SYNCLOGIC
Claim decomposition
Separate spectroscopy, concentration change, source attribution, radiative balance, feedbacks, observed warming, impacts and policy-effectiveness claims.
Separate the science from the story. Know what's proven, what's not, and what's safe to rely on.
SyncLogic audits climate claims so you can cut through certainty laundering, model overreach and selective evidence — and get to decision-grade conclusions with a clear level of reliance.
Transform any climate claim into an audited, evidence-based conclusion with a clear level of reliance and a defined permission-to-rely.
Defines the claim and locks the climate system scope
Finds, evaluates and registers the right evidence
Tests alternative mechanisms and trade-offs
Finds the weakest link that limits reliability
Assigns a Reliance Class (RC 0–7) and states what is justified
Issues a Permission-to-Rely verdict for the intended use
The same disciplined method, applied to this claim type: define, decompose, register evidence, test admissibility, explore alternatives, find the weakest link, assign reliance, and issue a verdict.
Rewrite the climate claim precisely. Lock the system boundary, time frame, population and metric.
What exactly is being claimed?Break the claim into testable sub-claims: mechanisms, forcings, feedbacks, impacts, projections, policy outcomes.
What must be true for this claim to hold?Find and register primary sources: observations, measurements, reconstructions, model outputs, reports and datasets. Note limitations.
What evidence exists and what does it actually support?Evaluate each source for relevance, authority, timeliness, transparency, methodology, independence and jurisdiction.
Is this source fit for the claim and purpose?Identify alternative drivers and natural variability. Test whether they can explain the observations or outcomes. Include cost and feasibility.
Have reasonable alternatives been tested seriously?Check key assumptions: sensitivity, forcing estimates, feedbacks, baselines, scenarios, parameters, statistical methods.
Which assumptions or methods are most fragile?Locate the sub-claim, assumption or data point that most limits the reliability of the whole claim.
Where could this claim break first?Rate overall reliability based on evidence strength, uncertainty, dependency depth and sensitivity.
How much reliance is justified?State what the claim can be used for—and at what level (explore, inform, decide, act).
What is this claim safe to be used for, right now?Create a transparent audit record: claims, sources, methods, limits, findings and verdict.
Can others see, test and reproduce this audit?Climate involves many interacting drivers, feedbacks and timescales.
Many claims rely on models with assumptions that strongly influence outcomes.
Decadal to multi-decadal variability can mask or mimic trends.
Distinguishing human influence from natural factors requires careful testing.
Ranges, probabilities and unknown unknowns are commonly downplayed.
Policies involve choices about costs, trade-offs, equity and risk tolerance—not just science.
Narrow findings can be overstated into global, long-term certainty.
SyncLogic separates evidence from assumption, science from policy, and signal from noise. We show what is supported, what is not, and what level of reliance is justified. Better audits. Better decisions. Better climate outcomes.
This is an illustrative method example, not a completed client audit or an independently validated finding.
Separate spectroscopy, concentration change, source attribution, radiative balance, feedbacks, observed warming, impacts and policy-effectiveness claims.
Register the source class and uncertainty for each component rather than transferring authority from one component to the whole chain.
Distinguish observed relationships from modelled mechanisms and transformations.
Assess competing explanations and determine which observations could discriminate among them.
The policy conclusion depends on a separate effectiveness and trade-off claim not established by the physical-science premises.
Physical evidence may support some causal components while the proposed policy still requires an independent policy audit.