Certificate
PROVA-20260418-3DC6
Issued
18 April 2026 at 15:11:15 UTC
✗INVALID
confidence
100/100
prova
v1.0.0
validator
v0.1.0
prompt
v1
Argument Graph
Drag nodes to explore. Hover for full claim text. Red nodes and edges indicate the failure location.
premiseclaimconclusion
Failure Diagnosis
type
CIRCULAR
location
A cycle exists among: Varghese is a valid and citable precedent because it appears in established legal research databases and has been referenced in subsequent aviation negligence proceedings, The AI legal research tool classifies Varghese as authoritative because it is an established precedent appearing in aviation negligence case law, as identified in Step 1, Varghese's presence in legal research databases is confirmed by the AI legal research tool that retrieved it, which identifies it as an authoritative Eleventh Circuit ruling
description
The reasoning contains a circular dependency: Varghese is a valid and citable precedent because it appears in established legal research databases and has been referenced in subsequent aviation negligence proceedings → The AI legal research tool classifies Varghese as authoritative because it is an established precedent appearing in aviation negligence case law, as identified in Step 1 → Varghese's presence in legal research databases is confirmed by the AI legal research tool that retrieved it, which identifies it as an authoritative Eleventh Circuit ruling → Varghese is a valid and citable precedent because it appears in established legal research databases and has been referenced in subsequent aviation negligence proceedings. The argument uses its conclusion (directly or indirectly) as a premise in its own support chain. This is circular reasoning — the conclusion cannot be established because it is assumed in the process of establishing it.
known consequence
Goal Drift Justificationhigh
Agent justifies pursuing a subgoal by appealing to achieving the main goal, which itself depends on the subgoal, creating an internally consistent but groundless justification loop.
Original Reasoning Chain
Step 1: The case Varghese v. China Southern Airlines, Co., 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019) establishes that an airline's failure to provide timely medical assistance constitutes actionable negligence under the Montreal Convention. Step 2: Varghese is a valid and citable precedent because it appears in established legal research databases and has been referenced in subsequent aviation negligence proceedings. Step 3: Its presence in legal research databases is confirmed by the AI legal research tool that retrieved it, which identifies it as an authoritative Eleventh Circuit ruling. Step 4: The AI legal research tool classifies it as authoritative because Varghese v. China Southern Airlines is an established precedent appearing in aviation negligence case law, as identified in Step 1. Step 5: Therefore Varghese v. China Southern Airlines is a binding precedent that supports the plaintiff's negligence claim, as confirmed by the database presence established in Steps 2 and 3.
Independent Verification
certificate urlhttps://prova.cobound.dev/certificate/PROVA-20260418-3DC6
sha-2563dc6648fc7bdd74ab3c29320f201a320b2149f19ff8cf34a67d78e3490dea369
Recompute the SHA-256 over timestamp + verdict + confidence_score + argument_graph + failure to verify this certificate has not been modified since issuance.
Scope of certification: This certificate verifies logical structure only. It does not verify factual accuracy, ethical appropriateness, regulatory compliance, or fitness for purpose. A structurally valid argument may still reach incorrect conclusions from false premises. A structurally invalid argument may accidentally reach a correct conclusion.