Claim Deduplication Workflow

Starting point

For each candidate claim extracted from a new article:

1. Normalize the claim.
2. Search existing claim pages.
3. Compare the candidate against the closest existing claims.
4. Decide one of four outcomes:

MERGE INTO EXISTING CLAIM
CREATE NEW CLAIM
ADD AS DISSENT / COUNTERPOSITION
ADD AS RELATED CLAIM LINK ONLY

Step 1: Normalize the candidate claim

Before comparing, rewrite the candidate claim into a clear canonical form.

A canonical claim must be:

• declarative,
• specific,
• debatable,
• source-grounded,
• not merely a topic,
• not merely a quote,
• not merely an implication.

Use this form:

[Actor/context] + [asserted relationship/change/problem] + [scope/condition if needed]

If the article says something vague, convert it into the strongest fair proposition without overstating it.

If the result is not debatable or reusable, do not create a claim page. Keep it as a note on the article page.

After the canonical proposition is clear, rewrite the visible claim title and claim sentence using Plain-Language Style Guide. The working rule is: first make the claim precise, then make it usable for Clay’s future scanning. Do not change URL slugs merely to match friendlier wording.

Step 2: Search for possible existing matches

Search existing claims by:

1. Shared nouns/entities.
2. Shared verbs/relationships.
3. Shared practical implications.
4. Shared evidence type.
5. Shared parent Big Idea or topic.

Only compare against plausible matches. Do not compare against the whole wiki manually unless needed.

Step 3: Classify the relationship

For each plausible existing claim, classify the candidate claim’s relationship to it.

The possible relationships are:

SAME CLAIM
NARROWER VERSION
BROADER VERSION
OVERLAPPING BUT DISTINCT
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
DISSENTING / COUNTERCLAIM
ADJACENT / RELATED ONLY
UNRELATED

Then follow the decision tree below.

Decision tree

1. Is the candidate actually a reusable claim?

If no, do not create or merge a claim page.

Action:

Add it only to the article page as a note, implication, quote, or key idea.

If yes, continue.

A reusable claim must satisfy all of these:

• it is debatable,
• it can be supported or challenged by multiple sources,
• it is useful outside the current article,
• it is not just a restatement of the article title,
• it is not merely a broad topic.

2. Is there an existing claim with the same core proposition?

Ask:

Would proving or disproving the existing claim also substantially prove or disprove the candidate claim?

If yes, merge.

Action:

MERGE INTO EXISTING CLAIM

The new article is added to the existing claim page under the correct evidence relationship:

• support,
• dissent,
• nuance,
• example,
• implication,
• caveat.

Do not create a new claim page.

If no, continue.

3. Is the candidate only a narrower version of an existing claim?

Ask:

Is the candidate a more specific case, domain, example, population, tool, practice, or condition of an existing claim?

If yes, apply the Distinct Evidence Test.

Distinct Evidence Test

Create a separate claim only if at least 2 of the following 4 are true:

1. The narrower claim is likely to accumulate its own sources.
2. The narrower claim requires different evidence than the broader claim.
3. Accepting the narrower claim would lead to a different practical implication.
4. The narrower claim is important enough to be discussed independently in synthesis pages.

If fewer than 2 are true:

MERGE INTO EXISTING CLAIM

Add the candidate as a subsection, nuance, example, or implication under the broader claim.

If 2 or more are true:

CREATE NEW CLAIM

And add reciprocal related links between the broader and narrower claim.

4. Is the candidate a broader version of an existing claim?

Ask:

Does the candidate generalize one or more existing claims into a wider proposition?

If yes, apply the Generalization Test.

Generalization Test

Create the broader claim only if all of the following are true:

1. It can connect at least two existing or likely future narrower claims.
2. It has synthesis value beyond simply renaming the narrower claim.
3. It is not so broad that it becomes a topic or Big Idea.
4. It changes how the evidence should be organized.

If all are true:

CREATE NEW CLAIM

Then:

• link narrower claims as related or child claims,
• add the new article as support/nuance/etc.,
• do not erase the existing narrower claim.

If not all are true:

MERGE INTO THE BEST EXISTING CLAIM

or keep as an article-level idea if no good target exists.

