Technology · Prototype

Evidence first. Scope always visible.

EvidView keeps source, interpretation, inference, deterministic checks, human decisions, and closure as different kinds of records.

Read a technical note

Six layers that cannot silently replace one another

A source contains information. Evidence points to exact source content. A claim interprets that evidence. Verification evaluates a declared proposition. Human approval records accountable judgment. Closure records completed obligations and their evidence.

Source ≠ Evidence
Evidence ≠ Claim
Claim ≠ Verification
Verification ≠ Human approval
Approval ≠ Closure

1Source
2Evidence
3Claim
4Verification
5Human approval
6Closure

Semantic change with exact evidence

The locally qualified prototype can derive typed semantic units from bounded regions and bind populated fields to exact source evidence. For an explicit approved version pair, it can retain exact before-and-after evidence and review state on structural and semantic change records.

Synthetic case

Text, meaning, and impact are different records

Move through three levels. Each level keeps its own evidence basis and does not silently become the next.

Changed text exact evidence
Semantic Delta reviewed interpretation
Downstream impact dependency-based inference

Level 1 · exact evidence

Text diff

Version 4.1
The Quality Investigator ~~may~~ initiate the investigation within ~~30 calendar days~~ of intake.

Version 4.2
The Quality Investigator must initiate the investigation within 15 calendar days of intake.

This establishes: which exact source characters differ. It does not establish normalized meaning or downstream impact.

Level 2 · reviewed interpretation

Semantic Delta · SD-SYN-001

Actor: Quality Investigator
Action: initiate investigation
Modality: ~~OPTIONAL~~ → MANDATORY
Timing: ~~WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS~~ → WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS

This establishes: the normalized meaning accepted for this synthetic narrative. It does not establish which downstream objects depend on that meaning.

Level 3 · dependency-based inference

Downstream impact

Object	Relationship state	Bounded outcome
WI-08	confirmed	potentially affected
CL-04	confirmed	potentially affected
TR-22	inferred — review required	review required
FRM-11	evaluated	no relevant impact found within evaluated scope
SOP-21	blocked	not evaluated

This establishes: outcomes supported by eligible paths inside the declared evaluation. Text comparison alone did not produce these findings.

Declared boundary: A result applies only to this declared synthetic portfolio, frozen graph, applicability policy, and evaluation budget.

Synthetic case

Every material conclusion keeps an inspectable basis

Follow one bounded impact finding back through its relationship, semantic record, exact excerpts, source locator, and frozen evaluation basis.

Inspect the basis for WI-08

Impact findingWI-08 · potentially affected
The work instruction repeats both changed fields.
Dependency edgereferences and restates
exact reference plus structural match · deterministic reference rule v1 · confirmed
Semantic DeltaSD-SYN-001
OPTIONAL → MANDATORY; WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS → WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS
Exact version evidencev4.1 → v4.2
The Quality Investigator may initiate the investigation within 30 calendar days of intake.
The Quality Investigator must initiate the investigation within 15 calendar days of intake.
Source identityQMS-SOP-014 · Nonconformance Investigation
Section 6.2, paragraph 2
Frozen evaluation basisCMP-SYN-2026-09-15-01
GRAPH-SYN-2026-09-15-01 · maximum depth 3; maximum 25 retained paths

A dependency edge is inspectable data

Each candidate can retain endpoints, relationship type and direction, origin, supporting evidence, method or model/rule version, applicability, lifecycle state, and coverage signals. Inferred edges remain distinguishable from confirmed facts.

Synthetic case

Inspect the path, not just the outcome

Select a target to inspect its node, relationship basis, evidence, lifecycle state, version, and bounded impact reason.

