State, Not Scar · evidence ledger

Evidence

All 83 evidence records in this case's ledger. Every record carries an explicit direction, keeps what the source states separate from what we infer, and links its source and the claims it bears on. Supporting and undermining evidence get the same structure and the same seriousness.

Supports43 Undermines3 Qualifies8 Context29

Supports

43 records · strongest first

Records that favor a rung of the featured hypothesis.

Supports· strongVASO-E003

The latch-bridge model: force maintained after activation falls

what the source states: A minimum kinetic model of smooth-muscle cross-bridge interaction in which dephosphorylated but still-attached cross-bridges ("latch bridges") detach only slowly, reproducing the experimental observation of high sustained stress at low levels of myosin phosphorylation — economical force maintenance after activation subsides.
what we infer: Biology ships a cheap, history-dependent hold: the mechanism the featured hypothesis needs exists and is textbook physiology. Whether it is engaged at tender points is a separate, untested question.
limitations: Established in vascular/visceral smooth-muscle preparations over minutes-to-hours timescales; indefinite in-vivo holds at addressable sites are an extrapolation.
Molecular interpretation still under refinement (regulated phosphatase activity, cooperativity).

Hai, C.-M. (1988)AI-verified citationVASO-C010

Supports· strongVASO-E005

Blood-pressure pulsations modulate neurons via mechanosensitive channels

what the source states: Physiological blood-pressure pulsations were shown to modulate central neuronal activity through mechanosensitive ion channels in rat preparations and awake animals, on rapid timescales.
what we infer: Direct causal evidence for the vascular-mechanical-to-neural direction the hemo-neural hypothesis requires — sixteen years after it was proposed, the read path has a demonstrated mechanism.
limitations: Rat brain, not human periphery; demonstrates instantaneous mechanosensation, not storage or content-specific readout.

Jammal Salameh, L. (2024)AI-verified citationVASO-C012

Supports· strongVASO-E008

Attention regulates acute inflammation (histamine skin prick)

what the source states: In preregistered within-subject experiments (57 volunteers), directing attention toward the sensations of a standardized histamine skin prick produced ~1.5-fold smaller and faster-resolving wheal and flare responses than distraction, in ~90% of participants across two cohorts. Skin conductance, heart rate, skin temperature, and self-reported anxiety did not differ between conditions, while heart-rate variability was higher under internal attention; a sensory route (degraded by lidocaine) and a top-down vagal route (surviving lidocaine) both contributed.
what we infer: A controlled existence proof of the channel the synthesis needs: voluntary interoceptive attention, with no arousal change, measurably regulating peripheral physiology at a specific site. The measured tissue was a vascular bed — but the demonstrated route is vagal immune regulation over ~20 minutes, not seconds-scale latch release.
limitations: Single lab, published 2026-08-17; acute model in healthy skin; molecular mediators not directly measured (authors' own caution).
The authors note the parasympathetic system does not innervate skin directly; nothing here concerns trigger points or smooth-muscle latches.

Mizrachi, N. (2026)AI-verified citationVASO-C006

Supports· strongVASO-E009

Slow breathing's documented autonomic correlates

what the source states: A systematic review of slow-breathing studies in healthy humans found reproducible increases in respiratory sinus arrhythmia and heart-rate variability and related autonomic and central nervous system changes, consistent with a shift toward parasympathetic dominance.
what we infer: The breath is a real autonomic lever — the one voluntary handle on the system. This establishes the global shift only; the local, site-specific unlatching the featured hypothesis adds on top is exactly what has never been measured.
limitations: Global cardiovascular indices in healthy subjects; no local tissue or tender-point measurements.

Zaccaro, A. (2018)AI-verified citationVASO-C013

Supports· strongVASO-E011

Systematic review: trigger-point palpation is not reliably reproducible

what the source states: A systematic review of examination-reliability studies concluded that manual physical examination for myofascial trigger points has not been demonstrated to be reliable or valid, in part because no accepted reference standard exists, and could not currently be recommended as an objective diagnostic test.
what we infer: The measurement problem underneath everything: studies on both sides of this case locate their object by palpation. Any decisive experiment must first solve blinded, instrumented localization — which is why the keystone study design requires it.
limitations: Assesses the manual exam, not instrumented detection; imaging-anchored localization may escape the problem.

Lucas, N. (2009)AI-verified citationVASO-C030

Supports· moderateVASO-E001

Spontaneous EMG activity confined to the trigger-point nidus

what the source states: Monopolar needle EMG recorded simultaneously from trapezius trigger points and adjacent non-tender fibers found sustained spontaneous activity in the 1–2 mm nidus of all trigger points and none in the non-tender sites; amplitude was higher in tension-headache and fibromyalgia patients than in normals. The authors hypothesized sympathetically activated intrafusal (spindle) contractions.
what we infer: Whatever a knot is, it is electrically maintained: a discrete island of ongoing activity in muscle that is nominally at rest — state, not scar.
limitations: 1993, small sample, one lab; the signal's generator is still contested (endplate potentials vs spindles).
The recorded activity is skeletal-muscle electrophysiology; nothing here measures vasculature.

Hubbard, D. R. (1993)AI-verified citationVASO-C002

Supports· moderateVASO-E002

Mental arithmetic selectively raises trigger-point activity

what the source states: With needle electrodes in trapezius trigger points and adjacent control sites, a psychological stressor (mental arithmetic) increased EMG activity at the trigger points while control sites in the same muscle remained comparatively quiet, without generalized muscle tensing.
what we infer: A purely mental event, involving no movement, turned up the signal inside one tender point and not a centimeter away: the write half of any storage account, caught in motion.
limitations: n=14, 1994, same lineage as Hubbard & Berkoff — the two EMG studies are one line of evidence.
The essay's follow-up claims (relaxation training lowering activity; phentolamine infusion quieting the site) come from the same lineage and were not independently verified in this project — no primary citation located.
No vascular endpoint was measured; sympathetic drive to spindles or endplates fits the data without any vascular storage.

McNulty, W. H. (1994)AI-verified citationVASO-C003

Supports· moderateVASO-E006

Acidic, mediator-rich biochemical milieu at active trigger points

what the source states: Microdialysis-style sampling found biochemicals associated with pain and inflammation — including bradykinin, substance P, and CGRP, in a more acidic milieu — elevated at active myofascial trigger points, in sites both near to and remote from the points, relative to comparison conditions.
what we infer: Something is there and it is chemically angry — exactly the milieu chronic local ischemia would produce, though guarding-induced compression would produce it too. Note the title's own qualifier: the elevation was not purely local.
limitations: Small study (the critical report's audit gives nine volunteers); localization vs systemic effects hard to separate.

Shah, J. P. (2008)AI-verified citationVASO-C005

Supports· moderateVASO-E007

Imaging systematic review: trigger points are quantifiably distinct

what the source states: Per the critical report's audit of this systematic review (33 studies): biomechanical and blood-flow imaging parameters can distinguish active and latent trigger points from healthy tissue, with the review emphasizing the need for better reproducibility and diagnostic-accuracy research.
what we infer: The imaging literature's positive residue — including the Doppler flow abnormalities the essay reads as the latch's footprint — survives systematic review, with reproducibility caveats attached. This record's characterization is second-hand from the critical report; the review's full text has not been checked.
limitations: Heterogeneous techniques and trigger-point definitions across the included studies.
Characterization taken from the critical report; not verified against the paper's full text.

Mazza, D. F. (2021)AI-verified citationVASO-C005

Supports· moderateVASO-E010

The Quintner–Bove–Cohen critique of the trigger-point construct

what the source states: The authors argue the myofascial trigger-point construct rests on circular reasoning and unproven assumptions: the lesion has never been demonstrated, examiner reliability is poor, and the clinical phenomena attributed to trigger points can be better explained by other mechanisms (they propose neurogenic inflammation of peripheral nerves).
what we infer: The serious peer-reviewed case against the entire observational base of this case's featured hypothesis. Its force against the latch reading is partial: the critique targets the classic taut-band construct and its diagnosis, not the existence of tenderness or of the instrumented abnormalities — and a vascular mechanism is, if anything, closer to the critics' "it isn't the muscle" instinct than the classic theory is.
limitations: Answered point-by-point by Dommerholt & Gerwin (2015); the debate remains open rather than settled in the critics' favor.

Quintner, J. L. (2015)AI-verified citationVASO-C030

Supports· moderateVASO-E022

Ballyns 2011: arteries near active trigger points show higher pulsatility and more frequent retrograde diastolic flow — but 31% of palpably normal sites show it too

what the source states: The source states that on colour Doppler prominent vessels were seen close to trigger points and that "vessels near active sites had a significantly higher pulsatility index" (median 8.3) than normal sites (median 3.0, P < .05). It states that in 27 of 49 active sites (55%) "retrograde diastolic flow was observed compared to 21 (40%) and 15 (31%)" for latent and normal sites, with the occurrence significantly higher in active and latent than normal sites (P < .01).
what we infer: This is the primary behind the 'abnormal local hemodynamics' the ledger previously held only via the Mazza review. It supports VASO-C005 as a measurable blood-flow difference, but the difference is graded: nearly a third of palpably normal sites in these patients show the same waveform, so the signature is a gradient across symptomatic muscle, not a marker. The interrogated vessels are pulsatile arteries or enlarged arterioles typically >1 mm, within 1–2 cm of the point, not the microvessels the latch attribution names.
limitations: Within-patient 'normal' sites in symptomatic patients; no pain-free control group.
Pulsatility index was not a good classifier of site type because of large variance, per the source's ROC analysis.
Vessel caliber (>1 mm, 1–2 cm from the point) is far from the arteriolar compartment VASO-C020 requires.

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C005 VASO-C031 VASO-C032

Supports· moderateVASO-E024

Ballyns 2011: resistivity index did not differ between active, latent and normal sites

what the source states: The source states that "No differences in RI values were detected between normal", latent and active sites, and that "the PI was not a good classifier of active, latent, or normal sites because of the large variance."
what we infer: A negative result recorded in its own right: one of the two Doppler indices shows no difference, and the other does not classify sites. The vascular signature at trigger points is partial, not categorical.
limitations: Within-patient comparison in symptomatic subjects; the authors attribute the similarity partly to proximity of normal sites to trigger points.

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C036

Supports· moderateVASO-E032

Simons, Hong & Simons 2002: prevalence of endplate noise at trigger-point, endplate-zone and off-zone taut-band sites

what the source states: The source states that endplate noise occurred at all 11 trigger-point sites, "in four muscles at endplate zone sites outside of trigger points", and "did not occur in taut band sites outside of an endplate zone"; it describes the study as "This nonrandomized, unblinded needle examination of myofascial trigger points".
what we infer: Direct anchor for the two observation claims: endplate noise occurs outside trigger points when the site is in the endplate zone, and not in taut bands off the zone. Together they imply the electrical signature tracks the endplate zone first and the trigger point second, which is the conventional skeletal-endplate reading.
limitations: Abstract only; unblinded; small sample.

David G. Simons (2002)AI-verified citationVASO-C034 VASO-C035

Supports· moderateVASO-E062

Croft 1994: the 18-site tender-point count applied in a community general-practice sample

what the source states: The source is a two-stage cross-sectional study set in "Two general practices in north west England", drawing a stratified random sample of adults from age–sex registers, in which 177 selected responders underwent tender-point examination with the outcome "Tender point count (0 to 18) grouped into four categories", the highest (11 or more) corresponding to the ACR fibromyalgia criteria.
what we infer: This is the primary the founding essay gestured at: the fibromyalgia-era 18-site exam administered outside the clinic. Note that the examined subsample was chosen on reported pain complaints, so it is a community-based but pain-selected sample.
limitations: Abstract only retrieved; full text not shown.
Examined subsample (177 of 250 selected) was chosen on the basis of reported pain complaints.

P. Croft (1994)AI-verified citationVASO-C083

Supports· moderateVASO-E087

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 1.1

what the source states: On sonoelastography, active sites (spontaneously painful with palpable myofascial trigger points) had larger trigger points, with a mean ± SD area of 0.57 ± 0.20 cm², as stated: "active sites (spontaneously painful with palpable myofascial trigger points) had larger trigger points".
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears on VASO-C005, VASO-C182, VASO-C184 and not on VASO-C183; the link dropped at intake: The quoted phrase and the 0.57\u00b10.20 cm\u00b2 active-site value are accurately drawn from the Results/Abstract and are at the stated locator, and the statement is a fair, non-inflated account of that value, so it supports the general difference claim (C005) and, since the active value matches exactly what is needed for the active-vs-latent comparison, also bears on C182 and C184. But it says nothing about the normal-site value (0.17\u00b10.22) needed to support C183's active-and-latent-vs-normal comparison, so that claim is not borne on by this passage. Independence is properly flagged in the limitations, and the record is a single atomic proposition.

