Is there enough evidence to answer?

What the dossier contains

The educational T500 specification states a nominal capacity of 500 ml and an empty mass of 280 g. The lid is removable; the instructions permit handwashing the lid. No information on dishwasher use is given.

A separate protocol describes a temperature-retention test: 450 ml of a drink at an initial temperature of 95 °C was poured into the mug. The mug remained closed for six hours at an ambient temperature of +20 °C; at the end, the drink temperature was at least 60 °C. The supplied material does not investigate other ambient temperatures or opening patterns.

The parameters already need distinguishing. 500 ml is the nominal capacity; 450 ml is the volume used in the test. A result for one fill volume cannot be extended to every amount of liquid without evidence.

Nor does “hot” in the question define a precise threshold. An answer can report the measured value and its conditions. Without clarification, we cannot declare it to be exactly the result a particular person needs.

Supported, contradicted or still unknown

A useful review establishes the claim’s relationship to the available information separately. “Nominal capacity: 500 ml” is directly supported by the specification. “Nominal capacity: 450 ml” contradicts that parameter in the educational dossier: the number comes from another field. “The lid is dishwasher-safe” is neither permitted nor prohibited by the available instructions.

The third case must not be turned into a negative answer. The absence of a dishwasher statement does not prove a prohibition. It marks the boundary of the evidence the editor currently has.

The SNLI research distinguishes entailment, contradiction and a neutral relationship between texts. A neutral hypothesis may be true, but the premise does not establish it. This distinction is useful in product analysis provided that the information concerns the same object under consistent conditions.

Such a textual check does not establish the truth about a real product. The error may lie in the specification itself, the version selected or the extracted value. Before the document is used as evidence, its connection to the required model must be checked under the dossier review rules.

The retrieved passage must actually answer the question

If a passage is not supplied in advance, it must first be found. Searching for “lid” and “wash” may return instructions for another model. The topic fits; the evidence does not apply.

FEVER separates evidence retrieval from verifying a claim against the retrieved sentences. Its outcomes are “supported”, “refuted” and “not enough information” relative to the selected corpus. Evidence passages are recorded for support and refutation.

A catalogue needs comparable traceability: which document and passage were used, why they apply to this product and which conditions were retained. “Supported” alone does not make the decision checkable.

Failure to find evidence also has several possible explanations. A document may be absent from the available database, poorly recognised or missing from the search results. Distinguish “this passage contains no information”, “no answer was found in the checked document set” and “the manufacturer explicitly prohibits the action”. These states require different next steps.

When an accurate answer is only partial

For “what result was obtained after six hours at +20 °C?”, the protocol gives a specific answer: at least 60 °C with the stated fill volume and the mug closed. It does not answer the sub-zero question. The +20 °C result can be given separately with clear conditions. A tested regime must not stand in for an unknown one.

The same applies to a partial answer about paint thinning. A permitted thinner answers “with what?”, but not necessarily “how much?” or “how will the coating change?” Separating questions makes it possible to see exactly which answer is supported.

When assessing answer sufficiency, distinguish three judgements: the phrase is supported by the source; it applies to the selected product; it is sufficient for the question asked. Passing the first does not guarantee the other two.

An insufficient answer can be narrowed, the unknown status retained or further data requested. An added explanation must not create the impression that the original broad question is fully resolved. “Tested at +20 °C; no data for sub-zero conditions” honestly states the boundary but does not establish suitability for a winter walk.

Where a justified inference ends

Direct extraction, calculation and a benefit inference require different checks. Two nominal volumes of 500 ml can be added to give one litre. That calculation says nothing about temperature-retention time or the ease of carrying two mugs.

A removable lid and permission to handwash it support an explanation of an action: the lid can be removed and washed separately. “Care takes only a few seconds” would need other evidence — a measurement of the procedure under clear conditions. A simple design does not establish a specific time saving.

The empty mass of 280 g is a comparison parameter. It does not imply that a hand will never tire or that everyone will find the mug comfortable. A filled mug has a different mass, and the experience depends on further circumstances. Expressive writing must stay within what is supported.

“May” does not remove that boundary. “May retain temperature for 24 hours” introduces an unsupported duration if the dossier contains only a six-hour test. Conditional wording does not create a missing measurement.

Trace each step of an inference: which fact was used, which immediate consequence follows and which additional assumption was needed. If the promise cannot be reached without that assumption, confirm it separately or narrow the wording to what is actually justified.

Comparisons need common conditions

“Keeps drinks hot twice as long” requires more than T500’s result. The alternative, criterion and comparability of tests must be defined. Different fill volumes, starting temperatures, ambient conditions or opening patterns can change the meaning of the comparison.

If one model was tested to a threshold of 60 °C and another to 40 °C, simply dividing the times does not establish the claimed advantage. A common measured outcome must first be defined.

Not every difference needs to become superiority. Two sets with the same total volume may contain different numbers of tubes. A higher-capacity mug may suit one task and be excessive for another. Explaining the difference and the conditions under which it matters helps the buyer choose.

Without comparable data, it is reasonable to describe the product’s own supported parameters. Generic claims such as “better than alternatives” or “the perfect solution” do not supply the missing basis for comparison.

What to pass on to the writing stage

Several decisions can be prepared for T500. Retain capacity and mass as specification parameters. Publish the test result with its essential conditions. Refer dishwasher suitability for clarification. Do not use a universal promise for sub-zero conditions as a supported property.

The permitted phrase should retain its question, evidence and restrictions. Then the shortened “at least 60 °C after six hours” can be checked: have the drink’s initial temperature, ambient temperature, fill volume and closed-mug condition been retained? Losing them changes the strength of the promise.

A review system should also be able to show what it did: copied a parameter, converted a unit, calculated an arithmetic result or made a practical inference. The transformation history helps investigate an error but does not replace checking each step.

A test set should contain both supported and unsupported claims with the same number “six”. Accepting both reveals a verification error, though it does not by itself explain the cause. Correct calculations are needed too: an evaluator should not reject them merely because the final value is absent from the source.

Selection leaves parameters, explanations and conditions that can be used. They still need to be placed where readers can find the answer and where a restriction remains linked to its promise. The title, specifications, description and instructions serve different purposes here.