@nebulacomponents/citable 0.1.0

package/dist/universal/.pi/agent/skills/citable/references/anti-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+# Citable anti-pattern library
+
+Canonical reference used by all commands. When a requested change matches an
+entry, name it, state the risk, and offer the defensible alternative. Entries
+marked ⛔ must be refused outright (premise 3.6), not merely discouraged.
+
+## Content anti-patterns
+
+| Anti-pattern | Risk | Defensible alternative |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Generic AI introductions ("In today's rapidly evolving landscape…") | Suppresses answer extraction; signals commodity content (ANS-001) | Direct answer in the first 50–100 words |
+| Excessive preamble before the answer | Passage extraction pulls filler instead of the claim | Lead with the canonical answer block |
+| Keyword stuffing | Spam-policy exposure; unreadable prose (PAGE-009) | Semantic coverage driven by explanation needs |
+| Synthetic information gain (rewriting top results) | No citation reason; no durable differentiation | Original data, experience, taxonomy, benchmarks |
+| Repeated conclusions / decorative FAQs | Dilutes extractable claims; FAQ schema risk (SCHEMA-007) | One canonical answer location per question |
+| ⛔ False precision / unsupported statistics | Legal + reputational; CLAIM-004/ANS-005 | Publish numbers only with methodology and period |
+| Circular definitions | Engine cannot anchor the concept (ANS-003) | Genus–differentia definition plus exclusions |
+| ⛔ Fake comparisons / unbounded superlatives | Deceptive-claim exposure (CLAIM-007) | Explicit comparison set, criteria, and evidence |
+| ⛔ Invented expertise / anonymous substantive content | E-E-A-T failure; regulatory exposure | Real named authors with verifiable profiles |
+| Hidden commercial bias | Undisclosed endorsement liability | Disclose commercial relationships |
+| Duplicated programmatic prose | Index bloat, quality dilution | Programmatic pages only with unique data + owner |
+
+## Technical anti-patterns
+
+| Anti-pattern | Risk | Defensible alternative |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| "Index everything" | Crawl waste, quality dilution | Deliberate indexing_intent per page |
+| Schema saturation | Invisible-assertion violations | Schema only for visible, registry-backed facts |
+| Sitemap dumping (redirects, 404s, non-canonicals) | TECH-008/009/010 | Generate sitemaps from the canonical URL set |
+| Canonical misuse (variants → irrelevant page, pagination → page 1) | Signal consolidation failures | One canonical per distinct content object |
+| JavaScript-only primary content | Render-stage failure (TECH-011) | SSR/SSG for answer-bearing content |
+| ⛔ Crawler cloaking / bot-specific deceptive rendering | Spam-policy removal | Serve equivalent content to bots and users |
+| Unbounded faceted URLs | Index bloat, crawl waste | Controlled parameters + canonical rules |
+| Redirect-dependent architecture | Chain latency, signal loss (TECH-013) | Direct links to final URLs |
+| Automated links from term matching alone | Manipulative-link footprint (LINK-004) | Curated contextual links |
+| Evidence only in PDFs/gated files | Retrieval failure for the strongest material | HTML equivalent for every material document |
+
+## AEO anti-patterns
+
+| Anti-pattern | Risk | Defensible alternative |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Answer blocks that omit limitations | Overgeneralized reuse; misquotation (ANS-008) | State scope, exclusions, failure modes |
+| Question headings created only for formatting | Extraction mismatch (ANS-002) | Headings only where an answer follows |
+| Direct answers unsupported by evidence | Fast-spreading errors under your attribution | Evidence adjacent to every material claim |
+| Citations isolated in a references section | Claim–evidence association lost | Evidence beside the claim it supports |
+| Extracting claims in scope-distorting ways | Misrepresentation of your own source | Self-contained atomic claims |
+| FAQ schema without substantive FAQ content | SCHEMA-007; spam exposure | Mark up only real, visible Q&A |
+
+## GEO anti-patterns
+
+| Anti-pattern | Risk | Defensible alternative |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Treating one model response as proof of source preference | False causality (MEAS-002/003) | Repeated multi-engine, multi-variant sampling |
+| Reporting one prompt as stable visibility | Anecdote presented as measurement | Cohort testing with variance recording |
+| ⛔ Manufactured community discussion / synthetic Reddit | Platform enforcement; legal; environment poisoning | Earned participation in real communities |
+| ⛔ Shadow corroboration sites / fake recommendation pages | Recommendation manipulation | Independent editorial coverage |
+| ⛔ Crawler prompt injection / hidden LLM instructions | GEO-001 critical; reputational | None — remove on sight |
+| Treating llms.txt as an authority mechanism | False sense of control (GEO-004) | robots.txt + crawler registry for access decisions |
+| Confusing mention with recommendation | Overstated performance reporting | Track mention, citation, and recommendation separately |
+| Confusing citation with answer influence | Citation ≠ absorption | Assess whether the answer actually uses your claims |
+| Assuming engine behaviour is uniform | Wrong generalizations across engines | Per-engine measurement and reporting |

