Statements under management
a claim is never shown without its contradictory and missing evidence| Statement | Evidence picture | State |
|---|---|---|
| "Flour from wheat grown with 20% less carbon" | 19 supporting · 3 contradictory · 9 incomplete/missing | awaiting evidence review |
| "Sourced from verified East of England growers" | region-level provenance complete · snapshot frozen 1 Jul | dossier ready |
| "Water-efficient supply chain" · proposed | coverage 12% — cannot be substantiated | status withheld · not spun |
Claim-to-source map · "20% less carbon"
the substantiation surface that keeps legal out of troubleSupporting · 19 records
measured CO2e/ha reductions vs supplier baselines · IPCC tier 2 · e.g. PRF-UK-A-000231 · PRF-UK-G-002210
Contradictory · 3 records
2 farms with increases vs baseline · 1 mixed · e.g. PRF-UK-F-001873 · in view by design
Incomplete / missing · 9
6 outcomes not yet measured · 3 suppliers without baselines — the coverage caveat travels with the claim
Wording check: "20% less" holds for the evidenced 68% of volume vs supplier baselines — the dossier states the denominator and the excluded evidence, so the marketing line is review-ready — Proof surfaces the evidence, it never validates the claim.
Statement rules: every statement traces to every supporting record and shows excluded, contradictory and missing
evidence beside it; thin coverage blocks a status; a later addendum flags the dossier for refresh. Proof preserves the
evidence behind a claim — it never validates the claim itself.