A record of scientific claims, the evidence under each one, and the exact test still needed before the claim is settled.
Badges show how far the checking has gone.
Each badge is explained on its entry and on the Method page.
Check a claim
Heard a claim and want to know where it really stands? Search the registry in plain language.
Find open hypotheses
A claim with no settled answer yet, and a specified test that would give one. For labs looking for the next move.
Suggest a claim
Know a claim that's repeated more than it's tested? Send it in. Every suggestion is public, and the ones taken up become entries held to the same six-field standard.
"What is known so far..." is the only fact science holds.
Badges show how far the checking has gone.
Peer-reviewedexperts read the paper before it was published
Verified at sourcewe read the original document and confirmed the quote
Replicatedanother lab re-ran the study and got the same result; the strongest signal, and fields keep refining their understanding after it
What this is
A record of scientific claims, the evidence under each, and the test that would settle it. A claim is listed because its test hasn't been run, or because its evidence has been reported differently from what the study measured. Every claim, including every competing hypothesis, goes through the same six fields and the same test standard.
The six fields
Claim as stated
Quoted from the paper, with a citation. A separate line records how it has been reported publicly, when that differs.
Evidence base
What the study did: design, sample, and what was measured.
Open assumption or alternative
What wasn't measured or ruled out.
What would settle it
The next step toward an answer, usually a specific test with the expected result if the claim holds and if it doesn't. Re-running an existing study is labelled a required replication. For a claim that can't be tested directly, this is the trail back to its earliest source.
Current status
Replications, published critiques, author responses, and whether the test has been run.
Author and conflicts
Who wrote the entry and any stake they have in the outcome.
Evidence tiers
The same four-step ladder works in any field. Each entry spells out what the tiers mean for its own subject; Entry 001 gives the prion version: present in a sample → acts in cultured cells → seeds an effect in an animal → causes clinical disease.
T1Observed or associated. A pattern is seen, or two things correlate.
T2Shown in a model. Demonstrated in a lab, a simulation, or a simplified stand-in.
T3Shown in the real system, partly. Demonstrated in the actual target, at limited scale or in one setting.
T4Established in the real system. Demonstrated in the real target, with a measured result others can reproduce.
Domains
Every entry files under a Core › Sub › Topic path: one of 14 core science categories, then a sub-science, then the specific topic. A field is placed under its best-fit primary category and cross-linked to the others it spans, so an interdisciplinary claim is findable from every angle without being duplicated. The full field index (~1,000 sub-sciences) sits behind these cores.
Three separate questions, each with its own words.
Hypothesis — has the claim been tested?
An entry gets a hypothesis status once a testable form of the claim is found.
Open HypothesisA test is defined and hasn't been run.
Under TestA test is in progress.
Resolved — SupportedThe test was run and the claim held.
Resolved — Not supportedThe test was run and the claim didn't hold.
Resolved — MixedResults conflict.
Peer review — has a reviewer checked this entry?
UnreviewedDrafted, not yet reviewed.
Open for reviewA reviewer is invited or working on it.
Peer reviewedA domain reviewer has signed off.
Source verification — how far has each source been read?
Verified at sourceThe original document was read and the quote confirmed.
Located, not readThe source is identified or in hand, not yet read in full.
UnlocatedThe source is named and hasn't been found yet.
UnreadablePaywalled or otherwise unavailable.
Identity unresolvedWhich paper the citation points to isn't yet known.
Per-source tags
Peer-reviewedReviewed by experts before publication.
PreprintPosted publicly before peer review.
ReplicationWhether another lab re-ran it. "Unknown" means not yet checked; "Not a primary test" marks reviews and cross-field citations.
FilesThe original paper or dataset, attached for anyone to check.
Entry flags
ActiveCited in current work.
LegacyAn older open question that current work may rest on.
ContestedTwo groups disagree on the right test; the entry shows both.
What makes a good test
Pre-specified.
Names the measurement, the design and the threshold before it's run.
Two-sided.
States the result that would support the claim and the result that wouldn't.
Runnable.
A lab could do it, and the entry says roughly what that would take.
Checkable.
Names a result to look for in advance.
How entries are written
Plain words, chosen so the study's authors would agree the entry describes their work accurately.
