Equivalent
The claims express materially the same proposition.
AI systems often describe the same organization using similar words without making the same claim. SemanticRisk separates equivalence, scope differences, contradiction and unrelated overlap instead of treating similarity as agreement.
Added wording can broaden a proposition by adding another capability, or narrow it by adding a qualifier such as geography, channel or service type. Directional containment therefore remains review-assisted unless stronger semantic evidence is available.
The claims express materially the same proposition.
The central meaning appears aligned, but wording, attribution or causal strength leaves some uncertainty.
The left claim expresses a narrower portion of the right claim.
The left claim is broader than the right claim.
The claims cannot both be true in the same context.
The claims share vocabulary or subject matter but describe different propositions.
Claim B contains every major word from Claim A plus “worldwide.” Token-wise it is larger; semantically it adds a geographic condition. This is why simple token containment cannot safely determine subset or superset direction.
32.0% of reviewed pairs.
10.9% of reviewed pairs.
17.2% of reviewed pairs.
17.2% of reviewed pairs.
21.1% of reviewed pairs.
1.6% of reviewed pairs.
High semantic overlap is useful for finding claims worth comparing. It is not, by itself, reliable enough to determine whether two claims are equivalent, whether one contains the other, or whether they merely share vocabulary. SemanticRisk therefore publishes conservative equivalence candidates and abstains when direction is not established safely.
Calibration set reviewed through 30 July 2026. Results will be versioned as the reviewed sample expands.