5. Does the candidate contradict or substantially challenge an existing claim?

Ask:

Is the candidate mainly arguing against the existing claim?

If yes, apply the Counterclaim Test.

Counterclaim Test

Create a separate counterclaim only if at least 2 of the following 4 are true:

1. The counterclaim is likely to recur in future sources.
2. It has its own evidence base.
3. It leads to meaningfully different practical implications.
4. It represents a stable debate position, not just a caveat.

If fewer than 2 are true:

MERGE AS DISSENT / NUANCE

Add it to the existing claim page under:

## Dissenting or complicating sources

If 2 or more are true:

CREATE NEW CLAIM

Then add reciprocal links.

6. Does the candidate overlap but produce a different decision implication?

Ask:

If someone accepted the candidate claim, would they do something materially different than if they accepted the existing claim?

If yes:

CREATE NEW CLAIM

And link the two as related claims.

If no, continue.

7. Does the candidate use the same evidence base as an existing claim?

Ask:

Would the same sources, data, examples, or arguments mostly support or challenge both claims?

If yes, merge unless there is a strong reason to separate.

Action:

MERGE INTO EXISTING CLAIM

If no, continue.

8. Is the relationship mainly conceptual adjacency?

Ask:

Are the claims about related ideas, but neither one proves, disproves, narrows, broadens, or materially modifies the other?

If yes:

CREATE NEW CLAIM

and add a:

## Related claims

link between them.

Do not merge.

9. Is no existing claim close enough?

If no existing claim passes the merge, narrower/broader, counterclaim, shared-evidence, or adjacency tests:

CREATE NEW CLAIM

Link it to at least one Big Idea, article, or topic if possible.

Outcome rules

Outcome A: Merge into existing claim

Use when:

• same core proposition,
• narrower case that does not pass the Distinct Evidence Test,
• broader framing that does not pass the Generalization Test,
• same evidence base and same practical implication,
• minor wording/framing difference.

Required action:

Update existing claim page.
Do not create a new claim page.
Add article B as support/dissent/nuance/example/implication.

Outcome B: Create new claim

Use when:

• no existing claim is close enough,
• candidate passes the Distinct Evidence Test,
• candidate passes the Generalization Test,
• candidate passes the Counterclaim Test,
• candidate has a different practical implication,
• candidate has a distinct evidence base,
• candidate is overlapping but substantively distinct.

Required action:

Create a new claim page.
Link to source article.
Link to related Big Idea.
Add related-claim links where relevant.

Outcome C: Merge as dissent / nuance

Use when:

• the candidate challenges an existing claim,
• but does not pass the Counterclaim Test,
• or the disagreement is a caveat rather than a stable opposing position.

Required action:

Add article B to the existing claim page under dissent, nuance, caveat, or complicating evidence.
Do not create a new claim page.

Outcome D: Related claim link only

Use when:

• the candidate is a valid separate claim,
• it does not support or challenge the existing claim directly,
• neither claim is a narrower/broader version of the other,
• accepting one does not substantially prove or disprove the other,
• but readers would benefit from seeing the conceptual relationship.

Required action:

Create or update the candidate claim page separately.
Add reciprocal related-claim links.
Do not merge evidence sections.

Short version

1. Is it reusable?
   No → keep on article page only.
   Yes → continue.
 
2. Same core proposition as existing claim?
   Yes → merge.
 
3. Narrower version of existing claim?
   Yes → separate only if it passes Distinct Evidence Test; otherwise merge.
 
4. Broader version of existing claim?
   Yes → separate only if it passes Generalization Test; otherwise merge.
 
5. Counterclaim?
   Yes → separate only if it passes Counterclaim Test; otherwise add as dissent/nuance.
 
6. Different practical implication?
   Yes → create new claim + related link.
 
7. Same evidence base and same implication?
   Yes → merge.
 
8. Adjacent but distinct?
   Yes → create new claim + related link.
 
9. No close match?
   Create new claim.

Governing principle

Prefer merging over creating a new claim page unless the distinction changes the evidence, implication, or debate structure.

Do not merge merely because two claims share a topic. Shared topic alone creates a related link, not a merge.