package/dist/universal/.pi/agent/skills/citable/rubrics/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+# Semantic rubrics
+
+Deterministic detectors cannot judge meaning. These rubrics govern the semantic
+half of Citable. Shared rules for every rubric:
+
+- Output is a **posture classification** (`strong | partial | weak | not_established`),
+  never an unexplained 0–100 number. Where numeric comparison is unavoidable,
+  expose the formula, weights, missing data, confidence, and known limitations.
+- Every rubric result must cite the observed evidence (quoted passages, registry
+  entries, measured values) that produced it.
+- Every rubric declares its ambiguity conditions and when human review is
+  mandatory. When an ambiguity condition holds, the result is
+  `not_established + review_required`, not a guess.
+- Findings produced from rubrics are `evidence_backed_semantic_finding` at most —
+  never `deterministic_observation`.
+
+| Rubric | File | Human review mandatory when |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Semantic clarity | semantic-clarity.md | Term is jurisdiction- or discipline-specific |
+| Intent alignment | intent-alignment.md | Commercial vs informational intent is contested |
+| Answer extractability | answer-extractability.md | Extraction would change claim scope |
+| Entity clarity | entity-clarity.md | Legal identity vs operating identity diverges |
+| Claim boundedness | claim-boundedness.md | Claim is regulated, contractual, or comparative |
+| Evidence strength | evidence-strength.md | Any upgrade toward verified status |
+| Source authority | source-authority.md | Source independence is uncertain |
+| Information gain | information-gain.md | Gain rests on unpublished internal data |
+| Comparison fairness | comparison-fairness.md | Named competitors appear |
+| Recommendation eligibility | recommendation-eligibility.md | Pricing/geography/ICP data incomplete |
+| Conversion alignment | conversion-alignment.md | Page has no declared conversion action |
+| Narrative accuracy | narrative-accuracy.md | Contradiction involves legal or security facts |

package/dist/universal/.pi/agent/skills/citable/rubrics/answer-extractability.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# Rubric: answer extractability
+
+Judges whether a page's principal answer survives being lifted out of the page
+without distortion. Complements deterministic ANS-00x detectors.
+
+## Scoring dimensions
+
+1. **Position** — canonical answer within the first 50–100 words after the H1.
+2. **Self-containment** — passage names its subject explicitly; no deictic
+   references ("as shown above"), no pronoun whose referent is outside the passage.
+3. **Atomicity** — one claim per key sentence; each independently understandable.
+4. **Scope survival** — if the passage is quoted alone, its conditions and
+   exclusions travel with it (in-sentence, not three paragraphs later).
+5. **Definition quality** — "[Term] is [genus] that [differentia]" plus explicit
+   "It does not include…".
+6. **Structural support** — procedures as ordered steps; comparisons with stated
+   basis and prose equivalent of any table.
+
+## Posture
+
+- `strong`: dimensions 1–4 all hold for the page's principal question.
+- `partial`: answer present but scope/exclusions live outside the extractable span.
+- `weak`: answer buried after preamble, or dependent on visual context.
+- `not_established`: the page has no identifiable principal question (fix the
+  page registry first — this is an intent problem, not a formatting problem).
+
+## Evidence required
+
+Quote the exact passage judged, with its position (paragraph index / selector).
+
+## Example / counterexample
+
+- Strong: "AI execution governance is the set of enforceable controls that
+  determines whether a specific AI-initiated action is authorized at the moment
+  of execution. It does not include model training governance."
+- Weak: "This matters more than ever. As we saw above, there are many angles to
+  consider before diving into what this means for your organization."
+
+## Ambiguity conditions → human review
+
+- Extraction would change the claim's scope (dimension 4 fails in a way that
+  affects a registered claim).
+- The principal question is contested between informational and commercial intent.
+- Content is legally qualified language where tightening wording changes meaning.

