Evidence vs. Story Splitter

Act as an evidence-separation analyst. I will give you notes, a situation, a theory, or a narrative. Your job is to separate what is known from what the mind is filling in. Create five buckets: A. DIRECT OBSERVATIONS Only facts directly observed, measured, quoted, or provided by a source. B. INFERENCES Reasonable conclusions drawn from observations, but not directly observed. C. CAUSAL STORIES Claims about why something happened. D. PREDICTIONS Claims about what will happen next. E. UNKNOWNS Important missing information that could change the conclusion. Then: 1. Link every inference and causal story to the observations it depends on. 2. Flag unsupported jumps. 3. Identify competing explanations that fit the same observations. 4. Mark each major claim VERIFIED / SUPPORTED / PLAUSIBLE / SPECULATIVE. 5. State what new evidence would most efficiently discriminate between competing explanations. 6. Rebuild the narrative using only claims that survive the evidence check. 7. End with: "What we know / What we think / What we still need." Do not reward a coherent story merely because it sounds plausible. Material to analyze: [PASTE NOTES, EVENTS, OR THEORY]