check

name	check
description	Full Reality Check analysis - fetch source, perform 3-stage analysis, extract claims, register to database, and validate. The flagship command for rigorous source analysis.

Full Analysis Workflow (Codex)

Full Reality Check analysis - fetch source, perform 3-stage analysis, extract claims, register to database, and validate. The flagship command for rigorous source analysis.

Invocation

$check <url>

Note: Codex reserves /... for built-in commands. Use $check instead.

The flagship Reality Check command for rigorous source analysis.

Prerequisites

Environment

Set REALITYCHECK_DATA to point to your data repository:

export REALITYCHECK_DATA=/path/to/realitycheck-data/data/realitycheck.lance

The PROJECT_ROOT is derived from this path - all analysis files go there.

CLI Commands

Reality Check provides CLI tools (rc-db, rc-validate, rc-export, rc-embed).

Check availability:

which rc-db  # Should show path if pip-installed

If commands are not found, either:

1. Install: pip install realitycheck (recommended)
2. Use uv run from framework directory: uv run python scripts/db.py ...
3. Add framework as submodule and use: .framework/scripts/db.py ...

Red Flags: Wrong Repository

IMPORTANT: Always write to the DATA repository, never to the framework repository.

If you see these directories, you're in the framework repo (wrong place for data):

• scripts/
• tests/
• integrations/
• methodology/

Stop and verify REALITYCHECK_DATA is set correctly.

Data Source of Truth

LanceDB is the source of truth, not YAML files.

• Query sources: rc-db source get <id> or rc-db source list
• Query claims: rc-db claim get <id> or rc-db claim list
• Search: rc-db search "query"

Ignore YAML files like claims/registry.yaml or reference/sources.yaml - these are exports/legacy format.

Workflow Steps

1. Start Tracking - Begin token usage capture (lifecycle mode)
2. Fetch - Retrieve and parse source content
   • Primary: WebFetch for most URLs
   • Alternative: curl -L -sS "URL" | rc-html-extract - --format json
   • rc-html-extract returns structured {title, published, text, headings, word_count}
   • Use the extract tool when you need clean metadata or main text extraction
3. Metadata - Extract title, author, date, type, generate source-id
4. Stage 1: Descriptive - Neutral summary, key claims, argument structure
5. Stage 2: Evaluative - Evidence quality, fact-checking, disconfirming evidence
   • DB-first for crux factuals: run rc-db search "<neutral keywords>" before external search
   • Web discovery: use your environment's web search capability (e.g., Claude WebSearch, Codex web.run search_query)
   • Minimum verification attempt: for each crux [F] claim, run >=2 distinct queries and record attempts
   • Status contract: use ok, x, nf, blocked, ? in "Key Factual Claims Verified"
   • Review gate: do not mark [REVIEWED] if any crux [F] claim remains ?
6. Stage 3: Dialectical - Steelman, counterarguments, synthesis
7. Neutral Analyst Prose Pass - Clean up analyst-authored prose without changing source content, quotes, claim IDs, evidence levels, or credences
8. Extract - Format claims as YAML
9. Register - Add source and claims to database
10. Provenance (for high-credence claims) - Link evidence + capture reasoning trails
11. Complete Tracking - Finalize token usage + register analysis_logs row
12. Validate - Run integrity checks
13. README - Update data project analysis index
14. File Inbox - Move/archive inbox items to permanent locations
15. Commit - Stage and commit changes to data repo
16. Push - Push to remote
17. Report - Generate summary

---

Multi-source Requests (Compare / Contrast)

If the prompt includes multiple sources (multiple URLs/repos/papers) or explicitly asks for compare/contrast, $check is responsible for the full multi-source workflow end-to-end:

1. Run the source-analysis workflow once per source (one analysis/sources/<source-id>.md per source)
2. Then, in the same run, also write a single cross-source synthesis at analysis/syntheses/<synth-id>.md

The synthesis should link back to the relevant source analyses and resolve (or clearly frame) points of agreement and disagreement.

