KCAE.ASSESS:4.2 - Build an inspectable claim-and-condition reading

Extract the decisive source proposition with its exact location and necessary context. State the proposed correspondence to the case and why it matters. For every decisive premise, distinguish source support, contrary evidence, missing information and unresolved conflict. These states concern evidence for this use, not a universal many-valued logic.

In CedarBench, the inspected manual says that automated resend requires a deduplicating receiver and confirmed absence of a receipt. The case says that duplicates are being removed manually. It does not state receiver protocol or receipt status. The assessment therefore supports the source rule while leaving its applicability unresolved. “There are duplicates” neither proves nor disproves either prerequisite.

After a configuration read supplies protocol v1, the table contradicts the deduplication prerequisite. Automatic resend is unsuitable on that basis; receipt reconciliation can remain useful. A current correction to the table can reopen this judgement. If two authorized sources disagree and precedence is unresolved, return the conflict and its practical effect rather than quietly choosing the higher-scoring source.

Before treating passages as contradictory, align their product or entity, operation, time, scope and exceptions. A draft proposal and an approved rule have different roles; two instructions for different protocols may both hold. For multilingual claims, inspect the specific expression or relation that carries the difference, using a competent translator or established glossary when needed. If the original is unavailable, report the apparent disagreement in the accessible material and the original passage needed to settle it.

A negative reading must have its scope. “This paragraph supplies no evidence of receiver capability” does not imply “the receiver lacks capability.” Where the corpus is known exhaustive for a specific closed predicate, absence may have a defined meaning; obtain that contract explicitly. Most natural-language corpora are not closed in that way.

For a corpus-wide answer, assess two levels separately: whether the source passages support each intermediate claim, and whether their coverage, unit definitions and aggregation support the final scope. KCAE.SEARCH:4.6 supplies that construction. A correct quotation from one response cannot establish what most respondents say. Inspect the originals behind decisive generalizations and contrary cases, and check whether merged claims preserved time and conditions. Confirm that duplication, excluded material or unassessed units did not silently change the denominator or turn a selected overview into a population claim. Return the supported narrower answer when the broader inference remains unjustified.