Documentation
How the reasoning engine works, and a full worked example.
How It Works
The Problem
You have a question. Multiple sources are telling you different things. Some are trustworthy, some aren’t. Some claims are old, some are fresh. Some directly contradict each other. You need to know: what should I actually believe, and how confident should I be?
What the Engine Does
SummerEyes runs your investigation through four formal reasoning systems:
Source WeightingEach source gets an effective credibility score based on their reliability, source type, competence on the specific topic, and any conflicts of interest. An SEC regulator with 0.85 reliability carries more weight than an anonymous tipster at 0.15.
Temporal DecayOlder claims lose weight automatically. The engine uses a 180-day half-life: a six-month-old claim has half the evidential weight of a fresh one. Every claim in the output shows its decay factor so you can see what’s stale.
Opinion FusionClaims are fused using formal opinion mathematics. First within each source (so one source making the same claim twice doesn’t double-count), then across independent sources (so corroboration from separate sources strengthens confidence). The result is a three-part score: belief, disbelief, and uncertainty — always summing to 1.0.
ArgumentationWhen claims contradict each other, the engine builds a formal conflict model. It finds every coherent interpretation — every consistent subset of claims that survives all challenges — and shows you who supports each one. This is the interpretation tree: you can walk it to trace exactly why the engine believes what it believes.
What You Get Back
Subject ResultsPer-subject verdicts: belief, disbelief, uncertainty (sum to 1.0), expected probability (single bottom-line number), and truth status (True, False, Both, or Neither).
Ranked ClaimsEvery claim sorted by net evidence strength. “Supported” at the top, “contested” in the middle, “unsupported” at the bottom. Scan this first to see what holds up.
Interpretation TreesFor each subject, every coherent reading of the evidence. Each interpretation shows which claims are accepted, who made them, their credibility scores, and the attack/support edges between them. Walk the tree to follow the reasoning.
Claim DetailsPer-claim breakdown: belief/disbelief/uncertainty, temporal decay factor (1.0 = fresh, 0.5 = six months old), assertion time, evidence counts.
Worked Example
A financial fraud investigation using characters from Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories (public domain).
The Scenario
Moriarty Enterprises Ltd is a London-based consulting firm run by Professor James Moriarty. It also manages the Reichenbach Investment Fund. Multiple sources have raised concerns about fabricated revenue and fund insolvency. The research question: “Is Moriarty Enterprises engaged in financial fraud?”
The Sources
Sherlock Holmes
Expert · reliability 0.92
Private consulting detective. Deep forensic analysis of financial records.
Dr. John Watson
Journalist · reliability 0.75
Medical doctor and chronicler. Accompanied Holmes during the ledger review.
Inspector Lestrade
Regulator · reliability 0.8
Scotland Yard inspector. Represents the official regulatory inquiry.
Irene Adler
Insider · reliability 0.65
Former portfolio manager at the Reichenbach Fund. Terminated, claims whistleblower status.
Prof. James Moriarty
Institutional · reliability 0.3
CEO of Moriarty Enterprises. The subject of the investigation. Reliability rated low due to conflict of interest.
The Times of London
Journalist · reliability 0.7
London's paper of record. Holmes's preferred broadsheet. Reporting based on City sources.
The Daily Telegraph
Journalist · reliability 0.65
National broadsheet. Independent investigative reporting on investor withdrawal failures.
What Makes This Interesting
Conflicting claims: Holmes, Watson, Adler, and Lestrade all say something is wrong. Moriarty says everything is fine. The engine doesn’t pick a side — it weighs each source’s credibility and shows you every coherent interpretation.
Varying reliability: Holmes (0.92 Expert) carries far more weight than Moriarty (0.30 Institutional, subject of investigation). Watson (0.75 Journalist) corroborates but adds less independent weight because his claim is evaluative, not factual.
Temporal spread: Claims range from January to March 2026. The earliest (Adler’s insider report) has slightly more decay than the latest (Lestrade’s fund freeze). The engine shows you the decay factor on each.
Supporting evidence: Holmes’s claims are backed by physical ledgers and court-ordered bank statements (high weight). Moriarty’s rebuttal cites an audit by “Milverton & Associates” (low weight — 0.5).
Full Investigation Input
This is exactly what you’d submit to the SummerEyes API or MCP tool. Copy it and try it yourself.
