (Optional fork) │ │ │ Tier 5: Anecdotal W=0.1 │ │ │ │
│ │ └────────────────────┘ │ └────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │
│ │ └──────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │
│ │ ┌────────────────────┐ ┌────────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ Visual Hash │ │ Epoch │ │ │
│ │ │ [8 bytes pHash] │ │ (Paradigm Context) │ │ │
│ │ └────────────────────┘ └────────────────────┘ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ Lifecycle Stage (208) │ │ │
│ │ │ Proposed → UnderReview → Approved → Deprecated │ │ │
│ │ │ ↘ Rejected │ │ │
│ │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ META-COGNITION (210) │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ Signatures (212) │ │ │
│ │ │ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ Agent 1: [pubkey 32B] [sig 64B] [timestamp] │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ Agent 2: [pubkey 32B] [sig 64B] [timestamp] │ │ │ │
│ │ │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │
│ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ ┌──────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ ┌────────────────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ Confidence │ │ Timestamp │ │ Vector (Optional) │ │ │
│ │ │ 0.0 - 1.0 │ │ Unix epoch │ │ [f32; embedding_dim] │ │ │
│ │ └──────────────┘ └──────────────┘ └────────────────────────────┘ │ │
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ ASSERTION ID = BLAKE3(content) │ │
│ │ [32 bytes, content-addressed] │ │
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Reference Numerals:
- 200: Signed assertion (atomic unit)
- 202: Proposition (subject, predicate, object)
- 204: Lineage (provenance and source information)
- 206: Source class hierarchy
- 208: Lifecycle stage
- 210: Meta-cognition (who signed, confidence)
- 212: Cryptographic signatures
Description: FIG. 2 depicts the signed assertion data structure (200), the atomic unit of the database. The proposition (202) comprises subject, predicate, and object forming a semantic triple. The lineage (204) includes source hash for provenance, source class (206) from a six-tier hierarchy with authority weights, optional parent hash for forking, visual hash for image provenance, epoch for paradigm context, and lifecycle stage (208). Meta-cognition (210) includes cryptographic signatures (212) from multiple agents, subjective confidence score, timestamp, and optional vector embedding. The assertion ID is computed as a BLAKE3 hash of the content, enabling content-addressed deduplication.
FIG. 3: Source Class Hierarchy and Decay
Purpose: Visualization of the authority tier system with decay curves.
Elements:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ SOURCE CLASS HIERARCHY (300) │
│ │
│ Authority │
│ Weight │
│ │ │
│ 1.0 ┤ ████████████████████████████████████████ Tier 0: REGULATORY │
│ │ (FDA, SEC, WHO) │
│ 0.9 ┤ ████████████████████████████████████ Tier 1: CLINICAL │
│ │ (RCTs, Phase III) │
│ 0.7 ┤ ████████████████████████████ Tier 2: OBSERVATIONAL │
│ │ (Real-world evidence) │
│ 0.5 ┤ ████████████████████ Tier 3: EXPERT │
│ │ (Physician guidelines) │
│ 0.2 ┤ ████████ Tier 4: COMMUNITY │
│ │ (Patient registries) │
│ 0.1 ┤ ████ Tier 5: ANECDOTAL │
│ │ (Reddit, social) │
│ 0 ┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── │
│ │
│ │
│ SEMANTIC DECAY CURVES (302) │
│ │
│ Effective │
│ Confidence │
│ │ │
│ 1.0 ┤───────────────────────────────────────────── Tier 0 (No decay) │
│ │ │
│ 0.8 ┤ ╲ │
│ │ ╲ │
│ 0.6 ┤ ╲ Tier 1 (2yr) │
│ │ ╲ │
│ 0.4 ┤ ╲───────────────────────────── │
│ │ ╲ Tier 2 (1yr) │
│ 0.2 ┤ ╲ │
│ │ ╲ Tier 5 (30d) │
│ 0 ┼───┬───┬───┬───┬───┬───┬───┬───┬───┬───┬───┬─────────────────────────── │
│ 30d 90d 6mo 1yr 2yr 3yr 4yr 5yr │
│ Time Since Assertion │
│ │
│ DECAY FORMULA (304): │
│ ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ effective_confidence = confidence × exp(-ln(2) × days / half_life) │ │
│ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Reference Numerals:
- 300: Source class hierarchy
- 302: Semantic decay curves
- 304: Decay formula
Description: FIG. 3 illustrates the source class hierarchy (300) with six tiers from Regulatory (1.0) to Anecdotal (0.1). The semantic decay curves (302) show how effective confidence decreases over time based on source class half-life. Tier 0 (Regulatory) never decays; Tier 5 (Anecdotal) decays to half confidence in 30 days. The decay formula (304) computes effective confidence using exponential decay.
FIG. 4: Lens Resolution Flowchart
Purpose: The process of resolving conflicting assertions into a query result.