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C005 VASO-C182 VASO-C184

Supports· moderateVASO-E089

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 1.2 — toward VASO-C182

what the source states: Latent sites (palpable trigger points painful on palpation) had a mean trigger point area of 0.36 ± 0.16 cm², as stated: "latent sites (palpable trigger points painful on palpation; 0.36 ± 0.16 cm²)".
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears in different directions on the claims the record named; this record carries "supports" toward VASO-C182, the rest went to a record of its own at intake: The quote and locator are accurate and the record fairly reports the latent-site mean area (0.36 ± 0.16 cm²). This number directly matches and supports VASO-C182 (which states both means), but the record contains no normal-site value or significance test, so it does not itself bear on VASO-C183's normal-comparison claim or on VASO-C184's active-vs-latent significance claim. It only generally bears on VASO-C005's broad claim of measurable differences, so that is context rather than direct support. Independence is properly noted given shared NIH lineage.

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C182

Supports· moderateVASO-E090

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 1.3

what the source states: Palpably normal sites had a mean trigger point area of 0.17 ± 0.22 cm², with the difference across site types significant at P < .01, as stated: "palpably normal sites (0.17 ± 0.22 cm²; P < .01)".
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears on VASO-C005, VASO-C183 and not on VASO-C182, VASO-C184; the links dropped at intake: The quoted figure and P<.01 value for palpably normal sites are accurate and in context, supporting the general claim of measurable differences (C005) and specifically the claim that active/latent areas exceed normal areas (C183). But the record does not actually quote or establish the active-versus-latent numeric comparison (0.57 vs 0.36, C182) or the separate active-vs-latent significance test (C184), which are reported elsewhere in the Results as a distinct statistical comparison from the overall P<.01 cited here; so those two claims are not supported by this passage. The record is independent-lineage-flagged appropriately and is atomic and relevant to the case.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504): VASO-C183 was split into VASO-C185, VASO-C186, VASO-C187; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-193207, verify-v6) found the passage bears on VASO-C005, VASO-C187 and not on VASO-C185, VASO-C186; the links dropped at intake: The quoted normal-site area (0.17 ± 0.22 cm², P<.01) is accurate and in context at both the Abstract and the Results paragraph, and it directly supports C005's general claim of measurable differences and exactly restates C187. But this passage does not report or compare active-versus-latent areas, so it does not bear on C185 (active vs latent significance), nor does it address the PPT-trend comparison claimed in C186, which draws on a different sentence in the Results. Independence from the NIH group's other studies is properly flagged in limitations.

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C005 VASO-C187

Supports· moderateVASO-E091

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 2.1

what the source states: Trigger point areas assessed by vibration elastography were significantly higher at active and latent sites than at normal sites (P < .01), with "significantly higher areas compared to normal sites" as the reported finding.
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears on VASO-C005, VASO-C183 and not on VASO-C182, VASO-C184; the links dropped at intake: The sourceStatement only reports that active and latent sites had significantly larger areas than normal sites, which matches VASO-C183 and generally supports VASO-C005's claim of measurable differences; it says nothing about the specific active-vs-latent mean values (VASO-C182) or the active-vs-latent significance comparison (VASO-C184), which are separate findings in the source not captured by this quote.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504): VASO-C183 was split into VASO-C185, VASO-C186, VASO-C187; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-193207, verify-v6) found the passage bears on VASO-C005 and not on VASO-C185, VASO-C186, VASO-C187; the links dropped at intake: The sourceStatement only reports that active and latent sites had significantly larger trigger point areas than normal sites, which generally supports VASO-C005's claim of measurable tissue differences. It does not address the active-vs-latent comparison (VASO-C185), the trend-similarity-to-PPT observation (VASO-C186), or the specific normal-site mean value (VASO-C187), so the passage bears on none of those three.
Corrected by the operator on 2026-09-20 (session_01AiXD4y5Y91KC7iM3uBhWmu, operator-by-hand-v1): relinked from VASO-C005 to VASO-C005, VASO-C188, VASO-C189 — its statement names both active and latent sites as significantly higher than normal; the bearing is read from the record's own statement, not from the reader, and stands for the panel's judgment

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C005 VASO-C188 VASO-C189

Supports· moderateVASO-E092

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 2.2

what the source states: By vibration elastography, "active sites were significantly larger than latent sites" (P < .01).
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears on VASO-C005, VASO-C182, VASO-C184 and not on VASO-C183; the link dropped at intake: The quoted sentence accurately reports the active-versus-latent size comparison (P<.01) from the Results section, and its statement is a fair, narrow account of that specific finding. It directly supports VASO-C184 (active > latent) and generally supports VASO-C005's broader claim about stiffness differences, but it says nothing about the specific magnitude values in C182 (0.57 vs 0.36 cm²) or about the active/latent-versus-normal comparison in C183, so it only bears as context on C182 and not at all on C183.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears in different directions on the claims the record named; this record carries "supports" toward VASO-C005, VASO-C184, the rest went to a record of its own at intake: The quoted sentence accurately reports the active-versus-latent size comparison (P<.01) from the Results section, and its statement is a fair, narrow account of that specific finding. It directly supports VASO-C184 (active > latent) and generally supports VASO-C005's broader claim about stiffness differences, but it says nothing about the specific magnitude values in C182 (0.57 vs 0.36 cm²) or about the active/latent-versus-normal comparison in C183, so it only bears as context on C182 and not at all on C183.

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C005 VASO-C184

Supports· moderateVASO-E096

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 4.1

what the source states: Trigger point area measurements were "excellent classifiers of active versus normal sites" (cutoff point 0.35; AUC 0.9; P < .01).
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears on VASO-C005, VASO-C183 and not on VASO-C182, VASO-C184; the links dropped at intake: The quoted classifier statistic (AUC 0.9 for active vs normal, cutoff 0.35, P<.01) is accurately quoted and located, and it supports the general claim of measurable biochemical/stiffness/blood-flow differences (C005) and the specific active-vs-normal size difference claim (C183). But it says nothing about the active-vs-latent mean areas (C182) or the active-vs-latent significance test (C184), which concern a different comparison (AUC 0.8, not the AUC 0.9 quoted here); those two claims are not addressed by this particular passage.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504): VASO-C183 was split into VASO-C185, VASO-C186, VASO-C187; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-193207, verify-v6) found the passage bears on VASO-C005 and not on VASO-C185, VASO-C186, VASO-C187; the links dropped at intake: The quoted AUC 0.9 classifier statistic for active-versus-normal sites is accurately quoted, correctly located, and supports the general claim that active sites differ measurably from normal tissue (C005). But it says nothing about the active-versus-latent size comparison (C185), the trend similarity to pain pressure threshold scores (C186), or the specific normal-site mean area value (C187), which are distinct data points not addressed by this active-vs-normal classifier statement.
Corrected by the operator on 2026-09-20 (session_01AiXD4y5Y91KC7iM3uBhWmu, operator-by-hand-v1): relinked from VASO-C005 to VASO-C005, VASO-C188 — its statement names active versus normal; the bearing is read from the record's own statement, not from the reader, and stands for the panel's judgment

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C005 VASO-C188

Supports· moderateVASO-E098

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 4.2 — toward VASO-C183

what the source states: Trigger point area measurements were "fair classifiers of latent versus normal sites" (cutoff point 0.27; AUC 0.79; P < .01).
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears in different directions on the claims the record named; this record carries "supports" toward VASO-C183, the rest went to a record of its own at intake: The quoted classifier statistic concerns only the latent-versus-normal ROC comparison (AUC 0.79), which partially supports the latent-vs-normal portion of VASO-C183 but says nothing about the active-vs-latent mean difference in VASO-C184 or the specific active-vs-latent area values in VASO-C182; it also only tangentially bears on the broader active-site claim VASO-C005 since it addresses latent, not active, sites. The quote and locator are accurate and the record properly notes shared NIH lineage, but the blanket 'supports' direction for all four claims is too broad.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504): VASO-C183 was split into VASO-C185, VASO-C186, VASO-C187; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Refused at re-verification 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-193207): second reader rejected (relevant): The quoted statistic (AUC 0.79, fair classifier of latent vs normal sites) is accurately quoted and located, but it does not bear on any of the three newly split claims: it says nothing about the active-vs-latent area difference (C185), nothing about the normal-site mean area value of 0.17±0.22 cm2 (C187), and it is a classifier-performance statistic rather than a statement about trend similarity to pain pressure threshold scores (C186). Since the passage bears on none of the named claims, the record should be refused rather than linked with 'supports.'
Corrected by the operator on 2026-09-20 (session_01AiXD4y5Y91KC7iM3uBhWmu, operator-by-hand-v1): the refusal of 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-193207 reverted — the record was read against VASO-C185, C186 and C187, none of which is the latent-versus-normal comparison its statement names; it now cites VASO-C189, the bearing read from its own words, and stands for the panel's judgment

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C189

Supports· moderateVASO-E099

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 4.3

what the source states: Trigger point area measurements were "fair classifiers of active versus latent sites" (cutoff point 0.4; AUC 0.8; P < .01).
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears on VASO-C005, VASO-C184 and not on VASO-C182, VASO-C183; the links dropped at intake: The quoted ROC statistic (fair classifier, cutoff 0.4, AUC 0.8, P<.01) is accurately quoted and correctly located in the Results section, and it does support the general finding of measurable differences (C005) and corroborates that active sites are distinguishable in area from latent sites (C184). However, it does not report the specific mean ± SD area values for active vs latent (C182) nor the active/latent-vs-normal comparison (C183), so the passage does not bear on those two split claims. The record correctly notes shared NIH lineage with the Shah 2008 source.

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C005 VASO-C184

Supports· moderateVASO-E100

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 3 — part 1

what the source states: Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that trigger point "area measurements could robustly distinguish between active, latent, and normal sites".
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears in different directions on the claims the record named; this record carries "supports" toward VASO-C005, the rest went to a record of its own at intake: The quoted sentence and AUC figures are accurately reported and correctly located in the Results/Abstract, and the source does not repeat another lab's independent dataset (correctly flagged as NIH-lineage overlap). However, the sourceStatement only reports the ROC/AUC classification finding, not the specific mean-area comparisons that VASO-C182, VASO-C183, and VASO-C184 assert; it therefore bears on the topic without directly establishing those specific quantitative claims, so it is better read as context for them, while it does support the broader claim (VASO-C005) that active sites differ measurably in stiffness/area from other tissue.

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C005

Supports· moderateVASO-E102

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 3 — part 2.2

what the source states: Trigger point area measurements from ROC analysis yielded an area under the curve of "0.8 for active versus normal" sites.
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears in different directions on the claims the record named; this record carries "supports" toward VASO-C005, the rest went to a record of its own at intake: The quoted sentence and AUC figures are accurately reported and correctly located in the Results/Abstract, and the source does not repeat another lab's independent dataset (correctly flagged as NIH-lineage overlap). However, the sourceStatement only reports the ROC/AUC classification finding, not the specific mean-area comparisons that VASO-C182, VASO-C183, and VASO-C184 assert; it therefore bears on the topic without directly establishing those specific quantitative claims, so it is better read as context for them, while it does support the broader claim (VASO-C005) that active sites differ measurably in stiffness/area from other tissue.