Use $rc-synthesize as a standalone command when you want to:

• create a synthesis later from existing source analyses
• update/refine an existing synthesis without re-running checks

---

Analysis Output Contract

Every analysis must produce a human-auditable analysis file at: PROJECT_ROOT/analysis/sources/<source-id>.md

The analysis must include:

1. Metadata (Source ID, URL, author, date/type)
2. Legends (top-of-file quick reference)
3. Three-stage analysis (Stages 1-3)
4. Claim tables with evidence + credence
5. Extracted claims artifact (embedded YAML or separate file)
6. Analysis Log (append-only pass history + tool/model/tokens/cost when available)

If an analysis lacks claim tables (IDs, evidence levels, credence) it is not complete.

Multi-source Output

For multi-source requests, produce:

• One source analysis per source: analysis/sources/<source-id>.md
• One synthesis (required unless the user explicitly asks not to): analysis/syntheses/<synth-id>.md

Required Elements

Stage 1 (Descriptive):

• Source Metadata table
• Core Thesis (1-3 sentences)
• Key Claims table (rigor-v1: Layer/Actor/Scope/Quantifier + Verified? + Falsifiable By)
• Argument Structure diagram
• Theoretical Lineage
• Scope & Limitations

Stage 2 (Evaluative):

• Key Factual Claims Verified (Claim ID + Crux? + Search Notes + status codes)
• Disconfirming Evidence Search
• Corrections & Updates (including capture failures)
• Internal Tensions / Self-Contradictions
• Persuasion Techniques
• Unstated Assumptions
• Evidence Assessment
• Credence Assessment

Stage 3 (Dialectical):

• Steelmanned Argument
• Strongest Counterarguments
• Supporting Theories (with source IDs)
• Contradicting Theories (with source IDs)
• Synthesis Notes
• Claims to Cross-Reference

End:

• Claim Summary table (all claims)
• Claims to Register (YAML)
• Credence in Analysis (0.0-1.0)

---

Neutral Analyst Prose Pass

Before finalizing an analysis or synthesis, run a short pass over the analyst-authored prose.

Scope:

• Applies to the analyst's prose: summaries, thesis statements, evidence assessments, credence reasoning, synthesis notes, and recommendations.
• Does not apply to source text, direct quotes, titles, quoted slogans, or sections that intentionally analyze rhetoric/persuasion techniques.
• Preserve source wording when it is evidence for rhetoric, framing, or persuasion. Label it as source language instead of adopting it as the analyst's voice.

Rewrite rules:

• State facts, claim IDs, dates, sources, methods, search results, evidence levels, credences, falsifiers, and open questions directly.
• Remove rhetorical setup, marketing language, reassurance frames, vague intensifiers, hedge stacks, and conclusion recaps from analyst prose.
• Replace vague quantifiers (many, several, various) with counts, IDs, bounded scopes, or unknown.
• Do not change claim IDs, evidence levels, credences, source-backed facts, or quotes unless the analysis records why.

---

Analysis Template

Use this structure for analysis documents:

# Source Analysis: [Title]

> **Claim types**: `[F]` fact, `[T]` theory, `[H]` hypothesis, `[P]` prediction, `[A]` assumption, `[C]` counterfactual, `[S]` speculation, `[X]` contradiction
> **Evidence**: **E1** systematic review/meta-analysis; **E2** peer-reviewed/official stats; **E3** expert consensus/preprint; **E4** credible journalism/industry; **E5** opinion/anecdote; **E6** unsupported/speculative

## Metadata

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| **Source ID** | [author-year-shorttitle] |
| **Title** | [extracted from source] |
| **Author(s)** | [name(s)] |
| **Date** | [YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY] |
| **Type** | [PAPER/ARTICLE/BLOG/REPORT/INTERVIEW/etc.] |
| **URL** | [source URL] |
| **Reliability** | [0.0-1.0] |
| **Rigor Level** | [SPITBALL/DRAFT/REVIEWED/CANONICAL] |

## Stage 1: Descriptive Analysis

### Core Thesis
[1-3 sentence summary of main argument]

### Key Claims

| # | Claim | Claim ID | Layer | Actor | Scope | Quantifier | Type | Domain | Evid | Credence | Verified? | Falsifiable By |
|---|-------|----------|-------|-------|-------|------------|------|--------|------|----------|-----------|----------------|
| 1 | [claim text] | DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN | ASSERTED/LAWFUL/PRACTICED/EFFECT | ICE/CBP/DHS/DOJ/COURT/OTHER | who=...; where=...; when=... | none/some/often/most/always/OTHER:<...> | [F/T/H/P/A/C/S/X] | DOMAIN | E1-E6 | 0.00-1.00 | [source or ?] | [what would refute] |
| 2 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 3 | | | | | | | | | | | | |