Elements:
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ START (402) │
│ Query: subject, predicate, lens │
└───────────────┬─────────────────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ CHECK MATERIALIZED VIEW (404) │
│ MV:{subject}:{predicate} │
└───────────────┬─────────────────────┘
│
┌───────────┴───────────┐
│ HIT │ MISS
▼ ▼
┌────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ RETURN MV │ │ FETCH CANDIDATES (406) │
│ WINNER (405) │ │ Query SP:{subject}:{predicate} │
│ O(1) latency │ │ Returns [hash1, hash2, ...] │
└────────────────┘ └───────────────┬─────────────────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ CANDIDATES FOUND? (408) │
└───────────────┬─────────────────────┘
│
┌───────────┴───────────┐
│ NO │ YES
▼ ▼
┌────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ RETURN NULL │ │ APPLY TRUST PACK FILTER? (410) │
│ (no data) │ └───────────────┬─────────────────────┘
└────────────────┘ │
┌───────────┴───────────┐
│ YES │ NO
▼ │
┌────────────────────────┐ │
│ FILTER BY TRUST PACK │ │
│ Keep only assertions │ │
│ from trusted agents │ │
└───────────┬────────────┘ │
└───────────┬────────────┘
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ APPLY SEMANTIC DECAY (412) │
│ Adjust confidence by source class │
│ decay_factor = exp(-ln(2)×t/T) │
└───────────────┬─────────────────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ SELECT LENS (414) │
└───────────────┬─────────────────────┘
│
┌─────────────┬───────────────┼───────────────┬─────────────┐
│ │ │ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
┌────────────┐ ┌────────────┐ ┌────────────┐ ┌────────────┐ ┌────────────┐
│ RECENCY │ │ CONSENSUS │ │ AUTHORITY │ │VOTE-AWARE │ │ SKEPTIC │
│ (416) │ │ (418) │ │ (420) │ │ (422) │ │ (424) │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ Most recent│ │ Highest │ │ Weighted │ │ Ballot Box │ │ All claims │
│ timestamp │ │ cluster │ │ by trust │ │ vote sum │ │ + conflict │
│ │ │ density │ │ rank │ │ │ │ score │
└──────┬─────┘ └──────┬─────┘ └──────┬─────┘ └──────┬─────┘ └──────┬─────┘
│ │ │ │ │
└──────────────┴──────────────┼──────────────┴──────────────┘
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ LOG QUERY AUDIT (426) │
│ Store: query_id, agent_id, │
│ params, result, contributors │
└───────────────┬─────────────────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ END (428) │
│ Return resolution result │
└─────────────────────────────────────┘
Reference Numerals:
- 402: Start – receive query
- 404: Check materialized view
- 405: Return MV winner (cache hit)
- 406: Fetch candidates (cache miss)
- 408: Decision – candidates found?
- 410: Decision – apply Trust Pack filter?
- 412: Apply semantic decay
- 414: Select lens
- 416: Recency lens
- 418: Consensus lens
- 420: Authority lens
- 422: Vote-aware lens
- 424: Skeptic lens (analysis)
- 426: Log query audit
- 428: End – return result
Description: FIG. 4 illustrates the lens resolution process. A query arrives (402) and the system first checks for a cached materialized view (404). On cache hit, the winner is returned in O(1) time (405). On cache miss, candidates are fetched from the compound index (406). If Trust Pack filtering is enabled (410), only assertions from trusted agents are retained. Semantic decay (412) adjusts confidence based on source class half-life. The selected lens (414) then applies its resolution strategy: Recency (416) picks most recent, Consensus (418) picks highest cluster density, Authority (420) weights by trust rank, Vote-aware (422) uses ballot box votes, or Skeptic (424) returns conflict analysis. Query audit is logged (426) before returning results (428).
FIG. 5: Ballot Box Pattern
Purpose: Separation of votes from assertions for high-velocity consensus.