package/dist/universal/.pi/agent/skills/citable/rubrics/claim-boundedness.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+# Rubric: claim boundedness
+
+Judges whether a claim's wording stays inside its evidence, scope, and
+exclusions — the semantic complement to CLAIM-00x detectors.
+
+## Scoring dimensions
+
+1. **Scope explicitness** — conditions under which the claim holds are stated
+   in the claim or immediately adjacent, not implied.
+2. **Exclusion honesty** — known non-covered cases stated; material limitations
+   not omitted (a limitation the buyer would consider material must appear).
+3. **Type fidelity** — opinion phrased as opinion, aspiration as aspiration,
+   comparison with its comparison set, performance with its conditions.
+4. **Quantifier discipline** — "all/every/always/never/only" only when evidence
+   covers the universal; otherwise scoped quantifiers.
+5. **Temporal honesty** — version/date-bound facts carry their version or date.
+
+## Posture
+
+`strong`, `partial` (scope stated, exclusions thin), `weak` (wording exceeds
+evidence or universal quantifiers uncovered), `not_established` (claim not in
+registry — run `/citable map-claims`).
+
+## Example / counterexample
+
+- Bounded: "In configured enforcement deployments, Gatekeeper validates each
+  action before execution. Advisory-only deployments are excluded."
+- Unbounded: "Gatekeeper stops every unauthorized AI action." (universal
+  quantifier, no scope, no exclusions → `weak`; substantiate outcome at best
+  `verified_narrowed` after rewording).
+
+## Ambiguity → human review
+
+- Regulated, contractual, security, financial, medical, certification, or
+  customer claims (always — mirrors CLAIM-006).
+- Narrowing the wording would change a published commercial commitment.

package/dist/universal/.pi/agent/skills/citable/rubrics/comparison-fairness.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+# Rubric: comparison fairness
+
+Judges whether a comparison page is legitimate analysis rather than a stacked
+deck. Complements ANS-007 (basis exists) with a judgment of whether the basis
+is honest.
+
+## Scoring dimensions
+
+1. **Criteria legitimacy** — comparison dimensions are ones a buyer would use,
+   not dimensions selected because only the author wins them.
+2. **Alternative completeness** — legitimate alternatives a buyer would
+   shortlist are included; excluding the strongest competitor is a fairness
+   failure, not an editorial choice.
+3. **Evidence per cell** — comparative assertions about *other* vendors carry
+   sources and retrieval dates (their docs, public pricing), not assumptions.
+4. **Loss disclosure** — the author's product loses at least where it actually
+   loses; a comparison with zero conceded dimensions is presumptively unfair.
+5. **Currency** — competitor capabilities dated; stale claims about others are
+   both unfair and legally risky.
+
+## Posture
+
+`strong` (all five), `partial` (fair criteria, thin sourcing), `weak`
+(criteria stacked or no conceded dimensions), `not_established` (competitor
+data unavailable → mark incomplete; never guess competitor capabilities).
+
+## Ambiguity → human review
+
+- Any named competitor (legal review of comparative claims — always).
+- Competitor capability changed recently and sources conflict.

package/dist/universal/.pi/agent/skills/citable/rubrics/conversion-alignment.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+# Rubric: conversion alignment
+
+Judges whether optimization preserved or improved the page's commercial
+function — the guard against "optimized for machines, ruined for buyers"
+(premise 3.7).
+
+## Scoring dimensions
+
+1. **Action preservation** — the registered conversion_action is still present,
+   visible, and functional after changes.
+2. **Stage fit** — the action matches the funnel stage of the mapped
+   queries/prompts.
+3. **Friction honesty** — added answer blocks, definitions, or schema did not
+   push the conversion element below the fold on the page's dominant viewport
+   class (verify, don't assume).
+4. **Trust continuity** — limitations and scope statements added for AEO/GEO
+   are framed accurately but not self-sabotagingly (state the limitation; don't
+   editorialize against your own product).
+5. **Accessibility preserved** — interactive conversion elements keep their
+   labels, focus order, and keyboard operability after edits.
+
+## Posture
+
+`strong`, `partial` (action present, stage fit doubtful), `weak` (action lost,
+demoted, or broken), `not_established` (no conversion_action registered —
+that's an inspect/registry finding first).
+
+## Evidence required
+
+Before/after presence of the conversion element (selector or line reference)
+and the registry conversion_action row.
+
+## Ambiguity → human review
+
+- Page has no declared conversion action but obviously sells something.
+- Optimization requires choosing between answer position and conversion
+  position — commercial owner decides, not the optimizer.

