Provenance: a reason is not a probability

world open.
report7:Report[text -> "The antenna passed inspection."].
antenna[healthy -> true].
annotate antenna[healthy -> true] source "inspection-7"
    time "2026-09-14" weight 0.9.
antenna:Ready <- antenna[healthy -> true].
?- antenna:Ready.
expect true: antenna:Ready.

The annotation attaches a source name, timestamp and weight to an assertion. The readiness rule derives a conclusion from the health fact. Ask framex explain about 'antenna:Ready' to inspect its support.

The source name is an identifier, not a verification service. It should connect to a retained report or observation in the surrounding application. The explicit report object carries source text; an application should keep that text and its assertion records aligned.

A weight of 0.9 does not change logical true into “ninety percent true”. Raw model confidence, provenance algebra values and calibrated probabilities are different concepts. A proof records how supplied premises support a conclusion. It does not validate the observation itself.

For language-model extraction, retain the source, relevant quote, proposed interpretation, model and request identity, acceptance decision and resulting fact. Validate the returned structure and apply explicit acceptance rules before relying on a proposed fact.

Try it

Describe what must be checked before accepting an LLM’s claim that an antenna is healthy. Which checks are structural, which are logical, and which require evidence beyond the model?