AI 中文总结
本文提出证据记录（Evidence Record）原语，以定义性类成员资格作为公共记录变更的可认证引用单元，通过哈希固定和确定性事件分类实现可验证引用，并区分可认证与不可认证的边界。
AI 中文摘要
公共记录会以对后续解释重要的方式发生变化，然而精确引用这种变化是困难的——最关键的在于，将变化可证明地是什么与其被声称意味着什么区分开来。定义性类成员资格——即变化是否匹配一个可客观检查的谓词——是可认证的：它可以对照所引用的来源进行独立验证。在我们的评审设计中，重要性或评审优先级并未得到认证：有能力的评审者并未就此达成一致。我们引入了证据记录（Evidence Record），这是一种确定性的、哈希固定的、声明受限的原语，它通过任何读者都能验证其完整性的记录使公共记录变更可被引用，并明确携带其定义性类成员资格。完整性仅凭已发布的包即可检查；而判定大多数类谓词还需要注册表状态，记录通过哈希标识这些状态但并未嵌入其中。我们在TrialDiff中针对此http URL协议修订实现了该原语，并报告了边界的两个方向。在可认证方面，对100项与乳腺癌相关的干预性试验的固定非随机语料库进行确定性事件分类，产生了可引用的记录；一个朴素的“主要终点在完成后发生变化”标志在73个补丁上触发，但其中63个与结果发布同时发生，仅有10个是干净的——这一区分是作为可检查的定义性谓词而非经过验证的优先级判断做出的。发表后发现的两个方向相反缺陷通过重新发布而非重写得到纠正。在不可认证方面，一个衍生的严重性/优先级标签在盲法对抗性评审下无法被认证（评审者对30项中4至17项的确认，而预先注册的门槛为30项中24项），因此仅作为未校准的元数据发布。公共记录变更的可认证引用单元是定义性类成员资格，而非优先级排序。
英文摘要
Public records change in ways that matter for later interpretation, yet citing a change precisely is difficult--most consequentially, separating what the change demonstrably is from what it is claimed to mean. Definitional class membership--whether a change matches an objectively checkable predicate--is certifiable: it can be independently verified against the cited source. Importance or review-priority did not certify in our review design: competent reviewers did not converge on it. We introduce the Evidence Record, a deterministic, hash-pinned, claim-bounded primitive that makes a public-record change citable through a record whose integrity any reader can verify, and that carries its definitional class memberships explicitly. Integrity is checkable from the published package alone; deciding most class predicates additionally requires registry state that records identify by hash but do not embed. We implement it in TrialDiff for ClinicalTrials.gov protocol amendments and report both directions of the boundary. On the certifiable side, deterministic event-classes over a fixed, non-random corpus of 100 breast-cancer-related interventional trials yield citable records; a naive "primary endpoint changed after completion" flag fires on 73 patches, but 63 co-occur with results posting and only 10 are clean--a separation made as a checkable definitional predicate, not a validated priority judgment. Two defects found after publication, in opposite directions, were corrected by reissue rather than rewriting. On the uncertifiable side, a derived severity/priority label could not be certified under blinded adversarial review (reviewer confirmations of 4 to 17 of 30 against a pre-registered 24/30 gate) and is released only as uncalibrated metadata. The certifiable citation unit for a public-record change is definitional class membership, not a priority ranking.
Comments11 pages. Dataset: doi:10.5281/zenodo.21811845 (concept doi:10.5281/zenodo.20801956)