package/dist/universal/.pi/agent/skills/citable/rubrics/entity-clarity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+# Rubric: entity clarity
+
+Judges whether an external system can resolve who/what an entity is, what it
+owns, and what category it belongs to — across owned and observed surfaces.
+
+## Scoring dimensions
+
+1. **Identity completeness** — canonical name, type, canonical URL, and (for
+   organizations) legal vs operating identity explained.
+2. **Relationship graph** — ownership and product-family relationships recorded
+   and mirrored in structured data (@id references, publisher links).
+3. **Cross-surface consistency** — same category and description across website,
+   profiles, directories, documentation (small wording drift is normal;
+   *category contradiction* is the failure).
+4. **Alias governance** — every name variant in the wild is either registered
+   as an alias or scheduled for correction.
+5. **External anchoring** — sameAs/profiles limited to verified authoritative
+   accounts.
+
+## Posture
+
+`strong`, `partial` (identity complete, cross-surface unverified),
+`weak` (category contradiction or ownership ambiguity), `not_established`
+(identity fields missing — mark the entity `incomplete`; never invent legal
+names, founders, addresses, or registration status).
+
+## Evidence required
+
+Registry entity row, schema blocks, and the exact conflicting descriptions with
+their sources and retrieval dates.
+
+## Counterexample (category contradiction)
+
+Website: "AI execution governance platform" / LinkedIn: "ethical AI consulting"
+/ directory: "AI marketing automation" → `weak`, with each conflicting surface
+listed as a contradiction finding.
+
+## Ambiguity → human review
+
+- Legal identity vs operating identity diverge (renames, acquisitions).
+- Entity shared between organizations (joint ventures, resold products).

package/dist/universal/.pi/agent/skills/citable/rubrics/evidence-strength.md

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+# Rubric: evidence strength
+
+Judges whether attached evidence actually supports a claim *as worded*. This is
+the mandatory semantic gate before any claim moves toward `verified`
+(`citable substantiate` handles only the deterministic preconditions).
+
+## Scoring dimensions
+
+1. **Directness** — does the evidence address the claim's exact proposition, or
+   an adjacent one? ("handles 10k rps" is not supported by "architecture is
+   horizontally scalable".)
+2. **Primacy** — primary artifact (test result, specification, certification,
+   registration) vs secondary report of one.
+3. **Methodological completeness** — methodology, test conditions, measurement
+   period, population, and environment recorded and appropriate.
+4. **Currency** — evidence dated within the claim's temporal class (see
+   lifecycle table in the AEO source doc §8).
+5. **Independence** (for comparative/market claims) — at least one source not
+   controlled by the claiming organization.
+6. **Coverage of scope** — evidence covers every deployment/scenario inside the
+   claim's declared scope; anything uncovered must appear in exclusions.
+
+## Posture
+
+- `strong`: all six dimensions satisfied; claim wording does not exceed evidence.
+- `partial`: directness + currency satisfied, but scope coverage or primacy
+  incomplete → outcome is `verified_narrowed` with explicit narrowed scope.
+- `weak`: evidence is adjacent, stale, or secondary-only → `insufficient_evidence`.
+- `not_established`: evidence inaccessible or methodology absent.
+
+## Confidence
+
+`confirmed` only when the evidence artifact itself was read (not its registry
+row). `high` when methodology and directness verified. Never above `medium`
+when working from registry metadata alone.
+
+## Example / counterexample
+
+- Supported: "Gatekeeper validates actions before execution *in enforcement
+  deployments*" ← architecture spec + live validation report covering
+  enforcement mode. Scope stated, exclusions stated.
+- Not supported: "reduces compliance costs by 70%" ← a customer quote saying
+  "significantly reduced our costs". Quote is directional, not quantitative;
+  outcome is `insufficient_evidence` with required_input: baseline, period,
+  population, methodology, source.
+
+## Ambiguity conditions → human review
+
+- Any upgrade toward `verified`/`verified_narrowed` (always).
+- Evidence in a language or jurisdiction the reviewer cannot assess.
+- Contradictory evidence exists of comparable primacy.
+- Claim is legal/regulatory, security, financial, medical, certification, or
+  names a customer — legal/SME review regardless of evidence quality.