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C005

Supports· moderateVASO-E104

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 3 — toward VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184 — part 1

what the source states: Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that trigger point "area measurements could robustly distinguish between active, latent, and normal sites".
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears in different directions on the claims the record named; this record carries "context" toward VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184, the rest went to a record of its own at intake: The quoted sentence and AUC figures are accurately reported and correctly located in the Results/Abstract, and the source does not repeat another lab's independent dataset (correctly flagged as NIH-lineage overlap). However, the sourceStatement only reports the ROC/AUC classification finding, not the specific mean-area comparisons that VASO-C182, VASO-C183, and VASO-C184 assert; it therefore bears on the topic without directly establishing those specific quantitative claims, so it is better read as context for them, while it does support the broader claim (VASO-C005) that active sites differ measurably in stiffness/area from other tissue.
Direction set to "supports" (from "context") by the second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504, verify-v6) at intake: The quoted ROC/AUC 'robustly distinguish' finding sits in the same Results paragraph and rests on the same underlying area data as the specific mean-difference claims (active>latent>normal, each P<.01); a strong ROC/AUC separation between groups is itself evidence that the group means differ as the claims state, not merely background context. The quote is accurately located and rendered, the NIH lineage overlap is properly disclosed, and the statement is a single atomic proposition, but labeling it 'context' understates its evidentiary bearing on these three specific quantitative claims — it should be read as supporting evidence for each.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504, verify-v6) disputes the stated direction toward VASO-C186: The quoted ROC/AUC 'robustly distinguish' passage is accurately quoted and correctly located in the Results/Abstract, and the NIH-lineage overlap is properly disclosed. But VASO-C186 asserts a distinct finding — that elastography-measured trigger point areas showed trends similar to pain pressure threshold scores — which is a separate sentence/observation in the same paragraph, not established or restated by the ROC/AUC discriminability statement quoted here. The classification-strength quote does not speak to whether the area trend paralleled the PPT trend, so it does not bear on this specific claim even though it comes from the same study and topic area.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504, verify-v6) disputes the stated direction toward VASO-C187: The quoted ROC/AUC 'robustly distinguish' finding is accurately reported and correctly located, and NIH lineage overlap is properly disclosed, but it says nothing about the specific mean ± SD area value (0.17 ± 0.22 cm²) for normal sites that VASO-C187 asserts. A classification-strength statistic does not itself establish a particular descriptive mean, so the passage bears only as context on this specific quantitative claim rather than as direct support.
Corrected by the operator on 2026-09-20 (session_01AiXD4y5Y91KC7iM3uBhWmu, operator-by-hand-v1): relinked from VASO-C182, VASO-C185, VASO-C186, VASO-C187, VASO-C184 to VASO-C182, VASO-C187, VASO-C184, VASO-C188, VASO-C189 — its statement — area measurements distinguish active, latent and normal sites — bears on both comparisons against normal tissue; the bearing is read from the record's own statement, not from the reader, and stands for the panel's judgment

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C182 VASO-C187 VASO-C184 VASO-C188 VASO-C189

Supports· moderateVASO-E105

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 3 — toward VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184 — part 2.2

what the source states: Trigger point area measurements from ROC analysis yielded an area under the curve of "0.8 for active versus normal" sites.
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears in different directions on the claims the record named; this record carries "context" toward VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184, the rest went to a record of its own at intake: The quoted sentence and AUC figures are accurately reported and correctly located in the Results/Abstract, and the source does not repeat another lab's independent dataset (correctly flagged as NIH-lineage overlap). However, the sourceStatement only reports the ROC/AUC classification finding, not the specific mean-area comparisons that VASO-C182, VASO-C183, and VASO-C184 assert; it therefore bears on the topic without directly establishing those specific quantitative claims, so it is better read as context for them, while it does support the broader claim (VASO-C005) that active sites differ measurably in stiffness/area from other tissue.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504, verify-v6) found the passage bears on VASO-C183 and not on VASO-C182, VASO-C184; the links dropped at intake: The quoted AUC=0.8 statistic specifically concerns the active-versus-normal ROC classification, so it has no bearing on VASO-C182 or VASO-C184, which concern active-versus-latent area differences. For VASO-C183, which asserts active/latent sites are significantly larger than normal sites, the AUC finding corroborates that area distinguishes active from normal tissue and should be read as supporting rather than merely contextual, since it independently confirms the same directional finding using a different statistical method from the same dataset.
Direction set to "supports" (from "context") by the second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504, verify-v6) at intake: The quoted AUC=0.8 statistic specifically concerns the active-versus-normal ROC classification, so it has no bearing on VASO-C182 or VASO-C184, which concern active-versus-latent area differences. For VASO-C183, which asserts active/latent sites are significantly larger than normal sites, the AUC finding corroborates that area distinguishes active from normal tissue and should be read as supporting rather than merely contextual, since it independently confirms the same directional finding using a different statistical method from the same dataset.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504, verify-v6) disputes the stated direction toward VASO-C186: The AUC=0.8 active-vs-normal figure is accurately quoted and correctly located in the Results, and the NIH-lineage overlap is properly disclosed. But VASO-C186 asserts that trigger-point areas showed trends similar to PPT scores (i.e., a pattern of active>latent>normal mirroring the PPT pattern), which is a different proposition from a specific ROC classification statistic; the AUC figure characterizes classification performance rather than establishing the trend-similarity claim, so it bears on the topic only as context rather than as direct support.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504, verify-v6) disputes the stated direction toward VASO-C187: The quoted AUC=0.8 statistic describes classification performance for distinguishing active from normal sites, not the specific mean±SD area value (0.17±0.22 cm²) for normal sites that VASO-C187 asserts; the passage is accurately quoted and located, but it does not establish or corroborate that particular descriptive statistic, so it bears only as background context on this claim rather than as support.
Corrected by the operator on 2026-09-20 (session_01AiXD4y5Y91KC7iM3uBhWmu, operator-by-hand-v1): relinked from VASO-C186, VASO-C187 to VASO-C187, VASO-C188 — its statement names active versus normal; the bearing is read from the record's own statement, not from the reader, and stands for the panel's judgment

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C187 VASO-C188

Supports· moderateVASO-E107

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 3 — toward VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184 — part 2.3 — toward VASO-C183

what the source states: Trigger point area measurements from ROC analysis yielded an area under the curve of "0.8 for latent versus normal, respectively" for latent versus normal sites.
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears in different directions on the claims the record named; this record carries "context" toward VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184, the rest went to a record of its own at intake: The quoted sentence and AUC figures are accurately reported and correctly located in the Results/Abstract, and the source does not repeat another lab's independent dataset (correctly flagged as NIH-lineage overlap). However, the sourceStatement only reports the ROC/AUC classification finding, not the specific mean-area comparisons that VASO-C182, VASO-C183, and VASO-C184 assert; it therefore bears on the topic without directly establishing those specific quantitative claims, so it is better read as context for them, while it does support the broader claim (VASO-C005) that active sites differ measurably in stiffness/area from other tissue.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504, verify-v6) found the passage bears in different directions on the claims the record named; this record carries "supports" toward VASO-C183, the rest went to a record of its own at intake: The quoted AUC figure (0.8 for latent versus normal) is verbatim from the abstract and correctly located; it is a single, atomic statistical claim and the record properly flags NIH-lineage overlap. However, this ROC/AUC statistic on latent-versus-normal classification directly evidences the latent-vs-normal size difference asserted in VASO-C183, so it should be scored as supporting that claim rather than merely 'context'; it remains context for VASO-C182 (active-vs-latent means) and VASO-C184 (active-vs-latent significance), which it does not address.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504, verify-v6) disputes the stated direction toward VASO-C186: The quoted AUC figure (0.8 for latent vs normal) is accurately drawn from the abstract and correctly located, and the NIH-lineage overlap is properly flagged. But VASO-C186 asserts that trigger point area trends resembled pain-pressure-threshold trends across site types, a qualitative pattern-similarity claim distinct from the specific ROC/AUC classification statistic reported here; the AUC value does not itself establish or refute that trend-similarity claim, so it bears only as topical context rather than as direct support.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504, verify-v6) disputes the stated direction toward VASO-C187: The quoted AUC=0.8 statistic concerns the classification strength for distinguishing latent from normal sites via ROC analysis, not the specific mean ± SD area value (0.17 ± 0.22 cm²) for normal sites that VASO-C187 asserts. The record's quote is accurate and correctly located, but it does not directly evidence the particular quantitative claim in VASO-C187, so it bears only as context rather than as direct support.
Corrected by the operator on 2026-09-20 (session_01AiXD4y5Y91KC7iM3uBhWmu, operator-by-hand-v1): relinked from VASO-C186, VASO-C187 to VASO-C187, VASO-C189 — its statement names latent versus normal; the bearing is read from the record's own statement, not from the reader, and stands for the panel's judgment

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C187 VASO-C189

Supports· weakVASO-E014

First-person report: the two-key release protocol

what the source states: The essay reports, as first-person and practitioner experience: pressure locates a knot but does not release it; release comes with breath — press into a knot, breathe slowly, and on a long exhale something lets go, in seconds. Fresh knots yield in a session; old ones take months.
what we infer: The anchor phenomenon of the whole case, honestly labeled: first-person phenomenology from the hypothesis's proponent (in an essay whose text was AI-generated at the author's direction), consistent with widespread practitioner lore, measured by no one.
limitations: Testimony, not measurement; proponent source; expectation and attention effects cannot be excluded from any first-person release report.

Eugene Jhong (2026)Verified — held in project libraryVASO-C004

Supports· weakVASO-E015

Tender-point ubiquity and the missing census

what the source states: The essay reports that anyone with a foam roller can locate dozens of tender points, densest around hips and shoulders and more numerous with age; it cites fibromyalgia-era community tender-point exams (medians of 6 in women and 3 in men, counts tracking distress) as the closest existing data — and observes that no knot census (count, distribution, or age curve) has ever been performed.
what we infer: The community-exam figures are the essay's second-hand characterization — the underlying rheumatology survey has not been located and verified in this project. The census gap itself is confirmed by the critical report and is the case's cheapest decisive research opportunity.
limitations: Second-hand statistics; underlying citation unverified — figures should not carry weight until traced.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-21 (2026-09-21-answer-vasocomputation-021449): VASO-C001 was split into VASO-C190, VASO-C191; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading

Eugene Jhong (2026)Verified — held in project libraryProvisional — awaiting the textVASO-C190 VASO-C191

Supports· weakVASO-E027

Ballyns 2011: high-resistance flow near trigger points is compatible with compression by contracture, inflammation, or transducer pressure as much as with distal constriction

what the source states: The source reports that arteries near active and latent sites had highly pulsatile flow with retrograde diastolic flow more often than normal tissue, and that "prominent blood vessels were observed in the close vicinity of trigger points". It offers two explanations for pulsatile flow — increased compliance/volume of the vascular compartment, or increased outflow resistance — and lists possible causes of the latter: "muscle contracture at the trigger point that compresses the capillary/venous bed", anatomic geometry of the trapezius apex, local vasoconstriction due to inflammation, or externally applied pressure from the transducer. It frames its integrated-hypothesis discussion around capillary constriction, ischemia and hypoxia and notes increased vessel presence as a possible angiogenic response.
what we infer: Recorded as supporting because increased downstream resistance near trigger points is what VASO-C020's 'chronic local ischemia' predicts — but at effectively zero diagnosticity: the source itself names skeletal-muscle contracture compressing the bed (the conventional account) as a candidate cause and does not mention smooth-muscle latch. Nothing here separates arteriolar smooth muscle from mechanical compression, and the vessels observed are conduit-scale, not microvascular.
limitations: Vessels interrogated were pulsatile arteries or enlarged arterioles typically >1 mm, 1–2 cm from the point.
Alternative mechanical explanations are given equal standing by the authors.
No perfusion measurement in the muscle bed itself; Doppler waveform only.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-09) disputes the stated direction: The quotes and paraphrases accurately reflect the Doppler paragraph and Discussion text, including the equal-standing alternative explanations for pulsatile flow. However, labeling this 'supports' VASO-C020 is questionable: the source explicitly treats compression by contracture, inflammation, or transducer artifact as equally plausible alternatives to a latch-bridge vascular-autonomic mechanism, so the passage more properly qualifies or contextualizes the claim rather than affirmatively supporting it—this is registered as dissent rather than grounds for rejection. All other elements (quote fidelity, statement scope, locator accuracy, independence, relevance to the claim) check out.

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C020

Supports· weakVASO-E029

Ballyns 2011: palpation is the reference standard and remains subjective

what the source states: The source states that although most trigger points are located and classified from history and physical examination, "results can vary depending on the clinician’s training and experience", and that the visual analog scale, pressure-pain threshold and palpation are the reference standards "but they are still subjective measures".
what we infer: A proponent group conceding the point the critics press: the reference standard is examiner-dependent. Weak because it is an assertion in a discussion section rather than a reliability measurement; the ledger already holds the systematic review (VASO-E011).
limitations: Statement, not measurement; this source did not test inter-examiner reliability.

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C030

Supports· weakVASO-E033

Essay restates the stress-up / relaxation-down EMG pattern at trigger points

what the source states: The essay states that needle-EMG studies found trigger points show spontaneous electrical chatter that rises when the "subject is given a mental stressor and falls during relaxation".
what we infer: Editor's inference: this is a secondary restatement of McNulty 1994 (VASO-E002) plus the unretrieved Banks 1998 relaxation paper; it adds no independent observation and carries zero diagnostic weight beyond E002. Same independence group as E002.
limitations: Secondary source; text generated by AI models (Kimi and Fable) per p. 1
No citation, sample size, or effect size given
Relaxation half rests on a primary (Banks 1998) the ledger has not retrieved
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-09) disputes the stated direction: The quoted passage on p.4 matches the source text verbatim and is fairly summarized as the essay's own restatement of needle-EMG findings, correctly located. However, VASO-C003 specifically claims selective activation at trigger points versus quiet adjacent control sites in the same muscle, and the p.4 passage only states that trigger-point chatter rises with stress and falls with relaxation without any mention of a control site remaining quiet (that detail appears only later, on p.5, describing the McNulty study). Using this general, control-free statement to 'support' a claim whose core content is about site-selectivity is a stretch; it is better characterized as background context for the claim rather than direct support, so I dissent on the direction while agreeing the record is otherwise accurately sourced and relevant.