Changed claimSD-SYN-001QMS-SOP-014 · §6.2

Target node · WI-08

Investigation Work Instruction

potentially affected

Source evidenceQMS-SOP-014 v4.2
Semantic DeltaSD-SYN-001
Relationshipreferences and restates
TargetWI-08

Object: WI-08 · Investigation Work Instruction
Type: Controlled work instruction
State: confirmed
Reason: The work instruction repeats both changed fields.
Source: QMS-SOP-014, Section 6.2, paragraph 2
Evidence: Section 2 cites QMS-SOP-014; section 4.1 repeats the 30-day initiation window.

Relationship: references and restates
Origin: exact reference plus structural match
Method: deterministic reference rule v1
Lifecycle state: confirmed
Graph version: GRAPH-SYN-2026-09-15-01
Comparison: CMP-SYN-2026-09-15-01

Target node · CL-04

Investigation Intake Checklist

potentially affected

Source evidenceQMS-SOP-014 v4.2
Semantic DeltaSD-SYN-001
Relationshipimplements
TargetCL-04

Object: CL-04 · Investigation Intake Checklist
Type: Controlled checklist
State: confirmed
Reason: The acceptance criterion contains the previous deadline.
Source: QMS-SOP-014, Section 6.2, paragraph 2
Evidence: Checklist item 7 asks whether initiation occurred within 30 calendar days.

Relationship: implements
Origin: field-to-claim match
Method: policy rule v3
Lifecycle state: confirmed
Graph version: GRAPH-SYN-2026-09-15-01
Comparison: CMP-SYN-2026-09-15-01

Target node · TR-22

Investigator Refresher Training

review required

Source evidenceQMS-SOP-014 v4.2
Semantic DeltaSD-SYN-001
Relationshiptrains
TargetTR-22

Object: TR-22 · Investigator Refresher Training
Type: Training module
State: inferred — review required
Reason: The content is semantically related, but the relationship is not yet confirmed.
Source: QMS-SOP-014, Section 6.2, paragraph 2
Evidence: Module 3 teaches investigation initiation timing but does not cite the SOP identifier.

Relationship: trains
Origin: semantic candidate
Method: bounded candidate classifier v2
Lifecycle state: inferred — review required
Graph version: GRAPH-SYN-2026-09-15-01
Comparison: CMP-SYN-2026-09-15-01

Declared boundary: A result applies only to this declared synthetic portfolio, frozen graph, applicability policy, and evaluation budget.

Positive paths and bounded negative findings

A positive impact result requires a reconstructable path through a compatible frozen graph. A negative result is limited to successfully processed objects inside the declared universe, policy, graph, and budgets. Broken provenance, stale inputs, or exhausted budgets block stronger wording.

Synthetic case

Inspect the path, not just the outcome

Select a target to inspect its node, relationship basis, evidence, lifecycle state, version, and bounded impact reason.

Changed claimSD-SYN-001QMS-SOP-014 · §6.2

Target node · WI-08

Investigation Work Instruction

potentially affected

Source evidenceQMS-SOP-014 v4.2
Semantic DeltaSD-SYN-001
Relationshipreferences and restates
TargetWI-08

Object: WI-08 · Investigation Work Instruction
Type: Controlled work instruction
State: confirmed
Reason: The work instruction repeats both changed fields.
Source: QMS-SOP-014, Section 6.2, paragraph 2
Evidence: Section 2 cites QMS-SOP-014; section 4.1 repeats the 30-day initiation window.

Relationship: references and restates
Origin: exact reference plus structural match
Method: deterministic reference rule v1
Lifecycle state: confirmed
Graph version: GRAPH-SYN-2026-09-15-01
Comparison: CMP-SYN-2026-09-15-01

Target node · CL-04

Investigation Intake Checklist

potentially affected

Source evidenceQMS-SOP-014 v4.2
Semantic DeltaSD-SYN-001
Relationshipimplements
TargetCL-04

Object: CL-04 · Investigation Intake Checklist
Type: Controlled checklist
State: confirmed
Reason: The acceptance criterion contains the previous deadline.
Source: QMS-SOP-014, Section 6.2, paragraph 2
Evidence: Checklist item 7 asks whether initiation occurred within 30 calendar days.