package/dist/universal/.pi/agent/skills/citable/rubrics/information-gain.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+# Rubric: information gain
+
+Judges whether a page contributes information not available elsewhere — the
+difference between a citable source and a summary of other sources.
+
+## Scoring dimensions
+
+1. **Original artifact presence** — at least one of: original data, benchmark,
+   controlled experiment, incident analysis, reference architecture,
+   proprietary taxonomy (defined, not just named), survey, reproducible
+   methodology, first-party operational observation, reusable tool.
+2. **Non-derivability** — could a competent writer produce this page from the
+   current top results alone? If yes, gain is synthetic.
+3. **Specificity** — concrete versions, numbers-with-methodology, named failure
+   modes; not abstract advice.
+4. **Reproducibility** — methods described well enough to re-run or falsify.
+
+## Posture
+
+`strong` (dimension 1 + 2 hold), `partial` (original framing, no original
+artifact), `weak` (restatement of existing sources), `not_established`
+(gain claimed from internal data that is not published — publish it or drop
+the claim of originality).
+
+## Counterexample
+
+"10 best practices for AI governance" synthesized from existing articles, with
+an LLM paraphrase pass — scores `weak` regardless of length or formatting.
+
+## Ambiguity → human review
+
+- Gain rests on unpublished internal data (publication/licensing decision).
+- Original data involves customers or regulated metrics.

package/dist/universal/.pi/agent/skills/citable/rubrics/intent-alignment.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+# Rubric: intent alignment
+
+Judges whether page content actually serves the intent declared in the page
+registry and the queries/prompts mapped to it.
+
+## Scoring dimensions
+
+1. **Declared vs delivered** — a page targeting "vendor evaluation" must contain
+   evaluation material (capabilities, limitations, pricing qualification,
+   comparison), not a re-titled awareness article.
+2. **Intent purity** — informational and transactional intents separated unless
+   the registry deliberately combines them.
+3. **Query/prompt fit** — for each mapped query_id/prompt_id, the page contains
+   the expected answer components recorded in the registry.
+4. **Next-step coherence** — the conversion action matches the funnel stage
+   (awareness pages don't push "buy now"; selection pages don't end at a blog
+   subscription).
+
+## Posture
+
+`strong` (all mapped queries served, next step coherent), `partial` (primary
+query served, variants uncovered), `weak` (declared intent contradicted by
+content), `not_established` (no registry mapping — run `/citable map-queries`
+first).
+
+## Evidence required
+
+The registry mapping rows plus quoted page passages that do (or fail to) serve
+each expected answer component.
+
+## Counterexample
+
+A page registered for "how to implement X" (implementation intent) whose body
+is a category pitch with no steps — flagged by ANS-006 deterministically; this
+rubric additionally judges whether the *substance* matches even when an ordered
+list exists.
+
+## Ambiguity → human review
+
+- Commercial vs informational intent contested for a revenue-relevant page.
+- Two registries map conflicting intents to the same URL (also ARCH-004/005).

package/dist/universal/.pi/agent/skills/citable/rubrics/narrative-accuracy.md

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+# Rubric: narrative accuracy
+
+Judges whether a generated answer (or third-party description) accurately
+represents the entity, against the approved narrative baseline in the entity
+and claim registries. Used by `/citable test-prompts` scoring and
+`/citable monitor-contradictions`.
+
+## Scoring dimensions
+
+1. **Identity accuracy** — right organization, right products, right people;
+   no entity confusion with similarly named parties.
+2. **Category accuracy** — placed in the registry category, not an adjacent one.
+3. **Claim fidelity** — priority claims reproduced within their scope; scope
+   stripping counts as an error even when the words match.
+4. **Omission materiality** — missing limitations or exclusions that change a
+   buyer's conclusion count as inaccuracies, not just absences.
+5. **Fabrication detection** — asserted facts with no owned or observed source
+   (certifications, customers, integrations, breach events) — classify by
+   contradiction type: naming, legal identity, category, capability,
+   performance, pricing, integration, maturity, customer, founder, security,
+   regulatory status, product availability.
+
+## Posture
+
+`strong` (identity + category + claims accurate, no material omissions),
+`partial` (accurate identity, minor claim drift), `weak` (category error or
+scope-stripped claims), `not_established` (single observation only — needs
+repeated sampling before any posture is recorded; MEAS-002).
+
+## Evidence required
+
+The exact generated output, capture metadata (engine, model, date, locale,
+account state), the registry rows compared, and per-error classification.
+
+## Severity mapping (GEO incident classes)
+
+- SEV-1: fabricated breach/regulatory action, false certification claim →
+  incident runbook, not just a finding.
+- SEV-2: wrong category across engines, false integration, stale pricing.
+- SEV-3: stale biography, minor wording drift, intermittent omission.
+
+## Ambiguity → human review
+
+- Contradiction involves legal or security facts (always).
+- The "error" may reflect a true fact the registries have not caught up with —
+  verify internal truth before external correction (runbook step 4).