Eugene Jhong (2026)Verified — held in project libraryVASO-C003

Supports· weakVASO-E034

Essay's description of the latch: force persists after activation disappears

what the source states: The essay describes the latch-bridge state as a ratchet in which "The activating signal can disappear entirely and the grip remains." and says the founding observation is activation spiking then falling while force stays.
what we infer: Editor's inference: derivative of Hai & Murphy 1988 (VASO-E003); the phrase 'disappear entirely' overstates what the latch model claims, which is low, not zero, phosphorylation. Zero independent weight.
limitations: Secondary, AI-generated text
Overstates the model: latch is maintained force at low activation, not at none

Eugene Jhong (2026)Verified — held in project libraryVASO-C010

Supports· weakVASO-E035

The speed-of-release argument as the essay states it

what the source states: The essay argues that structural remodeling takes days to weeks while a knot can go in five seconds mid-exhale, so "Whatever releases in that moment must therefore be" a state rather than a structure.
what we infer: Editor's inference: this is the inference itself, not an observation; its premise (an objective seconds-scale local event) is the unmeasured thing. It supports the conditional logic of C011 only.
limitations: Argument, not measurement
Secondary, AI-generated text

Eugene Jhong (2026)Verified — held in project libraryVASO-C011

Supports· weakVASO-E036

Essay asserts exhalation shifts autonomic balance parasympathetic

what the source states: The essay states that "Exhalation shifts autonomic balance toward the parasympathetic side" and lowers resting tone throughout the body.
what we infer: Editor's inference: uncited restatement of what Zaccaro 2018 (VASO-E009) documents; zero independent weight.
limitations: Uncited
Secondary, AI-generated text

Eugene Jhong (2026)Verified — held in project libraryVASO-C013

Supports· weakVASO-E039

Essay: traditional maps cluster knots along the torso midline and limbs

what the source states: The essay finds it "at least suggestive that the traditional maps place the important knots along the" torso's midline and the limbs, where dorsal root ganglia, sympathetic chains and dense fascia reside, rather than in the head.
what we infer: Editor's inference: an uncited assertion about the content of traditional maps, with no coding rule or chance baseline; it is the first record on C022 in either direction and carries essentially no diagnostic weight until VASO-R006 is run.
limitations: No source for the map locations cited
Post-hoc matching risk unaddressed
Secondary, AI-generated text

Eugene Jhong (2026)Verified — held in project libraryVASO-C022

Supports· weakVASO-E043

Essay restates Hubbard–Berkoff: signal vanishes a centimeter away

what the source states: The essay says that in Hubbard and Berkoff's recordings, if you "Move the needle roughly a centimeter into non-tender muscle" of the same trapezius the signal vanishes.
what we infer: Editor's inference: derivative of E001; the exclusivity it implies is already qualified by Simons 2002 (E031), which the essay does not mention. Zero independent weight.
limitations: Derivative of E001
Does not account for endplate-zone noise at non-tender sites
Secondary, AI-generated text

Eugene Jhong (2026)Verified — held in project libraryVASO-C002

Supports· weakVASO-E047

Essay restates Hong & Simons 1993: inactivating a key trigger point inactivated its satellites

what the source states: The essay reports that Hong and Simons found that 'inactivating a key trigger point inactivated its satellites without treating them' (1993), offered as a clinical demonstration of upstream dependence among knots.
what we infer: Second-hand; the primary was not retrieved. If accurate it is the closest published analogue to the cascade claim, but it concerns needling, not breath-assisted release.
limitations: Secondary restatement in an AI-generated essay; primary not retrieved.

Eugene Jhong (2026)UnverifiedVASO-C065

Supports· weakVASO-E050

Essay restates Sikdar 2009: hypoechoic, stiffer nodules with abnormal flow at trapezius trigger points

what the source states: The essay reports that Sikdar and colleagues, using gray-scale ultrasound, vibration sonoelastography and Doppler on upper-trapezius trigger points, 'found discrete hypoechoic nodules, stiffer than the surrounding' tissue with abnormal flow around them.
what we infer: Same NIH lineage as SRC-BALLYNS-2011 (VASO-E022–E023); not independent of it. Primary not retrieved.
limitations: Secondary restatement; primary not retrieved; not independent of the Ballyns 2011 records.

Eugene Jhong (2026)UnverifiedVASO-C005

Supports· weakVASO-E051

Essay restates an attenuated skin blood-flow response over latent trigger points

what the source states: The essay states that Arendt-Nielsen's group reported 'an attenuated skin blood-flow response over latent trigger points', which it calls the first hint of a cutaneous vasomotor abnormality at a knot.
what we infer: This is the Zhang 2009 finding already dispositioned as blocked; the essay's restatement adds no text from the primary.
limitations: Secondary restatement; primary (Zhang et al. 2009) not retrieved.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-09) disputes the stated direction: The quote is accurately drawn from p.30 and correctly attributed to Arendt-Nielsen's group as reported in the essay, and the limitations note flags it as a secondary restatement of an unretrieved primary source. However, the claim VASO-C005 concerns active trigger-point sites, while the cited finding specifically concerns latent trigger points, a distinct clinical category; this mismatch makes the 'supports' direction toward an active-trigger-point claim questionable rather than clearly right.

Eugene Jhong (2026)UnverifiedVASO-C005

Supports· weakVASO-E078

Landfald 2025: no gold standard for detecting trigger points; palpation variability the authors' stated reason for adding imaging — part 1

what the source states: There is no gold standard technique for detecting myofascial trigger points: "there is no gold standard technique for detecting them".
what we infer: A proponent-side clinical group states the reliability problem in its own words and reports a concrete palpation–imaging discrepancy. Weak because the reliability statement is a citation of others rather than a new measurement, and because the authors did not test their own inter- or intra-observer reliability.
limitations: The inter-observer-variability statement is secondary (cites earlier work).
No formal reliability testing of the sonographic assessment was performed (authors' limitation).

Ingrid C. Landfald (2025)AI-verified citationVASO-C030

Supports· weakVASO-E079

Landfald 2025: no gold standard for detecting trigger points; palpation variability the authors' stated reason for adding imaging — part 2

what the source states: Manual palpation, despite its use in clinical practice, "has significant inter-observer variability that cannot be meaningfully improved after training", per cited reliability work.
what we infer: A proponent-side clinical group states the reliability problem in its own words and reports a concrete palpation–imaging discrepancy. Weak because the reliability statement is a citation of others rather than a new measurement, and because the authors did not test their own inter- or intra-observer reliability.
limitations: The inter-observer-variability statement is secondary (cites earlier work).
No formal reliability testing of the sonographic assessment was performed (authors' limitation).

Ingrid C. Landfald (2025)AI-verified citationVASO-C030

Supports· weakVASO-E081

Landfald 2025: no gold standard for detecting trigger points; palpation variability the authors' stated reason for adding imaging — part 5

what the source states: In this study elastography primarily served to verify MTrP presence: it "confirmed 71.5% of palpated hard spots as MTrPs", with the remainder corresponding to tendinous cores or musculotendinous junctions.
what we infer: A proponent-side clinical group states the reliability problem in its own words and reports a concrete palpation–imaging discrepancy. Weak because the reliability statement is a citation of others rather than a new measurement, and because the authors did not test their own inter- or intra-observer reliability.
limitations: The inter-observer-variability statement is secondary (cites earlier work).
No formal reliability testing of the sonographic assessment was performed (authors' limitation).

Ingrid C. Landfald (2025)AI-verified citationVASO-C030

Undermines

3 records · strongest first

Records that count against a rung — shown with the same structure and seriousness.

Undermines· strongVASO-E016

The critical report's grade-D audit of the two linchpins

what the source states: The report's graded evidence matrix assigns grade D — no direct evidence located — to both linchpin propositions: "a knot releases objectively in seconds during exhalation" (no synchronized time-resolved imaging study found) and "the releasing element is vascular smooth muscle" (no study identifies a smooth-muscle latch at a trigger point; the EMG chatter is neuromuscular, not vascular).
what we infer: The featured hypothesis's two load-bearing empirical steps are currently unevidenced, not merely under-evidenced: the mechanism is borrowed from vascular physiology, not observed at a tender point. This is the case's single most important undermining record.
limitations: Absence of evidence after one AI literature search is not a completed systematic review; the report itself frames these as unrun experiments rather than refutations.

AI deep-research agent (commissioned by Eugene) (2026)Verified — held in project libraryVASO-C020

Undermines· moderateVASO-E019

Study table: energetic cost has never been measured in any arteriole, so the economy argument rests entirely on conduit arteries

what the source states: Across sixteen rows spanning 1981-2022, contemporaneous energetic measurement — oxygen consumption, lactate release, or ATP turnover — appears only in large tonic arterial preparations (swine and porcine carotid, at zero transmural pressure), and in no arteriole or resistance microvessel of any bed. No located study satisfies all four conditions the study set: skeletal-muscle arteriole or smaller, physiological temperature and transmural pressure, maintained force or diameter, and a contemporaneous energetic or cycling measurement. The frozen literal queries aimed at microvascular energetics returned nothing, as did two further searches run specifically for arteriole-level oxygen consumption and ATP economy.
what we infer: The energetic feasibility step under VASO-C020 — that a knot can be held cheaply — is an extrapolation across both vessel class and caliber, not a borrowed-and-demonstrated mechanism. The extrapolation may still be correct; what the ledger can now say is that nobody has measured it where the hypothesis needs it, and that this is a gap in the literature rather than a gap in this case's reading of it.
limitations: Absence of a demonstration is not a demonstration of absence; the study's own limitations record that discovery ran against PubMed, Europe PMC and Crossref, which cover the older non-indexed energetics literature poorly.

This site (AI-authored project work held in the repository) (2026)AI-verified citationVASO-C020

Undermines· moderateVASO-E020

Study table: in pressurized skeletal-muscle arterioles, maintained constriction tracks maintained activation rather than the latch signature

what the source states: Three rows are pressurized skeletal-muscle resistance vessels — rat cremaster and gracilis — in which LC20 phosphorylation was measured against diameter. In all three, maintained constriction is accompanied by maintained or rising phosphorylation rather than by force held while activation falls: 27.7% at 30 mmHg rising to 39.6% at 120 mmHg (Zou, Ratz & Hill 1995, at 34 degrees C in roughly 100-micrometre arterioles); a monophasic rise correlated with instantaneous wall tension (Zou, Ratz & Hill 2000); and 40% already at 10 mmHg rising to about 55% at 80 mmHg with no further change to 140 mmHg (Moreno-Dominguez et al. 2013, which attributes the sustained constriction to Rho-kinase-mediated Ca2+ sensitization and actin polymerization). The 2000 paper states that spontaneous arteriolar tone "represents a state of maintained smooth muscle activation that requires increases in [Ca2+]i and myosin light-chain phosphorylation."
what we infer: This is the first record in the case bearing directly on the tissue compartment VASO-C020 names, and it does not fit the latch picture: at arteriole caliber the published measurements show sustained activation, not an economical dephosphorylated hold. It is a mismatch rather than a refutation — none of the three studies was designed as a latch test, all held their stimulus present throughout, and none measured energetic cost. What it removes is the assumption that the arteriole compartment is simply unexamined; it has been examined with the right molecular readout, and what was found there points at a different mechanism for holding constriction.
limitations: All three rows were built from published abstracts; full texts were not accessible, so temperature is recorded for only one of the three and endothelial status for none.
Myogenic tone is by construction a response to a maintained stimulus, so these studies could not have shown input-free persistence even if it exists.

This site (AI-authored project work held in the repository) (2026)AI-verified citationVASO-C020

Qualifies

8 records · strongest first

Records that narrow, complicate, or bound what another record can carry.

