Documentation
How the reasoning engine works, and a full worked example.
Extract claims from any text
Hand /content/extract.txtto a coding agent (Claude Code, Cursor, an MCP subagent, or any chat) along with your source text — article, transcript, court filing, earnings call, memo — and it will produce a complete Housecarl Arbiter investigation JSON ready to submit. Covers actor reliability anchors, predicate sharing for contradiction detection, valence rules, evidence weighting, and a validation checklist.
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
Housecarl Arbiter runs your investigation through four formal reasoning systems:
What you get back
Worked example
A financial fraud investigation using characters from Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories (public domain).
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
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 Housecarl Arbiter API or MCP tool. Copy it and try it yourself.
{
"research_question": "Is Moriarty Enterprises engaged in financial fraud?",
"domain": "Finance",
"dependent_refresh_factor": 0.5,
"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",
"epistemic_status": "theory",
"assertion_time": "2026-02-15T10:00:00Z",
"event_start_time": "2025-01-01T00:00:00Z",
"event_end_time": "2025-12-31T23:59:59Z",
"corroboration_events": [
{
"time": "2026-02-16T14:00:00Z",
"actor_id": "watson",
"description": "Watson independently confirmed ledger discrepancies during joint review"
},
{
"time": "2026-02-28T06:00:00Z",
"actor_id": "times",
"description": "The Times reported industry observers could not reconcile stated revenue with known engagements"
}
]
},
{
"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",
"epistemic_status": "hypothesis",
"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",
"epistemic_status": "hypothesis",
"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",
"epistemic_status": "theory",
"assertion_time": "2026-01-20T08:00:00Z",
"corroboration_events": [
{
"time": "2026-02-10T07:00:00Z",
"actor_id": "telegraph",
"description": "Telegraph independently confirmed investor withdrawal failures starting November 2025"
},
{
"time": "2026-02-20T16:00:00Z",
"actor_id": "holmes",
"description": "Holmes obtained bank records confirming deposit-to-redemption routing"
}
],
"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",
"epistemic_status": "theory",
"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",
"epistemic_status": "theory",
"supersedes_claim_id": "c3",
"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",
"epistemic_status": "conjecture",
"assertion_time": "2026-02-28T06:00:00Z",
"corroboration_events": [
{
"time": "2026-03-01T09:00:00Z",
"actor_id": "lestrade",
"description": "Scotland Yard confirmed an active inquiry, corroborating reports of creditor concerns"
}
],
"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",
"epistemic_status": "conjecture",
"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:
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).
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.
- Strong — Holmes: Reichenbach Fund is a Ponzi scheme (backed by bank statements)
- Strong — Holmes: Revenue is fabricated (backed by ledger photocopies)
- Strong — Lestrade: FCA has frozen the Reichenbach Fund
- Strong — Adler: Fund assets overstated by 60%
- Strong — Lestrade: Scotland Yard inquiry is active
- Moderate — Watson: Circular billing pattern is consistent with fraud
- Moderate — The Times: Revenue difficult to reconcile with known engagements
- Moderate — The Telegraph: Investors unable to withdraw since November
- Moderate — The Telegraph: Former associates distancing, Diogenes Club membership revoked
- Weak — Moriarty: Milverton & Associates audit found no irregularities (low-weight evidence)
- Refuted — Moriarty: Revenue is legitimate
- Refuted — Moriarty: Fund returned 18% and maintains reserves
The argumentation analysis finds two coherent interpretations:
Copy the JSON above and submit it via the dashboard, API, or MCP tool.
Use it from Claude
The fastest way in: connect Housecarl Arbiter to Claude on the web or your phone, then ask in plain language. Works on the free plan.
Add the connector
Housecarl Arbiter is a custom connector (a remote MCP server). Claude’s free plan lets you add one, which is all you need. In Claude — on the web (claude.ai) or in the mobile app:
https://api.summereyes.vip/mcp/v1
The connector is tied to your Claude account, so adding it on the web makes it available in the mobile app too — and the other way round. No API key is needed for this path; sign-in is handled for you.
Then just ask
In any conversation, tap + → Connectors and switch on Housecarl Arbiter. The first time Claude reaches for a Housecarl Arbiter tool it asks your permission — allow it. Then talk to it normally:
“Use Housecarl Arbiter to investigate whether remote work lowers team productivity. Find the strongest sources on each side, weigh them, and give me a judged verdict.”
“Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion, pull out the claims and the evidence it cites, run it through Housecarl Arbiter, and tell me where the verdict is shaky.”
Each investigation lands in your dashboard under Sessions, where you can walk the reasoning tree and read the scored verdict. Building your own tool instead? The REST / MCP API is right below.
Connect your tool
Everything you need to call Housecarl Arbiter from your own software — the developer path.
Two ways to call
The engine has one core operation — submit an investigation, get back a scored verdict — exposed two equivalent ways. Both use the same request shape and the same credentials; pick whichever fits what you’re building.
Authenticate
Sign in, open the dashboard, and create an API key. It starts with se-and is shown once at creation — store it as a secret. Send it on every request in the x-api-key header:
x-api-key: se-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
OAuth 2.0 / JWT bearer tokens are also accepted via the Authorization: Bearer header, but a user API key is the simplest path for a standalone integration.
Quickstart
The smallest useful call — one source, one subject, one claim. The response is a full investigation result: a per-subject verdict, ranked claims, conflict analysis, and sensitivity analysis.
curl -sS -X POST https://api.summereyes.vip/api/v1/investigations/analyze \
-H "x-api-key: se-YOUR_KEY" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"research_question": "Is Acme Corp solvent?",
"domain": "Finance",
"actors": [
{ "id": "auditor", "name": "Big Four Auditor",
"source_type": "Regulator", "base_reliability": 0.9 }
],
"subjects": [
{ "id": "acme", "name": "Acme Corp", "subject_type": "company" }
],
"claims": [
{ "id": "c1", "actor_id": "auditor", "subject_id": "acme",
"predicate": "solvency", "value": "solvent",
"content": "Audited financials show a 2:1 current ratio.",
"valence": "Supports", "assertion_time": "2026-02-01T10:00:00Z" }
]
}'Core endpoints
Base URL https://api.summereyes.vip. All paths require authentication.
Use /investigations/analyze for one-off questions. If your system accumulates evidence over time, create a session, merge in claims as you learn them, and re-judge on demand instead of resubmitting the whole payload.
Good to know
- Always set each claim’s valence (Supports / Refutes) and assertion_time — they drive the result more than anything else.
- Inconsistent inputs (e.g. an anonymous source rated 0.95) come back as non-fatal warnings; the run still succeeds. An empty warnings list means clean input.
- Set summary_mode: true for a compact result when your consumer has a limited context window.
- Up to 1,024 sessions per user; payloads up to 10 MB; sessions expire after 365 days of inactivity.
- A 429 means your plan quota is exhausted; a 504 means the input was too large — split it up.
API reference
Interactive API documentation with request/response schemas, authentication details, and the full OpenAPI spec.
api.summereyes.vip/openapi-docs