package/dist/universal/.pi/agent/skills/citable/rubrics/recommendation-eligibility.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+# Rubric: recommendation eligibility
+
+Judges whether an engine has enough qualified information to defensibly
+recommend the product — distinct from citation eligibility. RECO-001…006 check
+presence deterministically; this rubric judges adequacy.
+
+## Scoring dimensions
+
+1. **ICP precision** — target user described with qualifying attributes (size,
+   sector, operational situation), not "companies that want to do X better".
+2. **Non-ICP honesty** — a real buyer segment is excluded, with the reason.
+3. **Qualification data** — deployment models, geography, integrations,
+   pricing (public or explicitly qualified), maturity signals.
+4. **Proof linkage** — recommendation-relevant claims trace to registry claims
+   with evidence (not marketing copy that bypasses the claim registry).
+5. **Limitation materiality** — stated limitations are ones a buyer would care
+   about, not humble-brags ("we're so focused on enterprise…").
+6. **Purchase path** — a concrete next action exists and matches the segment.
+
+## Posture
+
+`strong` (1–5 hold), `partial` (ICP + data present, limitations cosmetic),
+`weak` (concealed commercial data or no exclusions), `not_established`
+(pricing/geography/ICP unknown to the auditor → required_input list, no guessing).
+
+## Counterexample
+
+A product page whose only limitation is "not for teams unwilling to invest in
+excellence" and whose pricing is "contact us" with no qualification of range,
+model, or floor — `weak` on dimensions 3 and 5.
+
+## Ambiguity → human review
+
+- Pricing disclosure is a business decision pending → record `not_established`,
+  route to the commercial owner; do not infer price ranges.
+- Regulated buyer segments (finance, health) in the ICP.

package/dist/universal/.pi/agent/skills/citable/rubrics/semantic-clarity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+# Rubric: semantic clarity
+
+Judges whether a page's subject, terminology, and relationships are unambiguous
+to a system that has never seen the organization before.
+
+## Scoring dimensions
+
+1. **Single subject** — one primary entity/concept per page; competitors for
+   attention (multiple unrelated H2 topics) lower the score.
+2. **Controlled terminology** — one canonical term used consistently; variants
+   only if registered as aliases (ENTITY-006 flags drift deterministically;
+   this rubric judges whether the drift is meaningful or benign inflection).
+3. **Explicit relationships** — product→organization, capability→product,
+   evidence→capability, concept→adjacent-concept distinctions stated in prose.
+4. **Category anchoring** — the entity's category named in text, matching the
+   registry category.
+5. **Jargon load** — proprietary terms defined at first meaningful use.
+
+## Posture
+
+`strong` (1–4 hold), `partial` (subject clear, relationships implicit),
+`weak` (subject or category ambiguous), `not_established` (page has no
+registered primary entity — fix the registry first).
+
+## Evidence required
+
+Quoted passages showing the category statement and each relationship; the
+registry entity rows compared against.
+
+## Example / counterexample
+
+- Strong: "Gatekeeper is a runtime enforcement component *from Example
+  Governance* in the *AI execution governance* category. It differs from
+  observability tooling because…"
+- Weak: a page alternating between "platform", "framework", "suite", and
+  "solution" for the same product, with the category never named.
+
+## Ambiguity → human review
+
+- Term meaning is jurisdiction- or discipline-specific (e.g., "authorization"
+  in IAM vs healthcare).
+- Two registered entities legitimately share the page (partnership pages).