Qualifies· moderateVASO-E012

Even the 'palpable discrete spot' is disputed, not just its mechanism

what the source states: The critical report finds that the essay overstates one point: it is not true that skeptics dispute only the mechanism while conceding that precisely localizable palpable spots exist. The reproducibility and ontological status of the spots themselves are part of the academic debate.
what we infer: A correction imported against the featured essay's own framing: the observation rung is softer than the essay presents it.
limitations: The report's synthesis judgment, resting on the Lucas and Quintner lines above rather than on new data.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-21 (2026-09-21-answer-vasocomputation-021449): VASO-C001 was split into VASO-C190, VASO-C191; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading

AI deep-research agent (commissioned by Eugene) (2026)Verified — held in project libraryProvisional — awaiting the textVASO-C190 VASO-C191

Qualifies· moderateVASO-E017

Hysteresis is not yet memory: the missing write–store–read demonstration

what the source states: The report argues that biological memory requires state that depends on prior input, can later be read out, and discriminates between different prior inputs — criteria the latch literature does not address. It notes that the closest empirical precedent is not mammalian: Physarum slime mold demonstrably stores nutrient locations in the tube-diameter hierarchy of its living flow network (Kramar & Alim 2021), a genuine write–store–read loop — in an organism whose tubes are its own motile body.
what we infer: A thermostat's hysteresis is not autobiographical memory. The weak form of vasocomputation (vascular state shapes neural computation) is now plausible; the strong form (latches store thoughts) has no direct evidence, and the best evidence that flow networks can store information comes from an organism very unlike us.
limitations: The Kramar & Alim citation was reproduced from the report and its PNAS identifier not independently re-verified; used here as the report's argument, not as an imported source.

AI deep-research agent (commissioned by Eugene) (2026)Verified — held in project libraryVASO-C021

Qualifies· moderateVASO-E021

Study table: latch behaviour is not generic across vascular smooth muscle, and the divergence was never followed downstream

what the source states: Paired rows from rabbit femoral and saphenous artery record sustained isometric stress at falling intracellular calcium in the femoral (1.3e5 N/m2 at 10 min, MLC phosphorylation 42%) against a 40% stress loss in its own muscular branch (0.8e5 N/m2, phosphorylation 28%), which the authors attribute to expressed motor proteins that do not support latch-bridge formation, together with greater MLC phosphatase. The pressurized follow-up reports the same asymmetry in diameter behaviour. Forward citation chaining from both 2006 papers located no study extending the comparison into arterioles or the microcirculation.
what we infer: VASO-C010 states a capability, and the capability is real — but the ledger should no longer be read as saying that vascular smooth muscle generically latches. The one published comparison between a vessel and its own downstream branch found the behaviour present in the parent and absent one branch order later, which makes vessel type and motor-protein phenotype load-bearing variables rather than incidental ones. That nobody has run the comparison further down is the specific gap VASO-R004's paired-caliber design now exists to close.
limitations: One publication and one laboratory supply both arms of the comparison; the femoral/saphenous divergence has not been independently replicated, and the study records the two 2006 papers as non-independent.
The saphenous artery is a named conduit artery, not a resistance microvessel, so it constrains how far downstream the finding can be read.

This site (AI-authored project work held in the repository) (2026)AI-verified citationVASO-C010

Qualifies· moderateVASO-E026

Ballyns 2011: no pain-free control group; 'normal' sites sit in symptomatic muscle

what the source states: The source states as a limitation that "our study did not include a control group of pain-free patients", that pain-free sites were instead marked at least 5 cm from latent and active sites, and that because all patients had at least one palpable trigger point the observed blood-flow characteristics "do not represent the normal variation".
what we infer: Every comparison in this source is within symptomatic patients. The 31% retrograde-flow figure at 'normal' sites may therefore be either a true baseline rate or spillover from neighbouring points; the source itself cannot say which. This caps the strength of VASO-E025 and VASO-E026.
limitations: Author-stated limitation; no external data on pain-free variation was shown.

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C005 VASO-C031 VASO-C032

Qualifies· moderateVASO-E031

Simons, Hong & Simons 2002: endplate noise is characteristic of, but not restricted to, trigger points

what the source states: The source reports a needle examination at one test site and two control sites in 11 muscles of 10 subjects, with the endplate zone determined electrically: "Endplate noise without spikes occurred in all 11 muscles at trigger-point sites", "in four muscles at endplate zone sites outside of trigger points" (P = 0.024), and "did not occur in taut band sites outside of an endplate zone" (P = 0.000034). It concludes that endplate noise seems to be "characteristic of, but is not restricted to, the region" of a trigger point.
what we infer: This qualifies VASO-C002's 'confined to a nidus, absent in adjacent non-tender muscle': spontaneous activity was found at 4 of 11 non-tender endplate-zone sites. Hubbard–Berkoff's silent control sites may have lain off the endplate zone rather than demonstrating exclusivity. The correct comparator for the nidus is a matched endplate-zone site, which neither Hubbard–Berkoff 1993 nor McNulty 1994 used, as far as the ledger records. The prevalence gradient (11/11 vs 4/11 vs 0/11) still supports 'more common at trigger points'.
limitations: Abstract only; per-site amplitudes and subject details not shown.
Design described by the source as nonrandomized and unblinded; 10 subjects.
Authors are proponents of the trigger-point construct.

David G. Simons (2002)AI-verified citationVASO-C002

Qualifies· moderateVASO-E070

Landfald 2025: active trigger points larger, stiffer and more painful than latent ones; latent ones cleared more often after one round — part 3

what the source states: Active points had a significantly larger cross-sectional area than latent points, "28 mm 2 vs. 17 mm 2 , p = 0.014".
what we infer: A second laboratory, a second muscle (gastrocnemius) and a second elastography method (strain rather than vibration) reproduce the graded finding that palpated points are measurably stiffer than surrounding tissue and that the more symptomatic class is stiffer still. The record has no palpably normal control sites and no biochemistry or Doppler, so it supports the stiffness component of the claim only.
limitations: No palpably normal or pain-free control sites; the comparison is active versus latent within symptomatic runners.
Subgroup analyses described by the authors as exploratory and underpowered.
Strain elastography stiffness ratios are relative, operator-dependent measures.
Direction set to "qualifies" (from "supports") by the second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-verify-vasocomputation-113521, verify-v6) at intake: The quote and figures (28 mm2 vs 17 mm2, p=0.014) are accurately reported from Table 2/Results as an active-vs-latent MTrP comparison. However, VASO-C005 concerns differences between active trigger-point sites and control (non-trigger-point) tissue, whereas this data compares active to latent trigger points within symptomatic runners, with no palpably normal control tissue as the record's own limitations note. This makes the finding a qualification rather than direct support of the claim about trigger point vs control tissue differences.

Ingrid C. Landfald (2025)AI-verified citationVASO-C005

Qualifies· weakVASO-E025

Ballyns 2011: the Doppler indices do not cleanly separate sites

what the source states: The source states that "No differences in RI values were detected between normal", latent and active sites, and that the pulsatility index "was not a good classifier of active, latent, or normal sites" because of large variance; it adds that blood-flow measures "did not perform well as classifiers of the site type".
what we infer: Narrows VASO-C005: blood flow differs on one index at group level but does not distinguish individual sites, and a second index shows no difference. The claim's 'measurably differ' survives in the weak group-level sense only.
limitations: Same subjects and sites as VASO-E025; not an independent observation.

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C005

Qualifies· weakVASO-E041

Essay's caveat: Mizrachi's route is vagal and skin is not parasympathetically innervated

what the source states: The essay notes the demonstrated route in the attention study runs through the vagal anti-inflammatory reflex over twenty minutes and that the authors note the "parasympathetic system does not innervate skin directly".
what we infer: Editor's inference: a correct limit on what C006 shows for the knot hypothesis — tens of minutes, immune route, not direct vascular grip; the ledger already reads C006 this way.
limitations: Relays the primary's own caveat second-hand; SRC-MIZRACHI-2026 is the record to cite
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-09) disputes the stated direction: The quoted phrase appears on p.7 exactly as rendered, attributed correctly to the Mizrachi authors' own caveat as relayed by the essay, and the surrounding statement about the vagal route and twenty-minute timescale matches the source. The record properly flags this as a second-hand relay of the primary study's own caveat, recommending the primary be cited instead, which satisfies independence disclosure. However, the caveat concerns mechanism (parasympathetic non-innervation of skin) rather than the empirical magnitude/direction of the attention effect that VASO-C006 asserts, so it functions more as background/context on mechanism than as a qualification that limits or conditions the claim's truth; I'd mark this 'context' rather than 'qualifies', though this is a dissent rather than a rejection.

Eugene Jhong (2026)Verified — held in project libraryVASO-C006

Context

29 records · strongest first

Background that informs the case without pushing either way.

Context· moderateVASO-E004

The hemo-neural hypothesis as proposed

what the source states: Moore and Cao propose that hemodynamics — blood flow and volume — may actively modulate neuronal information processing rather than merely supplying metabolic support, through candidate mechanical, thermal, and chemical pathways, and predict consequences for sensory gating and disease.
what we infer: The read path of the loop, stated as a hypothesis in 2008: this paper defines the claim rather than demonstrating it. The essay's "Rosalind Cao" should be Rosa Cao.
limitations: A hypothesis paper: proposes mechanisms, presents no new experimental demonstration.

Moore, C. I. (2008)AI-verified citationVASO-C012

Context· moderateVASO-E013

Johnson's three vasocomputation hypotheses

what the source states: Johnson proposes three hypotheses: Compressive Vasomotion (vasomotion functions as a compression sweep collapsing ambiguous neural patterns), Vascular Clamp (vascular contractions freeze local neural patterns for their duration, functioning as predictions and medium-term memory), and Latched Hyperprior (contractions held long enough engage the smooth- muscle latch-bridge, durably freezing nearby circuitry until the corresponding prediction resolves) — mapping the stack onto Buddhist tanha.
what we infer: The synthesis this case examines, stated by its originator. It is a self-published theoretical program: as of August 2026 its experimental projects (per Edge City materials cited in the critical report) seek direct evidence rather than reporting it.
limitations: Not peer reviewed; no experimental validation published; the mapping from latch physiology to cognitive content is the theory's central unproven step.

Johnson, M. E. (2023)AI-verified citationVASO-C021 VASO-C020

Context· moderateVASO-E067

Landfald 2025: the pressure-only compression protocol carried no breathing instruction, recording or manipulation — part 3

what the source states: No breathing instruction, recording or manipulation appears anywhere in the methods or results; the method is described only as "Trigger points were eliminated with compression".
what we infer: What the record establishes is an absence in the method: the protocol's compression was applied with no breathing instruction, recording or manipulation anywhere in the methods or results. It does not by itself establish what the protocol achieved; the immediate elimination and 24-hour non-recurrence figures proposed as records on VASO-C039 were refused at review as bundled, and the pressure-only outcomes the ledger does hold sit on the claims they are attached to (VASO-E072 on VASO-C005, VASO-E074 on VASO-C033). The bearing on VASO-C039 is context: a pressure-only protocol exists in the literature, and its subjects' breathing was neither instructed nor recorded — 'no breath instruction' is not 'breath held constant'.
limitations: Breathing uncontrolled and unrecorded, so a spontaneous slow exhale under pressure cannot be excluded.
The endpoint is palpation and elastography, not the felt release the two-key protocol describes.
Different muscle (gastrocnemius) and population (symptomatic amateur runners) from the practitioner reports behind the claim.
Direction set to "context" (from "undermines") by the second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-124732, verify-v6) at intake: The sourceStatement accurately reports that the Methods and Abstract nowhere mention breathing instruction, recording, or manipulation, and the locator (MTrP release section / Abstract) is correct. But this bare methodological absence, by itself, does not establish that pressure alone achieved release — that would require the outcome data (elimination rates), which per the review record was split off and not admitted here. Without a paired outcome, the statement only characterizes the study's method as a naive comparison point, so it bears on VASO-C039 as context rather than as undermining it.

Ingrid C. Landfald (2025)AI-verified citationVASO-C039

Context· moderateVASO-E068

Landfald 2025: active trigger points larger, stiffer and more painful than latent ones; latent ones cleared more often after one round — part 1

what the source states: Among the 103 identified MTrPs, 67 were classified as active and 36 as latent; the source states that "67 were classified as active (ATrPs), based on the presence of referred pain, and 36 as latent".
what we infer: A second laboratory, a second muscle (gastrocnemius) and a second elastography method (strain rather than vibration) reproduce the graded finding that palpated points are measurably stiffer than surrounding tissue and that the more symptomatic class is stiffer still. The record has no palpably normal control sites and no biochemistry or Doppler, so it supports the stiffness component of the claim only.
limitations: No palpably normal or pain-free control sites; the comparison is active versus latent within symptomatic runners.
Subgroup analyses described by the authors as exploratory and underpowered.
Strain elastography stiffness ratios are relative, operator-dependent measures.
Direction set to "context" (from "supports") by the second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-verify-vasocomputation-113521, verify-v6) at intake: The quoted sentence only reports the classification counts (67 active, 36 latent MTrPs) and does not itself contain the stiffness/biochemistry/blood-flow comparison to control (non-trigger-point) tissue that VASO-C005 requires; moreover the comparison in the paper is active vs latent trigger points within symptomatic runners, not trigger points vs control tissue, so it cannot be said to 'support' that claim directly. The passage is accurately quoted and located, but its bearing on VASO-C005 is at most contextual (establishing that active/latent subtypes exist and differ from each other), not supportive of a control-tissue comparison.