{
"research_question": "Is Moriarty Enterprises engaged in financial fraud?",
"actors": [
{
"id": "holmes",
"name": "Sherlock Holmes",
"source_type": "Expert",
"base_reliability": 0.92
},
{
"id": "watson",
"name": "Dr. John Watson",
"source_type": "Journalist",
"base_reliability": 0.75
},
{
"id": "lestrade",
"name": "Inspector Lestrade",
"source_type": "Regulator",
"base_reliability": 0.8
},
{
"id": "adler",
"name": "Irene Adler",
"source_type": "Insider",
"base_reliability": 0.65
},
{
"id": "moriarty",
"name": "Prof. James Moriarty",
"source_type": "Institutional",
"base_reliability": 0.3
},
{
"id": "times",
"name": "The Times of London",
"source_type": "Journalist",
"base_reliability": 0.7
},
{
"id": "telegraph",
"name": "The Daily Telegraph",
"source_type": "Journalist",
"base_reliability": 0.65
}
],
"subjects": [
{
"id": "moriarty-ent",
"name": "Moriarty Enterprises Ltd",
"subject_type": "Company"
},
{
"id": "reichenbach-fund",
"name": "Reichenbach Investment Fund",
"subject_type": "Financial Instrument"
}
],
"claims": [
{
"id": "c1",
"actor_id": "holmes",
"subject_id": "moriarty-ent",
"predicate": "revenue",
"value": "fabricated",
"content": "After examining the ledgers obtained from the Diogenes Club, the reported revenue of Moriarty Enterprises bears no correlation to actual client payments. At least 40% of stated revenue traces to circular transactions between shell entities.",
"valence": "Supports",
"claim_type": "Factual",
"assertion_time": "2026-02-15T10:00:00Z",
"event_start_time": "2025-01-01T00:00:00Z",
"event_end_time": "2025-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"id": "c2",
"actor_id": "watson",
"subject_id": "moriarty-ent",
"predicate": "revenue",
"value": "fabricated",
"content": "I accompanied Holmes during the ledger review. The discrepancies he identified are real, though I cannot independently verify the 40% figure. The pattern of circular billing is consistent with what I have seen in other fraud cases I have reported on.",
"valence": "Supports",
"claim_type": "Evaluative",
"assertion_time": "2026-02-16T14:00:00Z",
"event_start_time": "2025-01-01T00:00:00Z",
"event_end_time": "2025-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"id": "c3",
"actor_id": "lestrade",
"subject_id": "moriarty-ent",
"predicate": "revenue",
"value": "under-investigation",
"content": "Scotland Yard has opened a preliminary inquiry into Moriarty Enterprises' financial statements following a referral from the Serious Fraud Office. We cannot confirm or deny specific allegations at this time, but the inquiry is active.",
"valence": "Supports",
"claim_type": "Factual",
"assertion_time": "2026-03-01T09:00:00Z"
},
{
"id": "c4",
"actor_id": "moriarty",
"subject_id": "moriarty-ent",
"predicate": "revenue",
"value": "legitimate",
"content": "Our accounts are audited annually by a reputable firm. All revenue is from legitimate consulting engagements. The so-called discrepancies reflect complex multi-party arrangements that an untrained eye might misinterpret.",
"valence": "Refutes",
"claim_type": "Factual",
"assertion_time": "2026-03-05T11:00:00Z",
"event_start_time": "2025-01-01T00:00:00Z",
"event_end_time": "2025-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"id": "c5",
"actor_id": "adler",
"subject_id": "reichenbach-fund",
"predicate": "solvency",
"value": "insolvent",
"content": "I was employed by Moriarty Enterprises as a portfolio manager for the Reichenbach Fund from 2024 to 2025. The fund's reported assets are overstated by at least 60%. Client redemptions are being paid from new investor deposits, not returns.",
"valence": "Supports",
"claim_type": "Factual",
"assertion_time": "2026-01-20T08:00:00Z",
"event_start_time": "2024-01-01T00:00:00Z",
"event_end_time": "2025-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"id": "c6",
"actor_id": "holmes",
"subject_id": "reichenbach-fund",
"predicate": "solvency",
"value": "insolvent",
"content": "The Reichenbach Fund is a Ponzi scheme. Bank records show deposits from new investors being directly routed to redemption accounts. The fund has held no actual securities positions since Q2 2024.",
"valence": "Supports",
"claim_type": "Factual",
"assertion_time": "2026-02-20T16:00:00Z",
"event_start_time": "2024-04-01T00:00:00Z",
"event_end_time": "2025-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"id": "c7",
"actor_id": "moriarty",
"subject_id": "reichenbach-fund",
"predicate": "solvency",
"value": "solvent",
"content": "The Reichenbach Fund returned 18% to investors in 2025 and maintains full reserves. Ms. Adler was terminated for cause and her claims are retaliatory. We welcome any audit.",
"valence": "Refutes",
"claim_type": "Factual",
"assertion_time": "2026-03-05T11:30:00Z",
"event_start_time": "2025-01-01T00:00:00Z",
"event_end_time": "2025-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"id": "c8",
"actor_id": "lestrade",
"subject_id": "reichenbach-fund",
