curated-skills/linguaclaw/evidence-protocol

Evidence Protocol Module

Load this module whenever the solving stage must produce a detailed, citation-backed analysis before any final answer is released. This module owns the analysis discipline: what the evidence document must contain, how claims must be cited, and when the answer may be released. It is not the verifier role.

Required evidence document

• Before releasing the final answer, write one standalone evidence document.

If the task gives a path, use it. Otherwise default to analysis.md inside the current stage's artifact directory.

• That evidence document is mandatory. A final answer, final patch, or final

"solved" claim is not releasable until the document exists and is materially complete.

• The final answer may summarize the document, but it must not replace it.
• This module deliberately requires a standalone evidence artifact rather than

scattering all justification only across transient chat replies.

Required document structure

The evidence document should contain the following sections whenever they are applicable:

1. Problem statement and the candidate resolution being argued for.
2. Relevant components, files, functions, tests, or external materials that

materially participate in the issue.

1. Observed failure symptoms, reproduction results, or other direct motivating

signals.

1. Root cause and the full causal chain from defect to observed behavior.
2. Candidate changes or proposed answer, mapped claim-by-claim to the evidence.
3. Validation results after the change, including what was checked and what was

not.

1. Residual uncertainty, open questions, and unsupported hypotheses.

Claim discipline

Every important claim in that document should make clear:

• what the claim is,
• what original observation, test result, command output, quoted content, or

external source it comes from,

• what minimal supporting span, excerpt, or concrete output segment best anchors

that claim when such a span exists,

• whether the claim is a direct observation or an inference from observations,
• what intermediate reasoning connects the source to the claim when inference is

involved,

• and what uncertainty remains unresolved.

Citation and provenance discipline

• When citing command outputs, test results, captured content, or external

materials, identify the source precisely enough that a reviewer can tell where the claim came from.

• For repository claims, prefer direct file links with precise line anchors,

such as [server.py](/abs/path/to/server.py#L120).

• For command outputs or tests, identify the command, the produced artifact or

log path when available, and the observation time when timing matters.

• For time-sensitive external sources, state the observation time as part of the

provenance.

• Separate raw facts from your interpretation of those facts. Do not disguise an

interpretation as if it were directly observed.

• When a conclusion depends on multiple sources, say which part of the claim

each source supports instead of dumping a source list without attribution.

• Before releasing an important conclusion, break it into claim-scoped

verification questions that can be answered independently of the draft's own wording.

• If the evidence is incomplete, do not present the statement as settled fact.

Mark it as a hypothesis, suspicion, or open question.

• If a source supports only part of a stronger claim, release only the supported

part instead of silently inflating the conclusion.

Answer gated release

• Before declaring the problem solved, check whether every release-critical

claim is backed by adequate citations inside the evidence document.

• If any critical gap, uncited claim, broken reasoning chain, or unresolved

contradiction remains, do not release the answer as fully complete.

• The final answer should clearly separate what is fully supported from what

remains partial or open, and it should point back to the evidence document as the detailed basis.

• Producing this document is the responsibility of the current solving or

analysis stage. A later verifier may consume it, but the verifier does not replace it.

The goal of this protocol is that every major conclusion can survive the question "why are you allowed to say that?" with a precise and reviewable answer.