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.
The 89.7%, 100% and zero-error figures describe different candidate subsets and should not be read as competing estimates of the same denominator. Each card now states the population it summarizes.
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.
Relationship labels describe how two propositions compare. Difference categories describe the feature that changed and the downstream interpretation it may affect.
Surface wording changes while the central proposition remains substantially equivalent.
Changes who appears to state, own or perform the claim.
Adds or removes detail without clearly changing the central proposition.
Expands or narrows a capability, product, geography, audience or service boundary.
Changes an industry, sector, category or organizational role.
Changes a number, percentage, date, amount or count.
Changes a URL, phone number, address, named entity or other identifier.
Introduces propositions that cannot reasonably both be true in the stated context.
A difference is present, but the evidence does not support a confident semantic or materiality verdict.
The available evidence supports ordinary wording variation or a preserved proposition.
The change may affect attribution, scope, classification or a verifiable fact, but requires stronger evidence or review.
The evidence supports a meaningful change in the proposition, its boundaries or factual content.
The ambiguous examples identified in review are treated as candidates for classification, not automatically as material drift.
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 31 July 2026. Results will be versioned as the reviewed sample expands.