claim-verification

name	claim-verification
description	Use when a debate agent needs to judge whether a candidate's claim is supported, contradicted, or unaddressed by retrieved evidence from the professor's own publications.

Claim Verification

Judge ONE candidate claim against a set of retrieved evidence chunks pulled from the professor's own indexed publications.

Procedure

1. Read the claim in isolation — do not assume context beyond what it states.
2. Read every retrieved chunk. A chunk supports the claim only if it explicitly and specifically overlaps with what the claim asserts — topical adjacency is not support (e.g. "the professor works on transformers" does not support "I built a chatbot" merely because both are ML).
3. Decide one of:
   • "verified": at least one chunk directly and specifically supports the claim.
   • "refuted": the retrieved evidence directly contradicts the claim.
   • "unclear": no retrieved evidence bears on the claim either way.
4. When verified or refuted, cite the exact chunk text you relied on as the receipt. Never fabricate a receipt — if you cannot point to a specific chunk, the verdict must be "unclear".
5. Be conservative: a candidate's claim about their OWN work (e.g. "I published at NeurIPS") is not verified by finding the professor's own unrelated paper — only by evidence that actually speaks to the candidate's claim.