Relationship: implements
Origin: field-to-claim match
Method: policy rule v3
Lifecycle state: confirmed
Graph version: GRAPH-SYN-2026-09-15-01
Comparison: CMP-SYN-2026-09-15-01

Target node · TR-22

Investigator Refresher Training

review required

Source evidenceQMS-SOP-014 v4.2
Semantic DeltaSD-SYN-001
Relationshiptrains
TargetTR-22

Object: TR-22 · Investigator Refresher Training
Type: Training module
State: inferred — review required
Reason: The content is semantically related, but the relationship is not yet confirmed.
Source: QMS-SOP-014, Section 6.2, paragraph 2
Evidence: Module 3 teaches investigation initiation timing but does not cite the SOP identifier.

Relationship: trains
Origin: semantic candidate
Method: bounded candidate classifier v2
Lifecycle state: inferred — review required
Graph version: GRAPH-SYN-2026-09-15-01
Comparison: CMP-SYN-2026-09-15-01

Declared boundary: A result applies only to this declared synthetic portfolio, frozen graph, applicability policy, and evaluation budget.

Reproducibility without pretending models are deterministic

The prototype preserves frozen M3–M4 comparison and graph provenance so recorded deterministic and model-free projections can be replayed against pinned inputs. This does not turn a model statement into deterministic verification and is not the complete offline release verifier planned for M8.

DER: a bounded research direction

Deterministic Evidence Reasoning is intended for restricted formal questions such as numeric, temporal, ordering, prerequisite, prohibition, finite-alternative, and simple role/action properties. A future result would require explicit formalization, evidence bindings, assumptions, a canonical problem hash, deterministic result, certificate, and independent checker pass.

DER does not establish unrestricted language truth.
DER does not establish source correctness, regulatory compliance, legal interpretation, or external-world completeness.
M5 and M8 are incomplete; no current DER capability or certificate is claimed.

Research direction · M5/M8 incomplete

Restricted proposition
Exact evidence bindings
Explicit assumptions
Canonical problem hash
Deterministic result
Certificate
Independent check

DER does not establish unrestricted language truth, source correctness, regulatory compliance, legal interpretation, or external-world completeness.

Human accountability remains explicit

Named reviewers can inspect evidence and record version-specific decisions with append-only history in the locally qualified workflows. Production separation of duties and operating controls require separate qualification.

Claim register

Material statements on this page are tied to bounded, reviewable claim records.

CLM-002 Prototype: EvidView can derive typed semantic units from bounded document regions and bind populated fields to exact source evidence for accountable review.
CLM-003 Prototype: For an explicit approved source-version pair, EvidView can produce typed structural and semantic change records with exact before-and-after evidence and review state.
CLM-004 Prototype: EvidView can discover and classify bounded dependency candidates using structural, exact-reference, entity, lexical, and vector channels while retaining evidence, origin, state, and coverage signals.
CLM-005 Prototype: From a confirmed change and a compatible frozen graph, EvidView can produce bounded impact results whose positive conclusions retain reconstructable evidence paths.
CLM-006 Prototype: EvidView keeps known ambiguity, unsupported evidence, stale inputs, and exhausted evaluation budgets visible instead of silently converting them into accepted or unaffected conclusions.
CLM-007 Prototype: Named reviewers can inspect evidence and confirm, correct, reject, or leave supported M0-M4 records unresolved through concurrency-safe commands with append-only decision history.
CLM-008 Prototype: EvidView preserves frozen M3-M4 comparison and graph provenance so deterministic and model-free recorded projections can be replayed against their pinned inputs.
CLM-016 Research direction: The current product provides bounded DER certificates and an independent offline checker. This is not presented as current capability.

Next step

Bring one bounded change into view.

Read a technical note Become a Design Partner