Elements:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ ASSERTION STORE (502) BALLOT BOX (504) │
│ [Low Velocity] [High Velocity] │
│ │
│ ┌───────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ H:{hash_A} │ │ V:{hash_A}:{vote1} │ │
│ │ ┌─────────────┐ │ │ ┌─────────────────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ Assertion A │ │◄────voted on─────│ │ Vote 1: Agent X, W=0.9 │ │ │
│ │ │ "Claim 1" │ │ │ │ [sig, timestamp] │ │ │
│ │ └─────────────┘ │ │ └─────────────────────────────┘ │ │
│ └───────────────────┘ │ │ │
│ │ V:{hash_A}:{vote2} │ │
│ │ ┌─────────────────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ Vote 2: Agent Y, W=0.7 │ │ │
│ │ │ [sig, timestamp] │ │ │
│ │ └─────────────────────────────┘ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ V:{hash_A}:{vote3} │ │
│ │ ┌─────────────────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ Vote 3: Agent Z, W=1.0 │ │ │
│ │ │ [sig, timestamp, src_url] │ │ │
│ │ └─────────────────────────────┘ │ │
│ └───────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │ │
│ │ Append-only │
│ ▼ │
│ VOTE CHANGE HANDLING (506): │
│ ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Agent X changes vote: │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ V:{hash_A}:{vote1} → W=0.9, t=1000 (original) │ │
│ │ V:{hash_A}:{vote4} → W=0.3, t=2000 (new vote from same agent) │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ Resolution: Use vote with latest timestamp per agent │ │
│ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ AGGREGATION (508): │
│ ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ For Hash_A: │ │
│ │ Agent X: W=0.3 (latest) │ │
│ │ Agent Y: W=0.7 │ │
│ │ Agent Z: W=1.0 │ │
│ │ ───────────────── │ │
│ │ Total: W=2.0 │ │
│ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Reference Numerals:
- 502: Assertion store (low velocity)
- 504: Ballot box (high velocity vote stream)
- 506: Vote change handling (append-only, latest wins)
- 508: Vote aggregation for lens resolution
Description: FIG. 5 illustrates the ballot box pattern that separates votes from assertions. The assertion store (502) holds assertions as immutable records. The ballot box (504) is a separate append-only stream where agents vote on assertions. Votes include agent ID, weight, signature, timestamp, and optional source URL for provenance. Vote changes (506) are handled by appending new votes; resolution uses the latest timestamp per agent. Aggregation (508) sums votes for lens resolution.
FIG. 6: Trust Pack Filtering
Purpose: How Trust Packs filter consensus to trusted agents.
Elements:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ TRUST PACK REGISTRY (602) │
│ │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ TP:mayo_clinic │ │
│ │ ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ Name: "Mayo Clinic Curated" │ │ │
│ │ │ Maintainer: [pubkey_curator] │ │ │
│ │ │ Agents: {Agent_M1, Agent_M2, Agent_M3} │ │ │
│ │ │ Signature: [Ed25519 sig of pack] │ │ │
│ │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ QUERY FLOW (604): │
│ │
│ ┌──────────────────┐ │
│ │ Query: │ │
│ │ subject=drug_x │ │
│ │ predicate=risk │ │
│ │ trust_pack=mayo │ │
│ └────────┬─────────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ▼ │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ ALL CANDIDATES (Before Filter) │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ Assertion 1 │ │ Assertion 2 │ │ Assertion 3 │ │ │
│ │ │ Signer: M1 ✓ │ │ Signer: X1 ✗ │ │ Signer: M2 ✓ │ │ │
│ │ │ "Low risk" │ │ "High risk" │ │ "Moderate" │ │ │
│ │ └─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ Assertion 4 │ │ Assertion 5 │ │ │
│ │ │ Signer: Y2 ✗ │ │ Signer: M3 ✓ │ │ │
│ │ │ "Very high" │ │ "Low risk" │ │ │
│ │ └─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘ │ │
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ │ Trust Pack Filter: Keep only {M1, M2, M3} │
│ ▼ │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ FILTERED CANDIDATES (After Trust Pack) │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ Assertion 1 │ │ Assertion 3 │ │ Assertion 5 │ │ │
│ │ │ Signer: M1 │ │ Signer: M2 │ │ Signer: M3 │ │ │
│ │ │ "Low risk" │ │ "Moderate" │ │ "Low risk" │ │ │
│ │ └─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ Result: "Low risk" (2/3 consensus among trusted agents) │ │
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Reference Numerals:
- 602: Trust Pack registry
- 604: Query flow with Trust Pack filtering
Description: FIG. 6 illustrates Trust Pack filtering. The Trust Pack registry (602) stores curated agent lists with cryptographic signatures. When a query specifies a Trust Pack (604), the system filters candidates to include only assertions signed by agents in the pack. In this example, five assertions exist but only three are from Mayo Clinic trusted agents (M1, M2, M3). After filtering, consensus is computed only among trusted sources, yielding "Low risk" as the result.
FIG. 7: Conflict Analysis (Skeptic Lens)
Purpose: Visualization of how the Skeptic Lens surfaces disagreement.