Ingrid C. Landfald (2025)AI-verified citationVASO-C005

Context· moderateVASO-E069

Landfald 2025: active trigger points larger, stiffer and more painful than latent ones; latent ones cleared more often after one round — part 2

what the source states: Active points had significantly higher VAS scores than latent points, "mean 8.9 vs. 6.1, p < 0.001".
what we infer: A second laboratory, a second muscle (gastrocnemius) and a second elastography method (strain rather than vibration) reproduce the graded finding that palpated points are measurably stiffer than surrounding tissue and that the more symptomatic class is stiffer still. The record has no palpably normal control sites and no biochemistry or Doppler, so it supports the stiffness component of the claim only.
limitations: No palpably normal or pain-free control sites; the comparison is active versus latent within symptomatic runners.
Subgroup analyses described by the authors as exploratory and underpowered.
Strain elastography stiffness ratios are relative, operator-dependent measures.
Direction set to "context" (from "supports") by the second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-verify-vasocomputation-113521, verify-v6) at intake: The quote is accurate and the locator is correct, but the claim concerns whether active trigger-point sites differ from control (non-trigger-point) tissue in biochemistry, stiffness, and blood flow; this record instead reports a subjective pain-score (VAS) difference between active and latent trigger points, not a comparison against control tissue and not a biochemical, stiffness, or blood-flow measure. It therefore bears on the general active-vs-latent theme but does not support the specific comparison the claim makes, so it is better read as context than as direct support.

Ingrid C. Landfald (2025)AI-verified citationVASO-C005

Context· moderateVASO-E071

Landfald 2025: active trigger points larger, stiffer and more painful than latent ones; latent ones cleared more often after one round — part 4

what the source states: Active points had significantly "greater stiffness ratios (mean 8.5 vs. 6.1, p = 0.006)" compared to latent points.
what we infer: A second laboratory, a second muscle (gastrocnemius) and a second elastography method (strain rather than vibration) reproduce the graded finding that palpated points are measurably stiffer than surrounding tissue and that the more symptomatic class is stiffer still. The record has no palpably normal control sites and no biochemistry or Doppler, so it supports the stiffness component of the claim only.
limitations: No palpably normal or pain-free control sites; the comparison is active versus latent within symptomatic runners.
Subgroup analyses described by the authors as exploratory and underpowered.
Strain elastography stiffness ratios are relative, operator-dependent measures.
Direction set to "context" (from "supports") by the second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-verify-vasocomputation-113521, verify-v6) at intake: The quote is accurately reproduced from Table 2/Results and correctly located, but the comparison is between active and latent trigger points within the same symptomatic cohort, not between trigger-point tissue and normal/control tissue as VASO-C005 requires. This internal subgroup contrast (active vs latent) does not itself establish that active sites differ from control tissue, so it bears on the claim only as context rather than as direct support.

Ingrid C. Landfald (2025)AI-verified citationVASO-C005

Context· moderateVASO-E072

Landfald 2025: active trigger points larger, stiffer and more painful than latent ones; latent ones cleared more often after one round — part 6

what the source states: After the first round of compression, "60% of ATrPs and 86% of LTrPs were no longer detectable sonographically" (p = 0.021).
what we infer: A second laboratory, a second muscle (gastrocnemius) and a second elastography method (strain rather than vibration) reproduce the graded finding that palpated points are measurably stiffer than surrounding tissue and that the more symptomatic class is stiffer still. The record has no palpably normal control sites and no biochemistry or Doppler, so it supports the stiffness component of the claim only.
limitations: No palpably normal or pain-free control sites; the comparison is active versus latent within symptomatic runners.
Subgroup analyses described by the authors as exploratory and underpowered.
Strain elastography stiffness ratios are relative, operator-dependent measures.
Direction set to "context" (from "supports") by the second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-verify-vasocomputation-113521, verify-v6) at intake: The quote is accurate and correctly located, reporting differential post-treatment detectability of active versus latent trigger points. However, VASO-C005 concerns whether active trigger-point sites differ from control (non-trigger-point) tissue in biochemistry, stiffness, and blood flow, whereas this passage compares active to latent trigger points' response to compression therapy, not either to control tissue baseline measures. That makes the passage background/contextual to the claim rather than direct support for it.

Ingrid C. Landfald (2025)AI-verified citationVASO-C005

Context· moderateVASO-E088

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 1.2

what the source states: Latent sites (palpable trigger points painful on palpation) had a mean trigger point area of 0.36 ± 0.16 cm², as stated: "latent sites (palpable trigger points painful on palpation; 0.36 ± 0.16 cm²)".
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears on VASO-C005, VASO-C182 and not on VASO-C183, VASO-C184; the links dropped at intake: The quote and locator are accurate and the record fairly reports the latent-site mean area (0.36 ± 0.16 cm²). This number directly matches and supports VASO-C182 (which states both means), but the record contains no normal-site value or significance test, so it does not itself bear on VASO-C183's normal-comparison claim or on VASO-C184's active-vs-latent significance claim. It only generally bears on VASO-C005's broad claim of measurable differences, so that is context rather than direct support. Independence is properly noted given shared NIH lineage.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears in different directions on the claims the record named; this record carries "context" toward VASO-C005, the rest went to a record of its own at intake: The quote and locator are accurate and the record fairly reports the latent-site mean area (0.36 ± 0.16 cm²). This number directly matches and supports VASO-C182 (which states both means), but the record contains no normal-site value or significance test, so it does not itself bear on VASO-C183's normal-comparison claim or on VASO-C184's active-vs-latent significance claim. It only generally bears on VASO-C005's broad claim of measurable differences, so that is context rather than direct support. Independence is properly noted given shared NIH lineage.

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C005

Context· moderateVASO-E093

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 2.2 — toward VASO-C182

what the source states: By vibration elastography, "active sites were significantly larger than latent sites" (P < .01).
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears in different directions on the claims the record named; this record carries "context" toward VASO-C182, the rest went to a record of its own at intake: The quoted sentence accurately reports the active-versus-latent size comparison (P<.01) from the Results section, and its statement is a fair, narrow account of that specific finding. It directly supports VASO-C184 (active > latent) and generally supports VASO-C005's broader claim about stiffness differences, but it says nothing about the specific magnitude values in C182 (0.57 vs 0.36 cm²) or about the active/latent-versus-normal comparison in C183, so it only bears as context on C182 and not at all on C183.

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C182

Context· moderateVASO-E097

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 4.2

what the source states: Trigger point area measurements were "fair classifiers of latent versus normal sites" (cutoff point 0.27; AUC 0.79; P < .01).
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears on VASO-C005, VASO-C183 and not on VASO-C182, VASO-C184; the links dropped at intake: The quoted classifier statistic concerns only the latent-versus-normal ROC comparison (AUC 0.79), which partially supports the latent-vs-normal portion of VASO-C183 but says nothing about the active-vs-latent mean difference in VASO-C184 or the specific active-vs-latent area values in VASO-C182; it also only tangentially bears on the broader active-site claim VASO-C005 since it addresses latent, not active, sites. The quote and locator are accurate and the record properly notes shared NIH lineage, but the blanket 'supports' direction for all four claims is too broad.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears in different directions on the claims the record named; this record carries "context" toward VASO-C005, the rest went to a record of its own at intake: The quoted classifier statistic concerns only the latent-versus-normal ROC comparison (AUC 0.79), which partially supports the latent-vs-normal portion of VASO-C183 but says nothing about the active-vs-latent mean difference in VASO-C184 or the specific active-vs-latent area values in VASO-C182; it also only tangentially bears on the broader active-site claim VASO-C005 since it addresses latent, not active, sites. The quote and locator are accurate and the record properly notes shared NIH lineage, but the blanket 'supports' direction for all four claims is too broad.

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C005

Context· moderateVASO-E101

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 3 — part 2.1

what the source states: Trigger point area measurements from ROC analysis yielded an area under the curve of "0.9 for active versus latent" sites.
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears in different directions on the claims the record named; this record carries "supports" toward VASO-C005, the rest went to a record of its own at intake: The quoted sentence and AUC figures are accurately reported and correctly located in the Results/Abstract, and the source does not repeat another lab's independent dataset (correctly flagged as NIH-lineage overlap). However, the sourceStatement only reports the ROC/AUC classification finding, not the specific mean-area comparisons that VASO-C182, VASO-C183, and VASO-C184 assert; it therefore bears on the topic without directly establishing those specific quantitative claims, so it is better read as context for them, while it does support the broader claim (VASO-C005) that active sites differ measurably in stiffness/area from other tissue.
Direction set to "context" (from "supports") by the second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504, verify-v6) at intake: The quoted AUC=0.9 figure is accurately reported and correctly located in the Results/Abstract; it reflects the active-versus-latent ROC classification, not a comparison to normal/control tissue. VASO-C005 specifically asserts that active sites differ from control (normal) tissue, so this active-vs-latent discrimination statistic does not itself establish that comparison—it bears on the general topic of trigger-point area discriminability but only as context for C005 rather than direct support. The NIH-lineage overlap with other records is properly flagged, and the statement is a single atomic proposition.

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C005

Context· moderateVASO-E103

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 3 — part 2.3

what the source states: Trigger point area measurements from ROC analysis yielded an area under the curve of "0.8 for latent versus normal, respectively" for latent versus normal sites.
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears in different directions on the claims the record named; this record carries "supports" toward VASO-C005, the rest went to a record of its own at intake: The quoted sentence and AUC figures are accurately reported and correctly located in the Results/Abstract, and the source does not repeat another lab's independent dataset (correctly flagged as NIH-lineage overlap). However, the sourceStatement only reports the ROC/AUC classification finding, not the specific mean-area comparisons that VASO-C182, VASO-C183, and VASO-C184 assert; it therefore bears on the topic without directly establishing those specific quantitative claims, so it is better read as context for them, while it does support the broader claim (VASO-C005) that active sites differ measurably in stiffness/area from other tissue.
Direction set to "context" (from "supports") by the second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504, verify-v6) at intake: The quoted AUC figure (0.8) for latent-versus-normal classification is accurately reproduced from the abstract and correctly located; the source does note the NIH-lineage overlap with other Ballyns/Shah records. However, VASO-C005 asserts that active trigger-point sites differ measurably from control tissue, while this record's statement concerns only the latent-versus-normal comparison, not active-versus-normal; it therefore does not directly evidence the active-site claim and should be read as context rather than support for VASO-C005.

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C005

Context· moderateVASO-E106

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 3 — toward VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184 — part 2.3

what the source states: Trigger point area measurements from ROC analysis yielded an area under the curve of "0.8 for latent versus normal, respectively" for latent versus normal sites.
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears in different directions on the claims the record named; this record carries "context" toward VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184, the rest went to a record of its own at intake: The quoted sentence and AUC figures are accurately reported and correctly located in the Results/Abstract, and the source does not repeat another lab's independent dataset (correctly flagged as NIH-lineage overlap). However, the sourceStatement only reports the ROC/AUC classification finding, not the specific mean-area comparisons that VASO-C182, VASO-C183, and VASO-C184 assert; it therefore bears on the topic without directly establishing those specific quantitative claims, so it is better read as context for them, while it does support the broader claim (VASO-C005) that active sites differ measurably in stiffness/area from other tissue.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504, verify-v6) found the passage bears in different directions on the claims the record named; this record carries "context" toward VASO-C182, VASO-C184, the rest went to a record of its own at intake: The quoted AUC figure (0.8 for latent versus normal) is verbatim from the abstract and correctly located; it is a single, atomic statistical claim and the record properly flags NIH-lineage overlap. However, this ROC/AUC statistic on latent-versus-normal classification directly evidences the latent-vs-normal size difference asserted in VASO-C183, so it should be scored as supporting that claim rather than merely 'context'; it remains context for VASO-C182 (active-vs-latent means) and VASO-C184 (active-vs-latent significance), which it does not address.

