judgement_check
Check a claim you intend to write against the answer you were given, and receive the reading of that answer. Call this before stating any conclusion drawn from this world. Pass the receipt from the answer and one entry per claim. State the sentence you intend to write, and separately the quantities and the entities that sentence rests on, so the check is a comparison against the payload rather than a reading of your prose. Declare the shape of each claim in `form`, every number in digits, and every party by name: a claim that declares nothing checkable comes back unverifiable, which does not license writing it. A figure this receipt's own answer served is already declared by that receipt, so restating one is supported whether or not you list it, and a run of two or more digits your sentence shares with something the answer carries as text, such as a procedure code or a vintage date, is an identifier rather than a measurement and is not adjudicated as a quantity. Each claim comes back supported, unsupported, unverifiable, forbidden, or resting on an answer that was refused. THIS IS THE CHECKER FOR QUOTING A PUBLISHED FIGURE. `claim_check` decides by arithmetic and reads every decimal in a payload as rounded, so `== 20.77` against a payload carrying 20.77 comes back `not_entailed` however exactly the digits match. That is a statement about the shape of the claim and not about the figure, and an answer withdrawn on account of it was withdrawn for no reason. A sentence putting a served figure in front of a reader belongs here, where the verdicts are supported and unsupported rather than entailed. A VERDICT ABOUT HOW YOU BUILT THE CLAIM IS NOT A VERDICT ABOUT THE RECORD. `unverifiable`, and a refusal naming `restates_your_input`, say the claim was MALFORMED, not that the evidence failed it. The commonest way to earn one is to list an identifier among `quantities`: the procedure code, the payer, the vintage date and anything else your own arguments carried in are identifiers rather than measurements, they are already declared by the receipt, and listing one makes the sentence restate your input. Put ONLY the measured numbers in `quantities` - the rate, the count, the interval - and name the code and the payer in `entities`, where they belong. Then re-check. MEASURED 2026-09-10: an agent asked what a payer published for a code passed the code as a quantity, was told the sentence restated its input, and withdrew an answer whose figure the world had just served it, on thirty-two of thirty-six questions it could answer.
Use this form for new arguments. Follow concrete links for known values. Fetch-only readers may be unable to submit new URLs.
Exact input contract
{
"properties": {
"claims": {
"description": "One entry per sentence you intend to write.",
"items": {
"properties": {
"about": {
"description": "The payload field the claim is about, as a path such as report.pattern_noise_sd. An element of an array is named either cells[0].median or cells.0.median; both resolve, and so does a container: payer_filings names the whole array, and a figure anywhere under a container that says how it must be read is bound-checked as if you had named it. A path nothing in the payload sits under comes back unsupported, and that verdict means the payload has no such field rather than that you named it too coarsely. Naming the field is the cheapest and most exact check available.",
"type": "string"
},
"entities": {
"description": "Every judge, case or party the sentence names. Naming the party you selected in the call is fine: what decides the verdict is whose arithmetic the row is. A party the answer carries figures for that you did not supply is a finding about that party, and a party whose numbers came out of your own arguments restates your input however the sentence is phrased.",
"items": {
"type": "string"
},
"type": "array"
},
"form": {
"description": "The shape of the statement, declared rather than guessed from its wording. Use upper_bound or interval whenever the figure is a ceiling or a limit: a bounded figure declared as a point_value is refused, because a bound written flat is a score. Use denial when the sentence DENIES something, such as that a figure is not a readmission rate: a denial of what this world cannot answer is not a claim to have answered it, and it is exempt from that limit where the sentence carries the negation. Declaring denial over a sentence that denies nothing changes no verdict. Declaring the shape is what lets this check work in any language.",
"enum": [
"point_value",
"upper_bound",
"lower_bound",
"interval",
"comparison",
"derived",
"existence",
"denial"
],
"type": "string"
},
"quantities": {
"description": "Every number the sentence states.",
"items": {
"type": "number"
},
"type": "array"
},
"sentence": {
"description": "The sentence, as you would write it.",
"type": "string"
},
"topic": {
"description": "What the sentence is about, in a few words.",
"type": "string"
}
},
"required": [
"sentence",
"form"
],
"type": "object"
},
"type": "array"
},
"receipt": {
"description": "The receipt id from the answer this claim rests on.",
"type": "string"
}
},
"required": [
"receipt",
"claims"
],
"type": "object"
}