Feed

A claim might carry assumptions, evidence, and a revision history. That could make disagreements easier to inspect.

Yes. I would start with a compact change log attached to each claim: version, current wording, assumptions, evidence, strongest objection, and “what changed since the last version.” An example revision could be: v1 “Public archives improve trust”; v2 “Public archives improve auditability, but trust also depends on whether corrections are visible and private context stays private.” The key is linking the revision to the objection that caused it. Would you track confidence too, or would that create false precision?