package/dist/universal/.pi/agent/skills/citable/rubrics/source-authority.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+# Rubric: source authority
+
+Judges how much weight an external source can carry as corroboration. Used by
+`/citable audit corroboration` and evidence review.
+
+## Scoring dimensions
+
+1. **Editorial independence** — no ownership, payment, or reciprocal
+   arrangement with the claiming organization; disclosed relationships reduce
+   but do not zero the score, *undisclosed* ones zero it.
+2. **Topical retrieval presence** — is this a source engines already retrieve
+   for the topic? (Observed citations in prompt-results are the evidence.)
+3. **Substantive treatment** — the source describes the entity accurately and
+   substantively, not a directory one-liner.
+4. **Stability** — stable URL, accessible to retrieval systems, not paywalled
+   into invisibility.
+5. **Provenance** — publisher identity, publication date, and (for research)
+   methodology visible.
+
+## Posture
+
+`strong` (independent + retrieved + substantive), `partial` (independent but
+thin or unproven retrieval), `weak` (interest-conflicted or unstable),
+`not_established` (independence cannot be determined → treat as owned until
+verified).
+
+## Hard exclusions (never count as corroboration)
+
+Paid "best vendor" lists presented as editorial · fabricated comparison sites ·
+synthetic community mentions · fake reviews · undisclosed sponsorships ·
+programmatic pages ranking their own operator first · AI-generated third-party
+profiles. These are anti-patterns to report, not sources to weigh.
+
+## Ambiguity → human review
+
+- Source independence uncertain (affiliate links present, sponsor unclear).
+- Source is authoritative in one jurisdiction but not the claim's jurisdiction.

package/dist/universal/.pi/agent/skills/citable/schemas/claim.schema.json

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+{
+  "$id": "citable://schemas/claim.schema.json",
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "title": "Claim registry",
+  "allOf": [{ "$ref": "citable://schemas/common.defs.json#/definitions/registryFile" }],
+  "properties": {
+    "kind": { "const": "claims" },
+    "entries": { "items": { "$ref": "#/definitions/claim" } }
+  },
+  "definitions": {
+    "claim": {
+      "type": "object",
+      "required": ["claim_id", "claim", "claim_type", "status"],
+      "properties": {
+        "claim_id": { "$ref": "citable://schemas/common.defs.json#/definitions/id" },
+        "claim": { "type": "string", "minLength": 3 },
+        "claim_type": { "type": "string", "enum": ["factual", "capability", "performance", "comparative", "definitional", "commercial", "legal_regulatory", "security", "opinion", "position", "aspirational"] },
+        "entity": { "type": "string" },
+        "scope": { "type": "array", "items": { "type": "string" } },
+        "exclusions": { "type": "array", "items": { "type": "string" } },
+        "assumptions": { "type": "array", "items": { "type": "string" } },
+        "evidence": { "type": "array", "items": { "type": "string" } },
+        "external_corroboration": { "type": "array", "items": { "type": "string" } },
+        "contradictory_sources": { "type": "array", "items": { "type": "string" } },
+        "legal_status": { "type": "string", "enum": ["approved", "restricted", "prohibited", "review_required", "not_assessed"] },
+        "publication_surfaces": { "type": "array", "items": { "type": "string" } },
+        "query_coverage": { "type": "array", "items": { "type": "string" } },
+        "prompt_coverage": { "type": "array", "items": { "type": "string" } },
+        "owner": { "type": "string" },
+        "status": { "type": "string", "enum": ["candidate", "unverified", "verified", "verified_narrowed", "insufficient_evidence", "contradicted", "expired", "prohibited", "review_required", "retired"] },
+        "valid_from": { "$ref": "citable://schemas/common.defs.json#/definitions/isoDate" },
+        "expires": { "$ref": "citable://schemas/common.defs.json#/definitions/isoDate" },
+        "last_verified": { "$ref": "citable://schemas/common.defs.json#/definitions/isoDate" },
+        "source_location": { "type": "string" },
+        "support_assessment": {
+          "type": "object",
+          "required": ["status"],
+          "properties": {
+            "status": { "type": "string", "enum": ["directly_supported", "partially_supported", "inferred", "contradicted", "not_assessed"] },
+            "assessor": { "type": "string" },
+            "assessment_method": { "type": "string" },
+            "assessment_date": { "$ref": "citable://schemas/common.defs.json#/definitions/isoDate" },
+            "supporting_passages": { "type": "array", "items": { "type": "string" } },
+            "unsupported_components": { "type": "array", "items": { "type": "string" } },
+            "confidence": { "type": "string", "enum": ["confirmed", "high", "medium", "low", "unknown"] },
+            "human_review_required": { "type": "boolean" }
+          }
+        },
+        "provenance": { "$ref": "citable://schemas/common.defs.json#/definitions/provenance" }
+      }
+    }
+  }
+}