**Column guide**:
- **Claim**: Concise statement of the claim
- **Claim ID**: Format `DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN` (e.g., TECH-2026-001)
- **Layer**: `ASSERTED` (positions/claims made), `LAWFUL` (controlling law), `PRACTICED` (practice), `EFFECT` (causal effects)
- **Actor**: Who is acting (e.g., ICE/CBP/DHS/DOJ/COURT). Use `OTHER:<text>` or `N/A` only when not applicable.
- **Scope**: Mini-schema string (e.g., `who=...; where=...; when=...; process=...; predicate=...; conditions=...`)
- **Quantifier**: `none|some|often|most|always|OTHER:<text>|N/A`
- **Type**: `[F]` fact, `[T]` theory, `[H]` hypothesis, `[P]` prediction, `[A]` assumption, `[C]` counterfactual, `[S]` speculation, `[X]` contradiction
- **Domain**: Primary domain code (TECH/LABOR/ECON/GOV/SOC/RESOURCE/TRANS/GEO/INST/RISK/META)
- **Evid**: Evidence level E1-E6
- **Credence**: Probability estimate 0.00-1.00
- **Verified?**: Source reference if verified, `?` if unverified
- **Falsifiable By**: What evidence would refute this claim

### Argument Structure

[Is this a chain argument? What's the logical flow?]

[Claim A] | implies v [Claim B] | requires v [Claim C] | leads to v [Conclusion]

**Chain Analysis** (if applicable):
- **Weakest Link**: [Which step?]
- **Why Weak**: [Explanation]
- **If Link Breaks**: [What happens to conclusion?]
- **Alternative Paths**: [Can conclusion be reached differently?]

### Theoretical Lineage

[What traditions/thinkers does this build on?]

- **Primary influences**: [List key thinkers, schools of thought]
- **Builds on**: [Specific theories or frameworks this extends]
- **Departs from**: [Where this diverges from its intellectual predecessors]
- **Novel contributions**: [What's genuinely new here]

### Scope & Limitations
[What does this source attempt to explain? What does it explicitly not address?]

## Stage 2: Evaluative Analysis

### Internal Coherence
[Does the argument follow logically? Any contradictions?]

### Key Factual Claims Verified

> **Requirement**: Must include >=1 **crux claim** (central to thesis), not just peripheral numerics.

| Claim ID | Claim (paraphrased) | Crux? | Source Says | Actual | External Source | Search Notes | Status |
|----------|---------------------|-------|-------------|--------|-----------------|-------------|--------|
| [e.g., TECH-2026-001] | [e.g., "China makes 50% of X"] | N | [assertion] | [verified value] | [URL/ref] | [q1; q2; date] | ok / x / nf / blocked / ? |
| [e.g., TECH-2026-002] | [e.g., "Elite consensus on Y"] | **Y** | [assertion] | [verified or ?] | [URL/ref or blank] | [queries tried + blockers] | ok / x / nf / blocked / ? |

**Column guide**:
- **Claim ID**: Claim ID from Key Claims / Claim Summary (required for crux rows)
- **Claim**: Paraphrased factual claim from the source
- **Crux?**: Is this claim central to the argument? Mark crux claims with **Y**
- **Source Says**: What the source asserts
- **Actual**: What verification found (or `?` if unresolved)
- **External Source**: URL/reference used for verification (`ok`/`x` should include one)
- **Search Notes**: Queries attempted, date/timebox notes, and blockers if unresolved
- **Status**:
  - `ok` = verified
  - `x` = refuted
  - `nf` = searched, not found
  - `blocked` = access/capture blocked
  - `?` = not yet attempted

### Disconfirming Evidence Search

> For top 2-3 claims, actively search for counterevidence or alternative explanations (even 5 min changes behavior).

| Claim | Counterevidence Found | Alternative Explanation | Search Notes |
|-------|----------------------|-------------------------|--------------|
| [top claim 1] | [what contradicts it, or "none found"] | [other way to explain the data] | [what you searched] |
| [top claim 2] | [what contradicts it, or "none found"] | [other way to explain the data] | [what you searched] |
| [top claim 3] | [what contradicts it, or "none found"] | [other way to explain the data] | [what you searched] |