Elements:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ QUERY (702): │
│ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ GET /skeptic?subject=semaglutide&predicate=risk │ │
│ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ ALL ASSERTIONS FOR semaglutide:risk (704): │
│ │
│ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐ │
│ │ FDA (Tier 0) │ │ Trial 1 (Tier 1)│ │ Reddit (Tier 5) │ │
│ │ "Well-tolerated"│ │ "Well-tolerated"│ │ "Gastroparesis" │ │
│ │ W=1.0, C=0.9 │ │ W=0.9, C=0.8 │ │ W=0.1, C=0.7 │ │
│ └─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐ │
│ │ Trial 2 (Tier 1)│ │ Forum (Tier 4) │ │ Post (Tier 5) │ │
│ │ "Well-tolerated"│ │ "Gastroparesis" │ │ "Gastroparesis" │ │
│ │ W=0.9, C=0.85 │ │ W=0.2, C=0.6 │ │ W=0.1, C=0.5 │ │
│ └─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ CONFLICT ANALYSIS RESULT (706): │
│ │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Status: CONTESTED │ │
│ │ Conflict Score: 0.47 (moderate disagreement) │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ CLAIM BREAKDOWN: │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ "Well-tolerated" │ │ │
│ │ │ ████████████████████████████████████████ 73% weight share │ │ │
│ │ │ Sources: FDA (T0), Trial 1 (T1), Trial 2 (T1) │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ "Gastroparesis" │ │ │
│ │ │ ██████████████ 27% weight share │ │ │
│ │ │ Sources: Reddit (T5), Forum (T4), Post (T5) │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ EMERGING SIGNAL DETECTION: │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ ⚠️ "Gastroparesis" has 3 assertions from Tier 4-5 │ │ │
│ │ │ No Tier 0-2 evidence yet, but clustering detected │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Reference Numerals:
- 702: Skeptic lens query
- 704: All assertions for subject-predicate pair
- 706: Conflict analysis result
Description: FIG. 7 demonstrates the Skeptic Lens, which surfaces disagreement rather than hiding it. A query (702) asks for conflict analysis on semaglutide risk. Six assertions (704) exist with different values and source classes. The conflict analysis result (706) shows status "Contested" with a conflict score of 0.47. The claim breakdown shows "Well-tolerated" has 73% weight share from high-tier sources (FDA, clinical trials), while "Gastroparesis" has 27% from lower-tier sources (Reddit, forums). An emerging signal alert notes clustering of lower-tier reports that may warrant investigation.
FIG. 8: Invalidation Cascade
Purpose: How retraction of upstream evidence propagates to downstream assertions.
Elements:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ INITIAL STATE (802): │
│ │
│ ┌─────────────────┐ │
│ │ Assertion A │ │
│ │ "Study shows X" │ │
│ │ Lifecycle: │ │
│ │ APPROVED ✓ │ │
│ └────────┬────────┘ │
│ │ parent_hash │
│ ▼ │
│ ┌─────────────────┐ │
│ │ Assertion B │ │
│ │ "Therefore Y" │ │
│ │ Lifecycle: │ │
│ │ APPROVED ✓ │ │
│ └────────┬────────┘ │
│ │ parent_hash │
│ ▼ │
│ ┌─────────────────┐ │
│ │ Assertion C │ │
│ │ "Recommend Z" │ │
│ │ Lifecycle: │ │
│ │ APPROVED ✓ │ │
│ └─────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ │
│ │
│ RETRACTION EVENT (804): │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Assertion A retracted by original signer │ │
│ │ Reason: "Study methodology flawed" │ │
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ │
│ │
│ CASCADE PROPAGATION (806): │
│ │
│ ┌─────────────────┐ │
│ │ Assertion A │ │
│ │ "Study shows X" │ │
│ │ Lifecycle: │ │
│ │ DEPRECATED ⚠ │◄──── Direct retraction │
│ └────────┬────────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ▼ Cascade │
│ ┌─────────────────┐ │
│ │ Assertion B │ │
│ │ "Therefore Y" │ │
│ │ Lifecycle: │ │
│ │ DEPRECATED ⚠ │◄──── Depends on A │
│ └────────┬────────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ▼ Cascade │
│ ┌─────────────────┐ │
│ │ Assertion C │ │
│ │ "Recommend Z" │ │
│ │ Lifecycle: │ │
│ │ DEPRECATED ⚠ │◄──── Depends on B │
│ └─────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ CONSUMER NOTIFICATION (808): │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Query Audit Scan: │ │
│ │ - Agent_1 queried Assertion C on 2024-01-15 → NOTIFY │ │
│ │ - Agent_2 queried Assertion B on 2024-01-20 → NOTIFY │ │
│ │ - Agent_3 queried Assertion A on 2024-01-25 → NOTIFY │ │
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Reference Numerals:
- 802: Initial state (approved assertions with dependencies)
- 804: Retraction event
- 806: Cascade propagation
- 808: Consumer notification via query audit matching
Description: FIG. 8 illustrates invalidation cascades. In the initial state (802), three assertions form a dependency chain via parent hash references. When Assertion A is retracted (804), the system traverses the dependency graph and marks all downstream assertions as Deprecated (806). Consumer notification (808) scans the query audit trail to identify agents who previously queried affected assertions and notifies them of the invalidation.
Revision History
| Date | Author | Changes |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-02-04 | Initial | Complete figure descriptions with 8 figures |