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C182 VASO-C184

Context· weakVASO-E018

A whole-body ultrasound platform exists — as a prototype, for composition

what the source states: Butterfly Network confirmed Midjourney Medical's June 2026 announcement of a full-body tomographic ultrasound scanner: a prototype ring of 40 Ultrasound-on-Chip modules scanning a submerged body in about sixty seconds, body-composition imaging as the announced application, spa deployment planned for 2027, and no diagnostic clearance.
what we infer: Relevant to feasibility of the knot census, not to any mechanism claim: the coverage problem that made whole-body tissue mapping impractical is being attacked commercially. The essay's "just a firmware update" gloss overstates it — volumetric elastography and microvascular Doppler on this hardware are undemonstrated engineering, per the critical report.
limitations: Prototype announcement with commercial incentives; images composition (structure), not the stiffness/flow state channels a census needs; unverified performance claims; no clearance.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-21 (2026-09-21-answer-vasocomputation-021449): VASO-C001 was split into VASO-C190, VASO-C191; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading

Butterfly Network, Inc. (2026)AI-verified citationProvisional — awaiting the textVASO-C190 VASO-C191

Context· weakVASO-E030

Ballyns 2011 pilot: trigger-point area and pulsatility index fell over follow-up visits after dry needling in three active cases

what the source states: The source reports a pilot of three active cases and one latent case imaged at later time points after dry needling: "The trigger point area and PI decreased for all 3 active cases" with time and increased slightly for the latent case; the authors state there were too few cases to draw conclusions.
what we infer: Background only for VASO-C011: an imaged change in stiffness and Doppler indices after an intervention, but over visits, not seconds, and after needling, not pressure or breath. It shows the measures move; it does not bear on the seconds-scale timescale argument.
limitations: n = 3 active cases, uncontrolled, author-flagged as too few for conclusions.
Timescale of visits, not of a release event.

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C011

Context· weakVASO-E037

Essay's statement of the knot-as-latched-arteriole hypothesis

what the source states: The essay proposes the knot as a two-layer object: a latched arteriole upstream creating chronic local ischemia at near-zero energetic cost, producing the acidic milieu Shah found, "plus whatever skeletal fibers secondarily guard the region".
what we infer: Editor's inference: this is the hypothesis being stated by its proponent, not evidence for it; recorded for provenance of C020's wording.
limitations: Proponent's hypothesis statement; no data
Secondary, AI-generated text
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-09) disputes the stated direction: The quoted phrase and paraphrase accurately reflect the essay's p.12 statement of the latch-plus-guarding hypothesis, and the locator is correct. However, labeling this 'context' undersells the relationship: this passage is essentially the essay's direct articulation of the very hypothesis that claim VASO-C020 states, so it should be marked as 'supports' (as the proponent's own statement of the claim) rather than merely contextual background.

Eugene Jhong (2026)Verified — held in project libraryVASO-C020

Context· weakVASO-E038

Essay's statement of the clinging-as-latch identification

what the source states: The essay relays Johnson's framing that when the mind holds a prediction rigid, one "physical implementation is vascular smooth muscle latching around the relevant" tissue, and identifies this with tanha.
what we infer: Editor's inference: hypothesis statement relayed second-hand from Johnson (SRC-JOHNSON-2023 holds the primary); no evidential weight.
limitations: Second-hand relay of another author's hypothesis
Secondary, AI-generated text
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-09) disputes the stated direction: The quote appears verbatim at p.12 and is correctly attributed to Johnson's framing as relayed by the essay, and the sourceStatement fairly summarizes it without overreach. However, labeling this as merely 'context' undersells that the source is directly asserting the very identification (vascular latch as tanha) that the claim proposes, which more naturally reads as weak 'supports' (with the essay's own speculative caveats) rather than tangential context; this is noted as a dissent rather than a rejection. The relay nature and AI-generated/secondary status are appropriately flagged as limitations, satisfying independence concerns, and the passage is clearly relevant to claim C021.

Eugene Jhong (2026)Verified — held in project libraryVASO-C021

Context· weakVASO-E042

Essay: Doppler as the most consistent positive imaging result

what the source states: The essay states that "Doppler has quietly produced the most consistent positive results" in the imaging literature — retrograde flow, elevated pulsatility index, velocities separating active from latent points — and reads this as the latch's footprint.
what we infer: Editor's inference: consistent with Ballyns 2011 (E022) on the positives but omits the nulls the same paper reports (E024–E026); the 'latch footprint' reading is the essay's interpretation, which Ballyns's authors do not offer.
limitations: Omits the null resistivity index and 31% retrograde flow at normal sites
Interpretation, not data
Secondary, AI-generated text
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-09) disputes the stated direction: The quoted passage about Doppler's consistent positive results does appear on p.15 and is accurately summarized as the essay's claim, with the limitations properly noting omitted null findings and the interpretive/AI-generated nature. However, the passage directly reports that active trigger points show abnormal hemodynamics distinguishable from latent/control points, which is exactly the kind of measurable biochemical/flow difference VASO-C005 asserts, so labeling the direction as merely 'context' rather than 'supports' undersells what the source states; this is recorded as dissent rather than grounds for rejection.

Eugene Jhong (2026)Verified — held in project libraryVASO-C005

Context· weakVASO-E044

Second essay relocates the vascular element from intramuscular arterioles to cutaneous perforators

what the source states: The essay states that the perforator model moves the vascular hypothesis to the arterioles of the skin and superficial fascia and 'relocates the vascular hypothesis rather than rescuing it'.
what we infer: A proponent's own statement of a competing account; it carries no diagnostic weight on VASO-C020 but records that the hypothesis's author no longer treats the intramuscular arteriole as the primary site.
limitations: AI-generated self-published essay by the proponent; no measurement reported.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-09) disputes the stated direction: The quote and paraphrase accurately reflect page 7, where the essay relocates the vascular hypothesis from intramuscular arterioles to cutaneous perforators rather than rescuing the original latch idea. However, this relocation actually conditions/limits the specific mechanism proposed in VASO-C020 (which claims a particular microvascular smooth-muscle latch state), so it should be coded as 'qualifies' rather than merely 'context' — I record this as dissent rather than rejecting the entry. The statement is a single coherent proposition (relocation, not rescue) and clearly bears on the claim's mechanism, satisfying relevance and atomicity.

Eugene Jhong (2026)UnverifiedVASO-C020

Context· weakVASO-E045

Second essay accepts the arteriole audit: sustained activation, not economical latch

what the source states: The essay states that published measurements in pressurized skeletal-muscle arterioles 'show sustained activation rather than an economical latch', calling this a mismatch rather than a refutation.
what we infer: This restates the ledger's own study (VASO-E020) back to it; it adds no independent observation.
limitations: Derivative of SRC-VASO-S001; not independent.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-09) disputes the stated direction: The quote and page location match, and the record accurately reports the essay's characterization of the finding as a mismatch rather than a refutation. However, this passage directly addresses the intramuscular arteriole compartment invoked by VASO-C020's latch-bridge mechanism, showing sustained activation instead of an economical latch — this conditions/limits the claim's proposed mechanism rather than being merely topically adjacent, so 'qualifies' seems more apt than 'context' (dissent only, not disqualifying).

Eugene Jhong (2026)UnverifiedVASO-C020

Context· weakVASO-E052

Essay restates equine needle-EMG: same spontaneous activity as human trigger points

what the source states: The essay states that needle electromyography of trigger points in the equine cleidobrachialis 'found the same spontaneous activity the human studies report'.
what we infer: Cross-species background; it says nothing about the endplate-zone prevalence gradient VASO-C002 asserts. Primary not retrieved.
limitations: Secondary restatement; primary (Macgregor & von Schweinitz 2006) not retrieved.

Eugene Jhong (2026)UnverifiedVASO-C002

Context· weakVASO-E074

Landfald 2025: active/latent differences in a second muscle as context for the graded-stiffness and fresh/old claims — part 2

what the source states: Latent points responded more readily to compression and "were more often resolved after the first treatment" (86% of latent vs 60% of active MTrPs no longer detectable sonographically, p = 0.021).
what we infer: For the trapezius vibration-elastography gradient this is a parallel from another muscle and method, not a replication. For the fresh/old claims it is the nearest instrumented cousin — the more symptomatic point is harder to switch off — but active/latent is a clinical classification, not the age of the knot, so the record carries no weight for or against those claims.
limitations: Different muscle, method and site classes from the trapezius sonoelastography study.
Active/latent is not the fresh/old axis; the authors' 'earlier or less fibrotic' reading is their conjecture.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213, verify-v6) found the passage bears on VASO-C075, VASO-C076 and not on VASO-C033; the link dropped at intake: The quote and 86%/60% figures are accurately drawn from the Discussion/Table 2 and the locator is correct, but this passage concerns active-vs-latent resolution speed in the gastrocnemius, not trapezius sonoelastographic lesion area, so it has no bearing on VASO-C033 despite being labeled 'context' for it. For the fresh/old claims (C075/C076) it offers only a weak, self-acknowledged analogy (active/latent is not the fresh/old axis, and the 'earlier/less fibrotic' reading is the authors' own speculation), which is fairly characterized as context. The record is otherwise atomic and does not need an independence note since it directly cites the primary study rather than repeating another cited source.

Ingrid C. Landfald (2025)AI-verified citationVASO-C075 VASO-C076

Context· weakVASO-E075

Landfald 2025: active/latent differences in a second muscle as context for the graded-stiffness and fresh/old claims — part 3

what the source states: Active points required more sessions to deactivate than latent points, with "sessions required for elimination" averaging 1.4 ± 0.5 for active versus 1.1 ± 0.3 for latent MTrPs (p = 0.038).
what we infer: For the trapezius vibration-elastography gradient this is a parallel from another muscle and method, not a replication. For the fresh/old claims it is the nearest instrumented cousin — the more symptomatic point is harder to switch off — but active/latent is a clinical classification, not the age of the knot, so the record carries no weight for or against those claims.
limitations: Different muscle, method and site classes from the trapezius sonoelastography study.
Active/latent is not the fresh/old axis; the authors' 'earlier or less fibrotic' reading is their conjecture.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-verify-vasocomputation-113521, verify-v6) found the passage bears on VASO-C075, VASO-C076 and not on VASO-C033; the link dropped at intake: The quote and locator are accurate, and the record's own caveat about active/latent not being the fresh/old axis is fair. But this active/latent sessions-to-elimination datum from gastrocnemius compression therapy has no bearing on C033, which concerns sonoelastographic lesion area in the upper trapezius from a different study entirely; that claim link should be dropped. For C075/C076 the weak, self-flagged, speculative analogy to lesion age supports treating it only as context, which the record already does.

Ingrid C. Landfald (2025)AI-verified citationVASO-C075 VASO-C076

Context· weakVASO-E077

Landfald 2025: active/latent differences in a second muscle as context for the graded-stiffness and fresh/old claims — part 5

what the source states: The faster short-term response of latent points to pressure-release therapy is a suggested pattern for which "confirmation in controlled studies is needed".
what we infer: For the trapezius vibration-elastography gradient this is a parallel from another muscle and method, not a replication. For the fresh/old claims it is the nearest instrumented cousin — the more symptomatic point is harder to switch off — but active/latent is a clinical classification, not the age of the knot, so the record carries no weight for or against those claims.
limitations: Different muscle, method and site classes from the trapezius sonoelastography study.
Active/latent is not the fresh/old axis; the authors' 'earlier or less fibrotic' reading is their conjecture.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213, verify-v6) found the passage bears on VASO-C075, VASO-C076 and not on VASO-C033; the link dropped at intake: The quote and locator are accurate and the statement fairly reflects the source's own hedged language about latent points' faster response needing controlled confirmation. But this observation concerns active/latent trigger-point response speed in the gastrocnemius, not the trapezius stiffness-area comparison that VASO-C033 addresses, so it does not bear on C033 at all. For C075/C076 it is only weak context since active/latent is explicitly not the same axis as fresh/old and the 'earlier or less fibrotic' reading is the authors' own speculation, not a finding about knot age.

Ingrid C. Landfald (2025)AI-verified citationVASO-C075 VASO-C076

Context· weakVASO-E080

Landfald 2025: no gold standard for detecting trigger points; palpation variability the authors' stated reason for adding imaging — part 4

what the source states: Because of these limitations, the authors "combined B-mode ultrasonography and strain elastography, which provide high-contrast imaging" between tissues of differing stiffness, alongside palpation.
what we infer: A proponent-side clinical group states the reliability problem in its own words and reports a concrete palpation–imaging discrepancy. Weak because the reliability statement is a citation of others rather than a new measurement, and because the authors did not test their own inter- or intra-observer reliability.
limitations: The inter-observer-variability statement is secondary (cites earlier work).
No formal reliability testing of the sonographic assessment was performed (authors' limitation).
Direction set to "context" (from "supports") by the second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-verify-vasocomputation-113521, verify-v6) at intake: The quoted text is accurately reproduced and correctly located in the Discussion/Limitations passage, and the sourceStatement fairly summarizes it as the authors' methodological response (combining imaging with palpation). However, this particular quote itself only describes what the authors did in response to the reliability problem, not the inter-observer-variability/no-gold-standard finding itself (which is stated in the preceding, unquoted sentence); as such it does not itself assert or support the claim that manual palpation lacks reliability, so it functions as context for VASO-C030 rather than direct support.

