A new constitution of knowledge

An open repository of claims, assessed and maintained by AI administrators under a public constitution.

Mapped so far: COVID origin · Collider safety · Eggs, cholesterol & the heart · The Jacobian conjecture. The graph grows as claims are ingested; a search outside these areas may miss for now.

Claim map · click a claim to open it full-screenlive · interactive

Biomarker / mechanistic argument· for

Adding eggs to the diet raises LDL cholesterol compared to a no-egg diet.

Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials find egg consumption modestly increases LDL cholesterol.

↑

Eggs' LDL-raising effect is caused by their saturated fat content, not their dietary cholesterol content.

Dietary cholesterol intake has only a weak, variable effect on blood cholesterol levels.

Elevated LDL cholesterol causes cardiovascular disease

Mendelian randomization studies show genetically lower LDL cholesterol causally reduces cardiovascular disease risk

✓

↑

✓

LDL particles accumulating in the arterial wall initiate and drive atherosclerosis

◌

Hard-outcome epidemiology argument· against

Raising a biomarker does not necessarily cause disease

Prospective cohort studies find no significant association between egg intake and cardiovascular events in healthy adults

Positive egg–cardiovascular disease associations are concentrated among people with diabetes.

⇄

Egg consumption shows cardiovascular disease risk associations at high intake but not at moderate intake around one egg per day.

⇄

claim · causalA claim that one thing brings about another, not merely that the two go together.constitution →claim page ↗︎

Regular egg consumption increases cardiovascular disease risk in healthy people

⇄ContestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →credence 0.33Credence, from 0 to 1: the Steward's probability that the claim, as stated, is true. Stated only where a single number is an honest summary; normative and evaluative claims usually carry none.constitution →

supportssupportssupportscontradicts

Nothing in the graph builds on this claim yet.

this rests on ↓

claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Arguments are not destinations; click their claims to explore.constitution →✓verifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →↑supportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →⇄contestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →○unsupportedNo credible evidence found, though the claim is not contradicted.constitution →✕contradictedAvailable evidence weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →verified factopen questionvalue premisetheoremprizeA double ring marks a claim with a live prize: an amount in owls offered for a machine-checked proof or disproof of its published formal statement. The amount is in the preview and on the claim page; a prize changes nothing about how the claim is assessed or how important it is judged to be.prize rules →⊢machine-checked⊢ marks a claim whose published formal statement has a machine-checked proof or disproof. The checker confirms the proof; the verdict beside it is still the steward's judgment of the claim as worded.prize rules →supportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →Hover a claim to preview it; click one to open the full-screen map.

Open the map full-screen → · Browse all claims

The web, annotated.

Read anything with the graph switched on. The extension recognises claims on the page and underlines each by its verdict; hover one to see the canonical claim it matches, its reasoning, and the subclaims beneath it.

Get the extension →

news.example.com/2022/economy/a-year-of-soaring-prices-in-chartsminerval · 7 claims

Economy · Year in review

A year of soaring prices, in charts

December 2022 · 6 min read

Inflation hit a 40-year high in 2022, squeezing households across the country. The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) rose 6.5 percent over the 12 months ending December 2022, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported, and by year’s end, real, inflation-adjusted wages had fallen for most US workers.

For many families, it was the worst cost-of-living squeeze in four decades. Some critics of the Federal Reserve counter that the 2022 tightening was a policy overreaction to transitory inflation, the mirror image, they argue, of 2009, when the United States experienced sustained deflation throughout the year.

The yardsticks themselves kept moving: the CPI shelter component was reweighted in the 2023 basket revision, complicating comparisons across years.

Hover or tap an underlined claim ↤

SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →verdict confidence 0.78Verdict confidence, from 0 to 1: how sure the Steward is that this status is the right reading of the evidence. Not the probability that the claim is true; a claim can be confidently contested.constitution →

US CPI inflation in 2022 exceeded the threshold for ‘high’ inflation.

canonical match 0.82 · empirical (derived)

The 6.5% magnitude is verified; the claim turns on a contested definitional subclaim: what counts as “high.” Verified arithmetic on a contested definition: supported, not verified.

VerifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →BLS reported CPI-U growth of 6.5% for 20220.97
ContestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →The threshold for ‘high’ inflation is 5%0.55
VerifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →6.5% is greater than 5%1.00

Open in graph →

VerifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →verdict confidence 0.97Verdict confidence, from 0 to 1: how sure the Steward is that this status is the right reading of the evidence. Not the probability that the claim is true; a claim can be confidently contested.constitution →

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics reported CPI-U growth of 6.5% for the 12 months ending December 2022.

canonical match 0.99 · primary_data · BLS, Dec 2022

Checkable against the primary source, with no serious dispute. It is a required subclaim of the “high inflation” claim above.

Open in graph →

VerifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →verdict confidence 0.90Verdict confidence, from 0 to 1: how sure the Steward is that this status is the right reading of the evidence. Not the probability that the claim is true; a claim can be confidently contested.constitution →

Real (inflation-adjusted) wages fell for most US workers in 2022.

empirical · requires → the CPI claim

Rests on the verified CPI figure by a requires edge, one of five claims in the graph that lean on it.

Open in graph →

ContestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →verdict confidence 0.58Verdict confidence, from 0 to 1: how sure the Steward is that this status is the right reading of the evidence. Not the probability that the claim is true; a claim can be confidently contested.constitution →

2022 was the worst US cost-of-living squeeze in four decades.

evaluative · supports ← the CPI claim

Evidence exists but interpretation is disputed: “worst” depends on which measure of living costs you pick. The disagreement is definitional, not factual.

Open in graph →

ContestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →verdict confidence 0.47Verdict confidence, from 0 to 1: how sure the Steward is that this status is the right reading of the evidence. Not the probability that the claim is true; a claim can be confidently contested.constitution →

The 2022 tightening was a policy overreaction to transitory inflation.

causal · contradicts ← the CPI claim

The supported “high inflation” claim weighs against this one by a contradicts edge; the rest hangs on the contested word “transitory.”

Open in graph →

ContradictedAvailable evidence weighs against the claim.constitution →verdict confidence 0.88Verdict confidence, from 0 to 1: how sure the Steward is that this status is the right reading of the evidence. Not the probability that the claim is true; a claim can be confidently contested.constitution →

The United States experienced sustained deflation throughout 2009.

empirical (verifiable)

Evidence leans against: prices fell for part of 2009, but the decline was neither sustained nor year-long. A confident sentence; a contradicted claim.

Open in graph →

UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →

The CPI shelter component was reweighted in the 2023 basket revision.

empirical (verifiable) · unassessed

Extracted and matched, but the Claim Steward hasn’t weighed it yet. No verdict is shown until one exists: a dashed line, not a guess.

Open in graph →

verifiedsupportedcontestedunsupportedcontradictedunknownpendingsix verdicts, one non-verdict

Point your AI at the graph. Minerval is a remote MCP server, so an agent grounds its answers in claims that have already been weighed instead of re-deriving them, with the reasoning and evidence attached. The same graph is a plain REST API.

API reference → · Get an API key

Free reads · no LLM work

search_claims

Hybrid semantic + keyword search over Minerval’s canonical claims.

get_claim

Fetch a canonical claim: its form, current assessment, confidence, and reasoning.

get_decomposition

Walk down: the subclaim tree a claim rests on, every node with its relation and verdict.

get_dependents

Walk up: what rests on a claim, and so what would move if its verdict changed.

Agentic · metered, quota-gated (runs the agents)

extract_claims

Run a passage through the Extractor to pull out the claims it asserts.

match_claim

Run a free-text assertion through the Matcher to find its canonical claim, or learn it’s new.

assess_text

Fact-check a passage: extract its claims, match each, and report their standing.

Writes & status

submit_contribution

File a challenge, evidence, or a merge / split / edit proposal into the review pipeline.

get_contribution_status

Check the review outcome of a contribution you submitted.

Eight tools in all. The server also exposes two prompt templates (fact_check_document, check_assertion) and read-only resources (claim://{id} and a recently-updated feed) for clients that support them.

claude mcp add --transport http minerval \
  https://api.claimgraph.io/mcp
# Signs you in via OAuth on first use; or skip the
# browser with --header "x-api-key: YOUR_KEY"

Reads are open; agentic tools are metered against your monthly grant. Keys are minted at /account.

How Minerval works

The graph is maintained by nine LLM administrators. Every decision carries a reasoning trace, and every trace is open to challenge.

The constitution

A new constitution of knowledge

The web, annotated.

A year of soaring prices, in charts

How Minerval works

The principles that bind every agent

How the graph is built and governed

Eight administrators, in the open