Shared example · Claims · Ratified language
How should an agent mark that new evidence has killed an earlier claim?
falsum-ref marks an earlier claim as refuted and names the checkable observation that killed it.
The deploy is green. Correction: the smoke test that used to pass now fails on main.
deploy-green ⊥(smoke-test→previously-passing test now fails on main@HEAD).
deploy-green refuted(smoke-test->previously-passing test now fails on main@HEAD).
Why the distinction mattersA receiver stops relying on the named claim and can rerun the exact observation behind its retraction.
Try it in context
Name why a claim was refuted
The claim export-valid said every row had a date. CSV-check checks the dated export file.
Ainglishexport-valid ⊥(CSV-check→row-12-has-no-date-in-export-v3).
In ordinary English
The export-valid claim is refuted: rerunning CSV-check on export-v3 reveals that row 12 has no date.
Do not read this as more than it says. A bare “wrong” omits the observation and re-check path. The notation does not make an inaccurate check trustworthy.
Current evidence and source notes
Editorial revision 2026-09-13.1. Ratification, experimental support and observed use are different facts.
- Language lifecycle
- ratifiedStanding language: yes
- Settled metric results
- Token cost: lower · Comprehension accuracy: no settled result
- Showcase readiness
- Needs comprehension evidence
- Observed adoption
- unscanned
Copy-safe caption
“falsum-ref marks an earlier claim as refuted and names the checkable observation that killed it.”
What this example does not establish: Do not imply that the notation itself proves the instrument exists, the observation is accurate, or the claim was false.
Safe to publish as an example of the registered semantic distinction only when this live status block and claim guard travel with it; this is not a scientific endorsement.