**Purpose**: Combat confirmation bias by explicitly searching for evidence against the source's claims.

### Corrections & Updates

| Item | URL | Published | Corrected/Updated | What Changed | Impacted Claim IDs | Action Taken |
|------|-----|-----------|-------------------|--------------|--------------------|-------------|
| 1 | [url] | [YYYY-MM-DD] | [YYYY-MM-DD or N/A] | [brief summary of change/correction/capture issue] | [CLAIM-IDs or N/A] | [supersede evidence link; supersede reasoning trail; downgrade credence; capture_failed=...] |
| 2 | | | | | | |

**Notes**:
- Use this section to track: **corrections**, **updates**, and **capture failures** (paywalls/JS blockers/etc.).
- Changes should be **append-only** in provenance: create new `evidence_links` / `reasoning_trails` rows that supersede prior ones (don’t overwrite history).

### Internal Tensions / Self-Contradictions

| Tension | Parts in Conflict | Implication |
|---------|-------------------|-------------|
| [description of tension] | [Premise A] vs [Conclusion B] | [what it means for validity] |
| | | |

**Purpose**: Identify logical inconsistencies within the source's own argument.

### Persuasion Techniques

| Technique | Example from Source | Effect on Reader |
|-----------|---------------------|------------------|
| [e.g., Composition fallacy] | [quote or paraphrase] | [how it biases interpretation] |
| [e.g., Appeal to authority] | [quote or paraphrase] | [how it biases interpretation] |
| | | |

**Common techniques to watch for**:
- Composition/division fallacies
- Appeal to authority/emotion
- Cherry-picking data
- Motte-and-bailey
- Strawmanning alternatives
- False dichotomies
- Weasel words / hedging
- Anchoring with extreme examples

### Unstated Assumptions

| Assumption | Claim ID | Critical? | Problematic? |
|------------|----------|-----------|--------------|
| [assumption text] | [which claim depends on this] | Y/N | Y/N |
| | | | |

**Column guide**:
- **Assumption**: The unstated premise underlying the argument
- **Claim ID**: Which claim(s) depend on this assumption
- **Critical?**: Would the argument fail if this assumption is false?
- **Problematic?**: Is this assumption questionable or likely false?

**Purpose**: Surface hidden premises that may not be shared by all readers.

### Evidence Assessment
[Quality and relevance of supporting evidence]

### Credence Assessment
- **Overall Credence**: [0.0-1.0]
- **Reasoning**: [why this level?]

## Stage 3: Dialectical Analysis

### Steelmanned Argument
[Strongest possible version of this position]

### Strongest Counterarguments
1. [Counter + source if available]
2. [Counter + source if available]

### Supporting Theories

| Theory/Framework | Source ID | How It Supports |
|------------------|-----------|-----------------|
| [theory name] | [source-id] | [brief explanation of alignment] |
| | | |

### Contradicting Theories

| Theory/Framework | Source ID | Point of Conflict |
|------------------|-----------|-------------------|
| [theory name] | [source-id] | [brief explanation of conflict] |
| | | |

**Purpose**: Place this source in the broader theoretical landscape. Link to existing analyses where available.

### Synthesis Notes
[How does this update our overall understanding?]

### Claims to Cross-Reference
[Which claims should be checked against other sources?]

---

### Claim Summary

| ID | Type | Domain | Layer | Actor | Scope | Quantifier | Evidence | Credence | Claim |
|----|------|--------|-------|-------|-------|------------|----------|----------|-------|
| DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN | [F/T/H/P/A/C/S/X] | DOMAIN | ASSERTED/LAWFUL/PRACTICED/EFFECT | ICE/CBP/DHS/DOJ/COURT/OTHER | who=...; where=...; when=... | none/some/often/most/always/OTHER:<...> | E1-E6 | 0.00 | [claim text] |

**Notes**:
- All claims extracted from the source should appear in this table
- Use this for the complete claim inventory
- Key Claims table (above) highlights the most significant claims with additional columns

