Datasets:
| # P1–P5 probe construction | |
| Probes were handcrafted from each base conditional relation tuple. They were not | |
| generated by a model, so there is no probe-generation prompt or generator to run. | |
| Each tuple family has five intended claims: | |
| | Probe | Transformation | Gold label | | |
| |---|---|---| | |
| | P1 | Contradict the relation | Not Supported | | |
| | P2 | Replace the condition | Not Enough Evidence | | |
| | P3 | Remove the condition | Not Enough Evidence | | |
| | P4 | Preserve the original condition-scoped relation | Supported | | |
| | P5 | Contradict the condition | Not Supported | | |
| Boundary rule: the label concerns whether the complete claim is licensed in the | |
| given paragraph. General plausibility outside the supplied text is irrelevant. | |
| `Tuple_ID` is the family key and `ProbeID` identifies the individual claim. The | |
| canonical files in `data/probes/` contain the released claim text and label. | |
| There was no distinct machine-readable “manual filtering and audit decisions” file. | |
| The deposited canonical rows reflect the completed manual construction. The review | |
| spreadsheets retained in `provenance/manual_review_sources/` are contextual source | |
| materials and should not be described as an exhaustive decision ledger. | |