"predicate": "solvency",
"value": "under-investigation",
"content": "The Financial Conduct Authority has frozen the Reichenbach Fund pending investigation. Investor withdrawals are suspended.",
"valence": "Supports",
"claim_type": "Factual",
"assertion_time": "2026-03-10T09:00:00Z"
},
{
"id": "c9",
"actor_id": "times",
"subject_id": "moriarty-ent",
"predicate": "revenue",
"value": "questionable",
"content": "Sources within the City suggest that Moriarty Enterprises has been the subject of quiet inquiries by multiple creditors. The firm's reported consulting revenue is difficult to reconcile with the scale of its known client engagements, according to industry observers.",
"valence": "Supports",
"claim_type": "Evaluative",
"assertion_time": "2026-02-28T06:00:00Z",
"event_start_time": "2025-06-01T00:00:00Z",
"event_end_time": "2025-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"id": "c10",
"actor_id": "telegraph",
"subject_id": "reichenbach-fund",
"predicate": "solvency",
"value": "concerns-raised",
"content": "The Daily Telegraph can reveal that at least three prominent investors in the Reichenbach Fund have been unable to withdraw their capital since November. Prof. Moriarty has attributed the delays to 'administrative restructuring' but has not provided a timeline for resolution.",
"valence": "Supports",
"claim_type": "Factual",
"assertion_time": "2026-02-10T07:00:00Z",
"event_start_time": "2025-11-01T00:00:00Z",
"event_end_time": "2026-02-10T00:00:00Z"
},
{
"id": "c11",
"actor_id": "telegraph",
"subject_id": "moriarty-ent",
"predicate": "reputation",
"value": "deteriorating",
"content": "Several former associates of Prof. Moriarty have distanced themselves from the firm in recent months. The Diogenes Club has reportedly revoked his membership, an unusual step for the notoriously discreet institution.",
"valence": "Supports",
"claim_type": "Evaluative",
"assertion_time": "2026-03-02T07:00:00Z"
}
],
"evidence": [
{
"id": "e1",
"claim_id": "c1",
"content": "Ledger photocopies from the Diogenes Club showing circular transactions",
"valence": "Supports",
"weight": 1.2
},
{
"id": "e2",
"claim_id": "c5",
"content": "Adler's employment contract and internal fund reports",
"valence": "Supports",
"weight": 1
},
{
"id": "e3",
"claim_id": "c6",
"content": "Bank statements obtained via court order showing deposit-to-redemption routing",
"valence": "Supports",
"weight": 1.5
},
{
"id": "e4",
"claim_id": "c4",
"content": "Annual audit report from Milverton & Associates LLP",
"valence": "Supports",
"weight": 0.5
}
]
}What the Engine Returns
When you submit this investigation, the engine produces:
Subject: Moriarty Enterprises — revenue
High belief that revenue is fabricated. Holmes (Expert, 0.92) and Watson (Journalist, 0.75) both support this. Lestrade (Regulator, 0.80) confirms an active investigation. Moriarty’s denial carries little weight at 0.30. Truth status: Both (contradicted — there is evidence on both sides, but the “fabricated” interpretation dominates).
Subject: Reichenbach Fund — solvency
Very high belief the fund is insolvent. Adler (Insider, 0.65) provides firsthand testimony. Holmes (Expert, 0.92) corroborates with bank records (court-ordered, weight 1.5). Lestrade confirms the fund is frozen. Moriarty claims 18% returns but his low reliability and the absence of corroborating evidence make this the weakest claim in the ranking. Truth status: Both.
Ranked Claims (top to bottom)
- Supported — Holmes: Reichenbach Fund is a Ponzi scheme (backed by bank statements)
- Supported — Holmes: Revenue is fabricated (backed by ledger photocopies)
- Supported — Lestrade: FCA has frozen the Reichenbach Fund
- Supported — Adler: Fund assets overstated by 60%
- Supported — Lestrade: Scotland Yard inquiry is active
- Supported — Watson: Circular billing pattern is consistent with fraud
- Supported — The Times: Revenue difficult to reconcile with known engagements
- Supported — The Telegraph: Investors unable to withdraw since November
- Supported — The Telegraph: Former associates distancing, Diogenes Club membership revoked
- Unsupported — Moriarty: Revenue is legitimate
- Unsupported — Moriarty: Fund returned 18% and maintains reserves
Interpretation Trees
The argumentation analysis finds two coherent interpretations:
Interpretation 1 (dominant)Accepts Holmes, Watson, Adler, and Lestrade. Rejects Moriarty’s denials. Holmes’s claims attack Moriarty’s via direct contradiction. Adler’s insider testimony supports Holmes’s Ponzi finding.
Interpretation 2 (weak)Accepts Moriarty’s denials and Lestrade’s neutral “under investigation” status. Rejects Holmes and Adler. This interpretation survives formally but has far lower aggregate credibility.
Try it yourself
Copy the JSON above and submit it via the dashboard, API, or MCP tool.
API Reference
Interactive API documentation with request/response schemas, authentication details, and the full OpenAPI spec.
api.summereyes.vip/docs