### Claims to Register

\`\`\`yaml
claims:
  - id: "DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN"
    text: "[Precise claim statement]"
    type: "[F/T/H/P/A/C/S/X]"
    domain: "[DOMAIN]"
    evidence_level: "E[1-6]"
    credence: 0.XX
    operationalization: "[How to test/measure this claim]"
    assumptions: ["..."]
    falsifiers: ["What would refute this"]
    source_ids: ["[source-id]"]
\`\`\`

---

**Analysis Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Analyst**: [human/claude/gpt/etc.]
**Credence in Analysis**: [0.0-1.0]

**Credence Reasoning**:
- [Why this credence level?]
- [What would increase/decrease credence?]
- [Key uncertainties remaining]

---

## Analysis Log

| Pass | Date | Tool | Model | Duration | Tokens | Cost | Notes |
|------|------|------|-------|----------|--------|------|-------|
| 1 | YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM | claude-code | claude-sonnet-4 | 8m | ? | ? | Initial 3-stage analysis |

**Token tracking**: Use lifecycle commands (`analysis start` / `analysis complete`) for accurate per-check token attribution. The `tokens_check` field captures only the tokens used for this specific analysis, not the entire session.

### Revision Notes

**Pass 1**: [What changed in this pass? What was added/updated and why?]

---

Evidence Hierarchy

Use this hierarchy to rate strength of evidential support for claims.

Level	Strength	Description	Credence Range
E1	Strong Empirical	Systematic review, meta-analysis, replicated experiments	0.9-1.0
E2	Moderate Empirical	Single peer-reviewed study, official statistics	0.6-0.8
E3	Strong Theoretical	Expert consensus, working papers, preprints	0.5-0.7
E4	Weak Theoretical	Industry reports, credible journalism	0.3-0.5
E5	Opinion/Forecast	Personal observation, anecdote, expert opinion	0.2-0.4
E6	Unsupported	Pure speculation, unfalsifiable claims	0.0-0.2

Claim Types

Type	Symbol	Definition
Fact	[F]	Empirically verified, consensus reality
Theory	[T]	Coherent explanatory framework with empirical support
Hypothesis	[H]	Testable proposition, awaiting evidence
Prediction	[P]	Future-oriented claim with specified conditions
Assumption	[A]	Underlying premise (stated or unstated)
Counterfactual	[C]	Alternative scenario for comparison
Speculation	[S]	Unfalsifiable or untestable claim
Contradiction	[X]	Identified logical inconsistency

Domain Codes

Code	Description
TECH	Technology, AI capabilities, tech trajectories
LABOR	Employment, automation, human work
ECON	Value theory, pricing, distribution, ownership
GOV	Governance, policy, regulation
SOC	Social structures, culture, behavior
RESOURCE	Scarcity, abundance, allocation
TRANS	Transition dynamics, pathways
GEO	International relations, state competition
INST	Institutions, organizations
RISK	Risk assessment, failure modes
META	Claims about the framework/analysis itself

Credence Calibration

To maintain well-calibrated credence:

Range	Interpretation
0.9-1.0	Would bet significant resources; very strong evidence
0.7-0.8	High credence but acknowledge meaningful uncertainty
0.5-0.6	Genuine uncertainty; could go either way
0.3-0.4	Lean against but not high credence
0.1-0.2	Strongly doubt but can't rule out
0.0-0.1	Would bet heavily against; extraordinary evidence needed

Aggregation notes:

• A theory with many 0.7 credence claims is not itself 0.7 credence
• Credence in overall theory depends on logical structure and weakest critical links
• Chain arguments: overall credence <= weakest link
• Explicitly model dependencies when possible

---

Database Commands

Command Availability

Reality Check commands can be invoked in two ways:

1. rc-db / rc-validate / etc. - Works if you pip-installed realitycheck
2. uv run python scripts/db.py - Works from the framework repo with uv

Check which is available:

# Test pip-installed version
which rc-db && rc-db --version

# If not installed, use uv from framework directory
# (requires being in realitycheck repo or having it as submodule)
uv run python scripts/db.py --help

If neither works:

• Install: pip install realitycheck or uv pip install realitycheck
• Or clone/submodule the framework and use uv run from that directory

Usage Examples

Use installed commands if available, otherwise fall back to uv:

# Check database stats
rc-db stats
# or: uv run python scripts/db.py stats

# Register source
rc-db source add \
  --id "SOURCE_ID" \
  --title "TITLE" \
  --type "TYPE" \
  --author "AUTHOR" \
  --year YEAR \
  --url "URL" \
  --analysis-file "analysis/sources/SOURCE_ID.md" \
  --topics "tag1,tag2" \
  --domains "TECH,LABOR"

# Update source metadata later
rc-db source update "SOURCE_ID" \
  --analysis-file "analysis/sources/SOURCE_ID.md" \
  --topics "tag1,tag2" \
  --domains "TECH,LABOR" \
  --claims-extracted "DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN,DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN"

# (Optional but recommended for manual drafting): reserve IDs first
rc-db claim ticket --domain "DOMAIN" --count 3
# Cleanup stale reservations when needed
rc-db claim ticket release --abandoned --older-than-days 7

# Register claim
rc-db claim add \
  --id "CLAIM_ID" \
  --text "CLAIM_TEXT" \
  --type "[TYPE]" \
  --domain "DOMAIN" \
  --evidence-level "EX" \
  --credence 0.XX \
  --source-ids "SOURCE_ID"

# Recommended: import source + claims in one step (format: analysis/sources/<source-id>.yaml)
rc-db import "analysis/sources/SOURCE_ID.yaml" --type all

# Search claims
rc-db search "query" --limit 10

# Get specific record
rc-db claim get CLAIM_ID
rc-db source get SOURCE_ID

# List records
rc-db claim list --domain TECH
rc-db source list --type ARTICLE

# Analysis lifecycle (recommended for accurate token tracking)
# 1. Start: capture baseline tokens
ANALYSIS_ID=$(rc-db analysis start \
  --source-id "SOURCE_ID" \
  --tool claude-code \
  --model "claude-sonnet-4")

# 2. (Optional) Mark stage checkpoints
rc-db analysis mark --id "$ANALYSIS_ID" --stage check_stage1
rc-db analysis mark --id "$ANALYSIS_ID" --stage check_stage2

# 3. Complete: capture final tokens and compute delta
rc-db analysis complete \
  --id "$ANALYSIS_ID" \
  --analysis-file "analysis/sources/SOURCE_ID.md" \
  --claims-extracted "DOMAIN-YYYY-001,DOMAIN-YYYY-002" \
  --estimate-cost \
  --notes "Initial analysis + registration"

# Session discovery (if auto-detection fails)
rc-db analysis sessions list --tool claude-code --limit 10

# Alternative: one-shot add (legacy, less accurate for multi-check sessions)
rc-db analysis add \
  --source-id "SOURCE_ID" \
  --tool codex \
  --cmd check \
  --analysis-file "analysis/sources/SOURCE_ID.md" \
  --model "gpt-4o" \
  --usage-from codex:"/path/to/rollout-*.jsonl" \
  --estimate-cost \
  --notes "Initial analysis + registration"

# Query analysis logs
rc-db analysis list --source-id "SOURCE_ID"
rc-db analysis get ANALYSIS-YYYY-NNN

Evidence Links

# Add evidence link (connects claim to supporting/contradicting source)
rc-db evidence add \
  --claim-id "DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN" \
  --source-id "source-id" \
  --direction supports \
  --strength 0.8 \
  --location "Table 3, p.15" \
  --reasoning "Direct measurement supports the claim"

# List evidence for a claim
rc-db evidence list --claim-id "DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN"

# List evidence from a source
rc-db evidence list --source-id "source-id"

# Get specific evidence link
rc-db evidence get EVLINK-2026-001

# Supersede (correct) an evidence link
rc-db evidence supersede EVLINK-2026-001 \
  --direction weakens \
  --reasoning "Re-evaluated: methodology concerns reduce support"

Reasoning Trails

# Add reasoning trail (documents why credence was assigned)
rc-db reasoning add \
  --claim-id "DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN" \
  --credence 0.75 \
  --evidence-level E2 \
  --evidence-summary "E2 based on 2 supporting, 1 weak counter" \
  --supporting-evidence "EVLINK-2026-001,EVLINK-2026-002" \
  --contradicting-evidence "EVLINK-2026-003" \
  --reasoning-text "Assigned 0.75 because..."

