{
  "claim": "Trinnstyring i innkjoeringssonen gir 18 % lavere energibruk enn dagens fastnivaa.",
  "judgement": "undecided",
  "refuter": null,
  "judgement_note": "undecided, not survived. The one concept that could have carried a refutation was unreadable, so the claim was not actually attacked -- and a claim that was not attacked has not survived. Returning survived here would convert a gap in the knowledge base into support for the claim, which is the inversion this role exists to prevent.",
  "materialisation_note": "frontmatter_verbatim is AUTHORITATIVE: it is the bytes a test materialises into a throwaway concept file before reading them back. frontmatter is its line-oriented projection and is informative only -- by construction it cannot carry a block form, which is why concept 2 has no sources key there. Materialising from frontmatter would derive state: absent and silently lose the unreadable case this example exists to demonstrate.",
  "concepts": [
    {
      "concept_id": "kilder-tunnelbelysning-realisering",
      "frontmatter_verbatim": "---\ntype: kilder\ntitle: Realiseringsgap ved tunnelbelysning\nverified: { by: human:aeriksen@example.org, at: 2026-08-11T09:20:00Z }\nsources: [{ id: nve-2024, resource: rapport-nve-2024.pdf, title: NVE 2024 }, { id: sintef-2023, resource: sintef-tr-a7712.pdf, title: SINTEF TR A7712 }]\nadjudication: adjudicated\n---\n",
      "frontmatter": {
        "type": "kilder",
        "title": "Realiseringsgap ved tunnelbelysning",
        "verified": "{ by: human:aeriksen@example.org, at: 2026-08-11T09:20:00Z }",
        "sources": "[{ id: nve-2024, resource: rapport-nve-2024.pdf, title: NVE 2024 }, { id: sintef-2023, resource: sintef-tr-a7712.pdf, title: SINTEF TR A7712 }]",
        "adjudication": "adjudicated"
      },
      "evidence": {
        "state": "present",
        "reason": null,
        "items_seen": 2
      },
      "derived": {
        "trust_tier": "human-reviewed",
        "adjudication": "adjudicated"
      },
      "relied_on": true,
      "note": "State is present and the tier is not unverified, so the verdict may rest on this concept. The tier derives as human-reviewed because the verified actor carries the human: prefix; a bare actor would have derived machine-confirmed, which also clears the threshold."
    },
    {
      "concept_id": "tiltak-trinnstyring-innkjoringssone",
      "frontmatter_verbatim": "---\ntype: tiltak\ntitle: Trinnstyring i innkjoeringssonen\nsources:\n  - resource: leverandoerblad-2025.pdf\n    title: Leverandoerblad 2025\n  - resource: driftslogg-2025.csv\n    title: Driftslogg 2025\n---\n",
      "frontmatter": {
        "type": "tiltak",
        "title": "Trinnstyring i innkjoeringssonen"
      },
      "evidence": {
        "state": "unreadable",
        "reason": "block-sequence",
        "items_seen": 2
      },
      "derived": {
        "trust_tier": "unverified",
        "adjudication": "unknown"
      },
      "relied_on": false,
      "note": "Two independent reasons to discount, reported separately rather than merged. The sources value is written as a block list, which is not the accepted form: the state is unreadable, the shape is named, and two entries were seen. Independently, no verified key means the tier derives as unverified, and no adjudication key means unknown -- not proposed. Discounted, not rejected: the concept remains readable and its prose was read."
    }
  ],
  "ledger_note": "tiltak-trinnstyring-innkjoringssone's driftslogg entry would have been the first place to look for a refutation of the 18 % figure. It is reported as (unreadable, block-sequence, 2) rather than as absent evidence, because 'written in a form I could not read' and 'not there' point at different repairs -- and because it was unreadable rather than exhausted, the judgement is undecided rather than survived.",
  "denominator": {
    "concepts_considered": 7,
    "concepts_consulted": 2,
    "method": "navigation from the bundle index, depth-first in link order"
  }
}