R0002/2026-03-13/C012 — ACH Matrix¶
Matrix¶
| H1: All five sub-claims accurate | H2: Taxonomy exists, basis more complex | H3: Publication details inaccurate | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01-E01: Authors, year, publisher confirmed | ++ | ++ | -- |
| SRC01-E02: Three categories confirmed | ++ | ++ | -- |
| SRC01-E03: Two dimensions (falseness + intent) | -- | ++ | N/A |
| SRC02-E01: Profolus confirms two-dimensional framework | -- | ++ | N/A |
| SRC03-E01: PMC confirms two-dimensional structure | -- | ++ | N/A |
| SRC04-E01: Shorenstein confirms publication | + | + | -- |
| SRC05-E01: First Draft confirms taxonomy | + | + | - |
Legend:
- ++ Strongly supports
- + Supports
- -- Strongly contradicts
- - Contradicts
- N/A Not applicable to this hypothesis
Diagnosticity Analysis¶
Most Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC01-E03 | Strongly supports H2, strongly contradicts H1 — this is the key differentiator. The two-dimensional structure proves "intent to harm" alone is insufficient. |
| SRC02-E01 | Independent confirmation of the two-dimensional structure — corroborates the most diagnostic primary source finding. |
Least Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Non-Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC04-E01 | Supports both H1 and H2 equally on publication details — does not differentiate between the two leading hypotheses |
| SRC05-E01 | Author-adjacent, supports both H1 and H2 — lowest independence and lowest diagnosticity |
Outcome¶
Hypothesis supported: H2 — The taxonomy exists with the stated authors, year, publisher, and categories, but the distinguishing basis is two-dimensional (falseness and intent to harm), not solely "intent to harm."
Hypotheses eliminated: H3 — Publication details are confirmed by multiple independent sources with very high confidence.
Hypotheses inconclusive: H1 — Four of five sub-claims are confirmed, but the fifth (basis is "intent to harm") is an oversimplification.