# Get active reasoning trail for a claim
rc-db reasoning get --claim-id "DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN"

# List all reasoning trails
rc-db reasoning list --claim-id "DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN"

# Get full reasoning history (including superseded)
rc-db reasoning history --claim-id "DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN"

Validation

rc-validate
# or: uv run python scripts/validate.py

# Strict mode (treat warnings as errors, including missing provenance)
rc-validate --strict

Export

rc-export yaml claims -o claims.yaml
rc-export yaml sources -o sources.yaml
rc-export yaml analysis-logs -o analysis-logs.yaml
rc-export md summary -o summary.md
rc-export md analysis-logs -o analysis-logs.md

# Provenance exports
rc-export md reasoning --id DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN -o analysis/reasoning/DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN.md
rc-export md reasoning --all --output-dir analysis/reasoning
rc-export md evidence-by-claim --id DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN -o analysis/evidence/by-claim/DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN.md
rc-export md evidence-by-source --id source-id -o analysis/evidence/by-source/source-id.md
rc-export provenance --format yaml -o provenance.yaml
rc-export provenance --format json -o provenance.json

Embedding Management

Semantic search requires embeddings. Check and manage embedding status:

# Check embedding coverage
rc-embed status
# or: uv run python scripts/embed.py status

# Generate missing embeddings (backfill)
rc-embed generate --verbose
# or: uv run python scripts/embed.py generate --verbose

# Regenerate all embeddings (after model change)
rc-embed regenerate --verbose
# or: uv run python scripts/embed.py regenerate --verbose

Troubleshooting:

• If rc-embed not found: pip install realitycheck or use uv run python scripts/embed.py
• If embedding generation fails: check sentence-transformers is installed
• Default model: all-MiniLM-L6-v2 (CPU-based, 384 dimensions)
• To skip embeddings in CI/tests: export REALITYCHECK_EMBED_SKIP=1

---

Epistemic Provenance (Optional but Recommended)

For high-credence claims (≥0.7) or strong evidence (E1/E2), capture the reasoning chain:

1. Link Evidence to Claims

Connect claims to their supporting/contradicting sources:

# Add evidence link
rc-db evidence add \
  --claim-id "DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN" \
  --source-id "source-id" \
  --direction supports \
  --strength 0.8 \
  --location "Table 3, p.15" \
  --reasoning "Direct measurement supports the claim"

# Directions: supports, contradicts, strengthens, weakens

2. Capture Reasoning Trails

Document why you assigned a particular credence:

rc-db reasoning add \
  --claim-id "DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN" \
  --credence 0.75 \
  --evidence-level E2 \
  --evidence-summary "E2 based on 2 supporting sources, 1 weak counter" \
  --supporting-evidence "EVLINK-2026-001,EVLINK-2026-002" \
  --contradicting-evidence "EVLINK-2026-003" \
  --reasoning-text "Assigned 0.75 because: (1) Two independent studies confirm X, (2) One methodologically weak study contradicts, discounted due to sample size issues"

3. Render Provenance Docs (Optional)

Export human-readable provenance for review:

# Single claim
rc-export md reasoning --id DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN -o analysis/reasoning/DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN.md

# All claims with trails
rc-export md reasoning --all --output-dir analysis/reasoning

# Evidence by source
rc-export md evidence-by-source --id source-id -o analysis/evidence/by-source/source-id.md

When to Capture Provenance

• Always for claims with credence ≥ 0.7 (validation will warn if missing)
• Always for claims with E1/E2 evidence (high-quality evidence needs documented reasoning)
• Recommended for controversial or novel claims
• Optional for routine factual claims with obvious sourcing

---

Token Usage Tracking (Lifecycle Mode)

For accurate per-check token attribution, use the lifecycle commands:

# 1. At workflow START (before fetch)
ANALYSIS_ID=$(rc-db analysis start \
  --source-id "[source-id]" \
  --tool claude-code \
  --model "claude-sonnet-4")

# 2. (Optional) Mark stage completions
rc-db analysis mark --id "$ANALYSIS_ID" --stage check_stage1
rc-db analysis mark --id "$ANALYSIS_ID" --stage check_stage2
rc-db analysis mark --id "$ANALYSIS_ID" --stage check_stage3

# 3. At workflow END (after registration, before validation)
rc-db analysis complete \
  --id "$ANALYSIS_ID" \
  --analysis-file "analysis/sources/[source-id].md" \
  --claims-extracted "DOMAIN-YYYY-001,DOMAIN-YYYY-002" \
  --estimate-cost \
  --notes "3-stage analysis + registration"

This captures tokens_baseline at start and tokens_final at completion, computing tokens_check = final - baseline for accurate cost attribution.

