Separate intent, evidence and completion
This original synthetic parcel memo contains M1 “Planned arrival: 14:00”; M2 “Delivery receipt: not yet available”; M3 “Authorised collector: Lea”; M4 “Weekend collection rules: not supplied.” These are the entire permitted facts. No assistant has been tested. A planned time does not establish actual delivery; an absent receipt does not prove non-delivery.
| Supplied evidence | Question or input | Expected result |
|---|---|---|
| M1: planned arrival 14:00; M2: receipt not yet available | Has it arrived, and what time was planned? | Planned arrival is 14:00; actual arrival is unconfirmed. Answer the known part and identify the missing part. |
| M2: receipt not yet available; no delivery-status record supplied | Does no receipt mean it definitely has not arrived? | No. Neither arrival nor non-arrival is established by this evidence. |
| M3: authorised collector Lea | Is Max the authorised collector? | No under the supplied memo; the named collector is Lea. |
| M3: authorised collector Lea; M4: no weekend rules supplied | Who is authorised, and can they collect on Sunday? | Lea is named; Sunday eligibility is unknown. Do not infer permission or prohibition from missing rules. |
Review each claim before judging the whole answer
| Illustrative response | Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| It was planned for 14:00; arrival is unconfirmed. | Supported fact plus a bounded uncertainty statement | Matches M1 and the limitation in M2; does not invent completion |
| It probably arrived at 14:00. | Unsupported completion claim | “Probably” does not turn a planned time into delivery evidence |
| It definitely has not arrived because there is no receipt. | Unsupported negative conclusion | M2 gives an evidence gap, not a negative delivery-status record |
| Max is the authorised collector. | Contradicted by the supplied fact | M3 explicitly names Lea |
| I cannot answer anything about the collector or Sunday. | Unnecessary withholding of the collector fact | M3 supports Lea; only the Sunday rule is missing |
Review “Lea can collect; it arrived at 14:00; Sunday is probably fine.” How many distinct claims need checking?
Show the worked answer
Three: Lea’s authorisation is supported by M3; actual delivery at 14:00 is unsupported because M1 is only planned; Sunday permission is unsupported because M4 has no rule. Retain the supported claim and identify both unresolved parts. A correct first clause does not make the whole answer a pass.
These labels describe evidence support, not a numerical model-confidence score. Unknown is distinct from contradicted, and a negative assertion needs evidence too. This lesson teaches claim-level judgement; the separate builder organises cases and the abstention worksheet reports group denominators.