{
 "paper": "kammer-2026-foveal-feedback",
 "drafted_on": "2026-09-11",
 "model": "supplied:runs/kammer-2026-foveal-feedback/gap-claim.answer.json",
 "note": "Claims drafted for the spans `adjudication` judged a real gap. Candidates, not claims: nothing here is in the tree until a person promotes it, and promoting one makes the verdict that recorded the gap stale, which is how the loop closes.",
 "candidates": [
  {
   "uid": "results-077",
   "span": "In contrast, we found no significant association between peripheral decoding and any of the ROIs (FEF: t(27) = 0.49, p =1.0; IPS: t(27) = 1.35, p =0.56; LO: t(27) = 2.43, p =0.07).",
   "slug": "peripheral-decoding-unrelated-to-roi-activation",
   "claim": "In the control condition (direct foveal stimulation), peripheral decoding is not significantly associated with activation in any of the three eye-movement ROIs (FEF: t(27)=0.49, p=1.0; IPS: t(27)=1.35, p=0.56; LO: t(27)=2.43, p=0.07).",
   "role": "control",
   "panel": "fig4s1",
   "why": "The tree records every ROI effect in the parametric modulation that reached significance but nothing about the peripheral-decoding side of the same analysis, so the control-condition dissociation on which the paper's global-fluctuation and signal-to-noise argument rests is represented nowhere; this one claim covers the identical sentence as it appears in the results text and in the Figure 4-figure supplement 1 caption."
  },
  {
   "uid": "results-078",
   "span": "These findings confirm that our main effects were not simply explained by global brain fluctuations or signal-to-noise ratio, since under those conditions, we would have expected a similar relationship between foveal and peripheral decoding as in the experimental condition ( Figure 4—figure supplement 1 ).",
   "slug": "parametric-effects-not-global-fluctuations",
   "claim": "The absence of any association between peripheral decoding and ROI activation in the control condition, where foveal decoding is associated with all three ROIs, excludes global brain fluctuations and signal-to-noise ratio as explanations of the parametric modulation effects, since either would have produced the same relationship between foveal and peripheral decoding as in the experimental condition.",
   "role": "interpretation",
   "panel": "fig4s1",
   "why": "The tree carries the parametric modulation results and the caveat that they were exploratory, but not the inference the authors draw from the control condition - that the divergent foveal/peripheral pattern rules out global fluctuations and signal-to-noise as the source of the effect - which is the reasoning that makes the IPS result interpretable at all; it is separated from the null it rests on because the null is a measurement and this is a claim about what that measurement means."
  }
 ],
 "declined": [
  {
   "uid": "results-088",
   "why": "Same result as results-077, drafted there as `peripheral-decoding-unrelated-to-roi-activation`: this is the Figure 4-figure supplement 1 caption restating the control-condition null with identical statistics (FEF: t(27)=0.49, p=1.0; IPS: t(27)=1.35, p=0.56; LO: t(27)=2.43, p=0.07), and a second claim would duplicate it."
  },
  {
   "uid": "captions-035",
   "why": "Same result again, drafted at results-077 as `peripheral-decoding-unrelated-to-roi-activation`: this is the same caption sentence as results-088 collected in the captions section, word for word and statistic for statistic, so it needs no claim of its own."
  }
 ]
}