Quick extraction of claims from supporting sources
Building cross-reference evidence for existing claims
Initial triage before deciding on full analysis
Sources that are data-heavy rather than argument-heavy

Output Format

claims:
  - id: "DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN"
    text: "[Precise claim statement]"
    type: "[F/T/H/P/A/C/S/X]"
    domain: "[DOMAIN]"
    evidence_level: "E[1-6]"
    credence: 0.XX
    source_ids: ["[source-id]"]

Claim Types

Type	Symbol	Definition
Fact	`[F]`	Empirically verified, consensus reality
Theory	`[T]`	Coherent explanatory framework with empirical support
Hypothesis	`[H]`	Testable proposition, awaiting evidence
Prediction	`[P]`	Future-oriented claim with specified conditions
Assumption	`[A]`	Underlying premise (stated or unstated)
Counterfactual	`[C]`	Alternative scenario for comparison
Speculation	`[S]`	Unfalsifiable or untestable claim
Contradiction	`[X]`	Identified logical inconsistency

Evidence Hierarchy

Use this hierarchy to rate strength of evidential support for claims.

Level	Strength	Description	Credence Range
E1	Strong Empirical	Systematic review, meta-analysis, replicated experiments	0.9-1.0
E2	Moderate Empirical	Single peer-reviewed study, official statistics	0.6-0.8
E3	Strong Theoretical	Expert consensus, working papers, preprints	0.5-0.7
E4	Weak Theoretical	Industry reports, credible journalism	0.3-0.5
E5	Opinion/Forecast	Personal observation, anecdote, expert opinion	0.2-0.4
E6	Unsupported	Pure speculation, unfalsifiable claims	0.0-0.2

Domain Codes

Code	Description
TECH	Technology, AI capabilities, tech trajectories
LABOR	Employment, automation, human work
ECON	Value theory, pricing, distribution, ownership
GOV	Governance, policy, regulation
SOC	Social structures, culture, behavior
RESOURCE	Scarcity, abundance, allocation
TRANS	Transition dynamics, pathways
GEO	International relations, state competition
INST	Institutions, organizations
RISK	Risk assessment, failure modes
META	Claims about the framework/analysis itself

Notes

Quick extractions should be labeled with Analysis Depth: quick in the analysis file
Minimum requirements: Metadata, Legends, Claim Summary table, Claims YAML
Full Stage 2 evaluation tables (verification, counterevidence, tensions, persuasion) are optional for quick extractions
If a source proves more significant, upgrade to full analysis with $check --continue

Related Skills

realitycheck-check
realitycheck-analyze

realitycheck-extract

Quick Claim Extraction

Usage

When to Use