We write
Instead of
not addressed, not measured, not reported
ignored, hid, suppressed
concludes, states, reports
wants the public to believe
outside the study's scope
overlooked, missed
supported by, consistent with, replicated in
proven, confirmed
not supported by, contradicted by [study]
debunked, myth
current consensus
fact, settled
the study, the authors
mainstream, establishment
funded by [X], per the conflicts section
Big Pharma, industry-funded
researchers who propose [alternative]
skeptics, so-called, alleged
notable, unresolved
shocking, alarming
open question, replication gap
crisis, scandal
in [n] of [n] studies
always, never
Conflicts and provenance
01Every entry names its author and their stake, including any paid relationship touching the claim.
02Each quote is marked by how far it has been checked. AI-assisted research is disclosed, with reviewer and date.
03Paid review work is kept separate from public status, and payment never changes a rating.
The night sky
The Map
Every claim is a star. The more it connects — to its fields, and to the claims that rest on it — the brighter it burns. Colour says what state the claim is in, so a bright one is never mistaken for a true one.
Every star is an entry — hover to see what it connects to, click to open it
Brightness & size — how much turns on the claim: how many unresolved claims rest on it, or wait on it to be settled. A claim that would settle a test someone is running now shines brightest; a claim nothing waits on stays dim however much has been written about it. Brightness is leverage, never truth.
Color — the claim's evidence state:
Slate — under investigation, with no testable form of the claim found yet. No verdict has been offered.
Yellow — an open hypothesis: a test exists and has not been run.
Blue — under test right now.
Green — tested and held up, or independently replicated. The paths that look right so far.
Red — tested and did not hold up.
Violet — contested; two credible camps disagree on the test.
Two ways to read it
The overview sky
The whole registry at a glance. Claims cluster into their domains, so you can see where a field is crowded, where it's quiet, and which corners glow with popular-but-untested ideas. Zoom from a domain down to a sub-science and then a single claim. This is the front door — the sense of the whole.
A claim's constellation
Click any star to center it and see only what it touches: the claims it rests on, the ones that cite it, and the domains it spans. Small enough to read no matter how large the registry grows — the working view, for tracing one claim and finding the open tests around it.
What to settle next
The same measure as the brightness above, written out. A claim is here because
unresolved work waits on it — directly, or further up a chain. This is the list to read if you are
deciding where to spend effort; the sky is for seeing the shape, this is for choosing.
What you are looking at
Every star is a registry entry and every line is a connection the registry records: a solid line is a dependency one entry declares on another, a dashed line is a field the two share. A field holding most of the registry is not drawn as a line — it would join everything to everything — but it still pulls those claims together, so a crowded field reads as a cluster with a faint haze between its members rather than a thicket. Position is computed from those links, so claims that depend on each other sit together; the layout is seeded, so the same registry always draws the same sky. Nothing here is illustrative, and there is no filler: an empty region means nobody has filed a claim there yet.
Who's behind it
About
Assumption Check is built and operated by Priority Nexus LLC — an independent effort to turn down the noise around scientific claims and show people what the evidence actually says.
Priority Nexus LLCPrioritizing BoundariesOperator of the Assumption Check registry
Why this exists
Most confusion isn't a shortage of information — it's an excess of noise. Data, headlines, and urgent claims pile up faster than anyone can check them, and the original finding, the actual study and the real measurement, ends up buried under layers of citation that drift further from the source with each repetition.
Assumption Check is a flashlight for that dark. It traces a claim back to what was actually measured, marks how far the checking has gone, and names the one test that would settle it. Nothing is called true for being popular, peer-reviewed, or often repeated — only when the evidence holds.
The tools to do this at scale arrived just in time. Recovering a buried source and mapping how a claim drifted across a literature once took a specialist weeks; it can now be done carefully, in the open, and checked by anyone.
Core values
Identity
Every claim, source, and reviewer is named. You always know what you're looking at, and who stands behind it.
Transparency
The method, the wording rules, and each entry's confidence level are public — so the work can be held to its own standard.
Integrity
Findings follow the evidence, not funding, popularity, or pressure. Paid review never changes a public rating.
02The paid review service (Assumption Check for labs) runs separately from the public registry. Paying for a review never changes a claim's public status.
03Claims are scored the same way regardless of who holds them or how widely they're believed — and the score says how far the checking has gone, never that a claim is simply "true."
Get in touch
For collaboration, review, or funding enquiries: theaistherapist@gmail.com · Priority Nexus LLC.
To propose a claim for the registry, use the public suggestion form (a free GitHub account is needed), or email it to the address above.