If session auto-detection fails (ambiguous sessions), use rc-db analysis sessions list --tool claude-code to find your session UUID, then pass --usage-session-id UUID to analysis start.

---

Update README (REQUIRED)

After registration and validation, update the data project's README.md:

1. Add Syntheses Table Entry (if created)

If you produced a synthesis document, add a row to the "Syntheses" table (kept above "Source Analyses"):

| YYYY-MM-DD | [Topic](analysis/syntheses/<synth-id>.md) | `[DRAFT/REVIEWED]` | Brief summary |

Insert at the top of the table (below header row), keeping entries reverse-chronological.

2. Add Source Analyses Table Entry

Edit $PROJECT_ROOT/README.md now. Find the "Source Analyses" table and insert a new row:

| YYYY-MM-DD | [Title](analysis/sources/<source-id>.md) | `[REVIEWED]` | Brief summary |

Insert at the top of the table (below header row), keeping entries reverse-chronological.

3. Update Stats Tables

Run the stats update script to refresh claim/source counts:

# From the realitycheck framework directory
scripts/update-readme-stats.sh "$PROJECT_ROOT"
# or: bash scripts/update-readme-stats.sh "$(dirname "$REALITYCHECK_DATA")"

This updates the "Current Status" and "Claim Domains" tables automatically.

---

File Inbox Items (if applicable)

If the source originated from inbox/, file it to its permanent location after analysis is complete. Do not leave processed items in inbox/.

Filing Destinations

Source Type	Destination	Notes
URL (fetched via WebFetch)	No file action needed	URL is recorded in source metadata
URL placeholder file (*.url, *.txt)	Delete	rm inbox/<file>
PDF/document (primary source)	reference/primary/<source-id>.<ext>	Rename to match source-id
PDF/document (supporting)	reference/captured/<filename>	Keep original filename
Screenshot/image	reference/captured/<source-id>-<desc>.<ext>	Descriptive suffix
Data file (CSV, JSON, etc.)	reference/captured/<filename>	Keep original filename
Video/audio transcript	reference/captured/<source-id>-transcript.<ext>

Filing Commands

# For primary documents (rename to source-id)
mv inbox/original-document.pdf reference/primary/<source-id>.pdf

# For supporting materials (keep original name)
mv inbox/supporting-data.csv reference/captured/

# For URL placeholders (just delete)
rm inbox/some-article.url

# For screenshots
mv inbox/screenshot.png reference/captured/<source-id>-homepage.png

Update Evidence Links (if applicable)

If you created evidence_links pointing to the inbox location, update them:

# The location field should use the new path
# artifact=reference/primary/<source-id>.pdf; locator=p.15

Verify Inbox is Clean

After filing, inbox/ should contain only unprocessed items:

ls inbox/  # Should not contain items you just analyzed

---

Commit and Push (REQUIRED)

You MUST commit and push after every successful analysis. This is not optional.

# From the data project root
cd "$(dirname "$REALITYCHECK_DATA")"

# Stage all changes (including filed reference materials)
git add data/ analysis/ tracking/ README.md claims/ reference/

# Stage inbox deletions (if any files were removed)
git add -u inbox/

# Commit with descriptive message
git commit -m "data: add [source-id] - [brief description]"

# Push to remote
git push

Do not stop until changes are committed and pushed. The analysis is incomplete without version control.

---

Continuation Mode

When using --continue on an existing analysis:

1. Find existing analysis: Look for analysis/sources/[source-id].md
2. Read current state: Load the existing analysis and registered claims
3. Iterate, don't overwrite: Add to the existing analysis rather than replacing it
4. Focus areas:
   • Extract claims that were skipped or noted as "TODO"
   • Deepen specific sections (more counterfactuals, stronger steelman)
   • Add evidence that was found after initial analysis
   • Address questions or gaps identified in the original pass
   • Cross-reference with newly added claims in the database
5. Preserve content: Append new sections, update claim counts, note what changed

---

Related Skills

• $rc-synthesize
• $rc-search
• $rc-validate
• $rc-stats