The correction demonstration
A correction should travel
only as far as it needs to.
Evidence a and b each support c. Claim c supports d. Evidence k independently supports i. Withdraw a root and inspect which claims keep their grounds.
Synthetic demonstration · supplied dependency graph.
The dependency graph
6 nodes · 4 linksYour intervention
Change the evidence
Start by withdrawing a, then b. You can withdraw the roots in any order.
Active evidence: a, b, k
Runs in this browser. No data is sent.
All evidence admitted. All three claims have recorded support.
What changed, and why?
| Claim | Before | After | Recorded grounds after correction |
|---|---|---|---|
| c | ✓ Supported | ✓ Supported | Supported through a or b. |
| d | ✓ Supported | ✓ Supported | Supported through a or b. |
| i | ✓ Supported | ✓ Supported | Supported through k. |
“Due for review” means a claim has lost all recorded support. It does not mean the claim is false.
One correction. Three procedures.
Each procedure uses the same pre-event state and withdrawn root. The graph and claim table above always show the support-aware result.
Withdraw an evidence root to compare the three procedures.
Leave unchanged
Keep the previously supported statuses, even if their grounds disappear.
Awaiting a withdrawal
Reopen every descendant
Reopen every previously supported downstream claim, ignoring alternative support.
Awaiting a withdrawal
Recompute grounded support
Reopen exactly the claims that lose all recorded support.
Awaiting a withdrawal
This session’s corrections
- No withdrawals yet. History stays in this page and clears on reset or reload.
No language model extracts this graph, and no external action is taken. This educational finite example is not a claim about measured human–AI performance or recursive self-improvement.
What about the routes we ruled out?
A corrected claim and a previously excluded route need different checks. The Reopening Probe follows both, with independent reasons and record completeness made explicit.