Step 5 of 8Back to start
Investigations

Reasoning without false certainty.

An investigation is allowed a small vocabulary and no more. Relevance, direction and grounding are three independent axes, recorded in three separate fields, because a filing can obviously bear on an assumption while saying nothing about which way it cuts, and a system that collapses them into one confident answer will be wrong in the most expensive direction.

01 · RELEVANCE
RelevantNot relevant

Does the document bear on this assumption at all? A claim about topic, not about direction, and it is the only thing many filings support.

02 · DIRECTION
SupportsContradictsNeutralUncertain

A separate question, asked only of relevant documents. Neutral is a real finding. It bears on the assumption and moves it neither way. Uncertain is the honest answer, and the fallback whenever a direction cannot be established.

03 · GROUNDING
Verified spanRefused

Supports and contradicts each require a span located in the verified document text. Without one the direction is refused and recorded as uncertain, not down-weighted.

04 · RESULT
Only grounded conclusions enter the record.

Kept on three axes, “relevant, but direction unknown” stays sayable. A model that says “contradicts” and cannot point at the sentence has produced an opinion wearing a citation's clothes, and it is refused rather than recorded.

The skeptic is not optional

An investigation that only looked for supporting evidence found supporting evidence.

Contrary search runs on every conclusion. A conclusion reached without one is capped at low confidence no matter how much support it accumulated. Citation validity solves fabrication; it does nothing about selective reading, which is the failure that actually happens.

Confidence is computed

Nothing scores its own work.

Source quality, corroboration, contrary weight, coverage and recency are combined deterministically. Arithmetic, permissions, entitlements and the record itself are computed in code, models read and reason; they never compute a number or grant access.

Authority

Human judgment stays human.

There is no apply step in the agent. An agent may say an assumption looks weakened; only a person changes what the institution believes. The record names both parties, and keeps them in separate records, permanently.

LyraMind proposed

“Evidence suggests this assumption has weakened.”

Attached to the proposal: the documents read, the spans located, the contrary search that ran, the confidence and how it was computed, the budget consumed, and the agent identity that produced it.

  • Proposes and stops. LyraMind cannot change the institution's belief state.
  • Runs under a capability scope narrower than the human who started it.
  • Authorization happens before retrieval, so evidence it may not see never enters its working set.
Human decided

“Accepted, moved to WEAKENING.” Or: “Not relevant, and here is why.”

The person, the session, the timestamp, and the evidence that was in front of them at that moment. Reading a proposal and changing what the firm believes are different privileges, checked separately.

  • Dismissal is learning, not deletion, a labelled negative from someone who knows the book, recorded with its reason.
  • Nothing is overwritten. The prior state and its evidence stay readable.
  • A record that says only “assumption moved to WEAKENING” cannot answer whether a person actually looked at it.