Ingrid C. Landfald (2025)AI-verified citationVASO-C030

Context· weakVASO-E082

Croft 1994: high tender-point counts in people reporting no pain — part 1

what the source states: Two people with tender point counts of 11 or more were in the group reporting no pain: "Two people with counts of 11 or more were in the group reporting no pain."
what we infer: Examiner-elicited tender points occur in people with no pain complaint at all, which is the population the case's opening observation describes. Weak because it is two individuals, the sample was pain-selected, and the 18-site protocol tests fixed anatomical sites rather than counting palpable knots.
limitations: Two individuals; pain-selected subsample.
Fixed-site tenderness testing is not a census of palpable knots.
Direction set to "context" (from "supports") by the second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-21, run 2026-09-21-answer-vasocomputation-012456, verify-v7) at intake: The quote is accurate and correctly located in the abstract's Results section, and the sourceStatement fairly paraphrases it. But the observation—two pain-free individuals in a pain-selected subsample having ≥11 tender points—does not establish or support that tender points 'commonly' occur across the general population; it merely notes an anomaly within a small, non-representative subgroup, so it bears on the claim only as context, not as support. The record appears to be a legitimate part of a split evidence record, stating one discrete finding from the original compound without importing unrelated content.

P. Croft (1994)AI-verified citationVASO-C190 VASO-C191

Context· weakVASO-E085

Landfald 2025: active/latent differences in a second muscle as context for the graded-stiffness and fresh/old claims — part 2

what the source states: Active gastrocnemius MTrPs had a "larger cross-sectional area (28 mm² vs. 17 mm², p = 0.014)" than latent points; Table 2 gives 28 ± 6 against 17 ± 5 mm².
what we infer: Size by clinical class in a second muscle; the same parallel, carrying no weight for or against the fresh/old claims.
limitations: Different muscle, method and site classes from the trapezius sonoelastography study.
Active/latent is not the fresh/old axis; the authors' 'earlier or less fibrotic' reading is their conjecture.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-verify-vasocomputation-113521, verify-v6) found the passage bears on VASO-C033 and not on VASO-C075, VASO-C076; the links dropped at intake: The quoted active-vs-latent comparison (VAS, cross-sectional area, stiffness ratio) is accurately drawn from Table 2/Discussion and is genuinely a different-muscle analogue that can serve as context for the trapezius active/latent claim C033. But the quoted statement says nothing about session counts, duration, or knot age/freshness, so it does not bear at all on the fresh-knot (C075) or ancient-knot (C076) claims about time-to-release, despite the record listing 'context' for all three.
One clause of a three-part comparison the source reports in one sentence and one table; the sibling parts carry the other two.

Ingrid C. Landfald (2025)AI-verified citationVASO-C182 VASO-C184

Context· weakVASO-E108

Ballyns 2011 introduction: 'muscle knots' as a common condition with a cited prevalence estimate — part 1

what the source states: Myofascial pain syndrome is a substantial health problem in the United States, "believed to affect about 23 million Americans" (citing Fishbain et al. 1986, reference 1).
what we infer: Secondary, uncritical framing in an introduction; the prevalence figure is a 1986 clinic-population estimate cited at second hand, not a census. Enters at near-zero weight as one more instance of the research literature treating the palpable knot as a common phenomenon.
limitations: Prevalence estimate is cited, not measured, and refers to a pain syndrome rather than to tender points in the general population.
Introductory framing by proponents of the construct.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-21 (2026-09-21-answer-vasocomputation-021449): VASO-C001 was split into VASO-C190, VASO-C191; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-21, run 2026-09-21-reverify-vasocomputation-021624, verify-v7) found the passage bears on VASO-C191 and not on VASO-C190; the link dropped at intake: The quote is accurately reproduced and properly attributed as a cited estimate from Fishbain et al. 1986 about the prevalence of myofascial pain syndrome broadly, not about palpable tender points specifically, so it does not bear on VASO-C190 (existence of palpable tender points). As a pointer to an unretrieved cited study, per the citation rule it can at most provide context for the population-prevalence claim VASO-C191, not direct support, so the stated 'supports' direction is too strong for both. The quote is a single atomic proposition (the prevalence figure) and matches one of the propositions bundled in the original compound record, so it is properly a part of that compound.
Direction set to "context" (from "supports") by the second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-21, run 2026-09-21-reverify-vasocomputation-021624, verify-v7) at intake: The quote is accurately reproduced and properly attributed as a cited estimate from Fishbain et al. 1986 about the prevalence of myofascial pain syndrome broadly, not about palpable tender points specifically, so it does not bear on VASO-C190 (existence of palpable tender points). As a pointer to an unretrieved cited study, per the citation rule it can at most provide context for the population-prevalence claim VASO-C191, not direct support, so the stated 'supports' direction is too strong for both. The quote is a single atomic proposition (the prevalence figure) and matches one of the propositions bundled in the original compound record, so it is properly a part of that compound.

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C191

Context· weakVASO-E109

Ballyns 2011 introduction: 'muscle knots' as a common condition with a cited prevalence estimate — part 3

what the source states: Myofascial pain syndrome "is commonly recognized as “muscle knots.”"
what we infer: Secondary, uncritical framing in an introduction; the prevalence figure is a 1986 clinic-population estimate cited at second hand, not a census. Enters at near-zero weight as one more instance of the research literature treating the palpable knot as a common phenomenon.
limitations: Prevalence estimate is cited, not measured, and refers to a pain syndrome rather than to tender points in the general population.
Introductory framing by proponents of the construct.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-21 (2026-09-21-answer-vasocomputation-021449): VASO-C001 was split into VASO-C190, VASO-C191; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Direction set to "context" (from "supports") by the second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-21, run 2026-09-21-reverify-vasocomputation-021624, verify-v7) at intake: The quoted phrase merely notes that myofascial pain syndrome is colloquially called 'muscle knots'; it is a naming/recognition remark, not an assertion that discrete tender points exist or are common in the population. It therefore bears on the topic only as background framing (context) rather than as support for either C190 or C191. The quote is faithfully reproduced and in context, the locator is broad but still correctly within the Introduction, and the part does restate one of the compound's bundled propositions.

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citationVASO-C190 VASO-C191

refused evidence (9) — kept as tombstones with the reason; they carry no weight and are counted nowhere

VASO-E023Rejectedwas supports → VASO-C005, VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites

The source reports mean stiff-area of 0.57 ± 0.20 cm² at active sites, 0.36 ± 0.16 cm² at latent sites and 0.17 ± 0.22 cm² at palpably normal sites (P < .01), and that "active sites were significantly larger than latent sites"; ROC analysis showed "area measurements could robustly distinguish between active, latent, and normal sites" (AUC 0.9 active vs normal, 0.8 active vs latent, 0.8 latent vs normal).

Refused at re-verification 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441): not one observation (The quoted figures and ROC values accurately reflect the abstract/results text at the stated locator, correctly attributed and unqualified by hedging beyond what the source states, and the record properly flags shared NIH lineage with the Shah paper. The direction (supports) is correct toward all four named claims, since the passage directly reports the area comparisons and ROC discrimination cited by VASO-C182–184 and bears on the stiffness/blood-flow portion of the broader VASO-C005. However, the sourceStatement bundles several distinct findings (three group means, a pairwise significance claim, and three separate ROC AUC values) into one statement, so it is not atomic and should be split into part-level records for re-judging.); split into VASO-E087, VASO-E088, VASO-E089, VASO-E090, VASO-E091, VASO-E092, VASO-E093, VASO-E094, VASO-E095, VASO-E096, VASO-E097, VASO-E098, VASO-E099

VASO-E028Rejectedwas supports → VASO-C190, VASO-C191

Ballyns 2011 introduction: 'muscle knots' as a common condition with a cited prevalence estimate

The source's introduction states that myofascial pain syndrome is "believed to affect about 23 million Americans" (citing Fishbain et al. 1986), that it "is a major progenitor of nonarticular local musculoskeletal pain" and tenderness affecting every age group, and is "commonly recognized as “muscle knots.”"

Refused at re-verification 2026-09-21 (2026-09-21-reverify-vasocomputation-021624): not one observation (The quoted passage accurately reflects the introduction's framing, and the locator is correct, but the sourceStatement bundles three distinct propositions (a cited prevalence figure attributed to Fishbain 1986, a claim about myofascial pain syndrome being a major cause of musculoskeletal pain, and the naming convention 'muscle knots'), so it is not atomic and should be split into separate parts. On direction: the 23-million prevalence figure is itself a pointer to an unretrieved 1986 study and concerns myofascial pain syndrome broadly, not specifically the prevalence of discrete tender points in the general population, so at most it is context for VASO-C191 rather than support; the passage does not itself establish that discrete tender points can be palpated (that is a methodological/clinical finding stated later in the paper), so it does not bear on VASO-C190 at all.); split into VASO-E108, VASO-E109

VASO-E073Rejectedwas context → VASO-C033

Landfald 2025: active/latent differences in a second muscle as context for the graded-stiffness and fresh/old claims — part 1

In the gastrocnemius, "active points were larger, stiffer, and more painful" than latent points, with active MTrPs showing higher VAS scores (mean 8.9 vs 6.1), larger cross-sectional area (28 vs 17 mm²) and greater stiffness ratios (8.5 vs 6.1).

Refused by the operator on 2026-09-20 (session_01AiXD4y5Y91KC7iM3uBhWmu, operator-by-hand-v1), answering the GPT-5.6 Sol seat's objection on #372: not one observation — the pain, size and stiffness comparisons are three findings in one record (§3.2); split into VASO-E084, VASO-E085, VASO-E086, each with the same verbatim sentence and its own figure.

VASO-E076Rejectedwas context → VASO-C033, VASO-C075, VASO-C076

Landfald 2025: active/latent differences in a second muscle as context for the graded-stiffness and fresh/old claims — part 4

Latent points may represent "earlier or less fibrotic lesions", with MTrP activity level possibly reflecting different stages of myofascial dysfunction.

Refused at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): every claim it cites was rejected

VASO-E083Rejectedwas context → VASO-C001

Croft 1994: high tender-point counts in people reporting no pain — part 2

Most subjects with chronic widespread pain had fewer than 11 tender points, 27 of 45 (60%): "had fewer than 11 tender points (27/45; 60%)".

Refused at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-21 (2026-09-21-answer-vasocomputation-021449): second reader rejected (ofTheCompound): The quote and locator check out and, as the prior reader corrected, this passage only bears on VASO-C001 as background context about tender-point-count distributions, not as direct support for commonness of occurrence. But the record's title identifies it as 'part 2' concerning people reporting no pain with high tender-point counts, while the quoted sourceStatement instead restates the 'fewer than 11 tender points in chronic widespread pain' finding — the proposition already carried by the sibling part. This part does not state the proposition its own title and the compound-split assign to it, so it fails the compound-part check and should be re-split or re-quoted correctly.

VASO-E084Rejectedwas context → VASO-C033

Landfald 2025: active/latent differences in a second muscle as context for the graded-stiffness and fresh/old claims — part 1

Among 103 gastrocnemius MTrPs (67 active, 36 latent), active points "showed significantly higher VAS scores (mean 8.9 vs. 6.1, p < 0.001)" than latent points; Table 2 gives 8.9 ± 0.7 against 6.1 ± 0.9.

Refused at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): every claim it cites was rejected

VASO-E086Rejectedwas context → VASO-C033

Landfald 2025: active/latent differences in a second muscle as context for the graded-stiffness and fresh/old claims — part 3

Active gastrocnemius MTrPs had "greater stiffness ratios (mean 8.5 vs. 6.1, p= 0.006) compared to latent points"; Table 2 gives a relative stiffness ratio of 8.5 ± 1.4 against 6.1 ± 1.2.

Refused at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): every claim it cites was rejected

VASO-E094Rejectedwas supports → VASO-C005

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 3

Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that "area measurements could robustly distinguish between active, latent, and normal sites", with areas under the curve of 0.9, 0.8, and 0.8 for the three pairwise comparisons.

Refused at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504): not one observation (The quote and AUC figures accurately reflect the abstract/results text, the locator is correct, the record properly flags NIH-lineage overlap, and the passage does support VASO-C005 by showing measurable stiffness-based distinction between active/latent/normal sites. However, the sourceStatement bundles three separate pairwise ROC/AUC findings (active-vs-latent, active-vs-normal, latent-vs-normal) into a single proposition, each of which could be true or false independently, so it is not atomic and should be split into one comparison per record as the panel objection notes.); split into VASO-E100, VASO-E101, VASO-E102, VASO-E103

VASO-E095Rejectedwas context → VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 3 — toward VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184

Refused at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504): not one observation (The quoted phrase and AUC figures (0.9, 0.8, 0.8) match the source's Abstract/Results ROC analysis exactly, correctly located, and the NIH-lineage overlap is properly disclosed. The 'context' direction is defensible since the ROC/AUC classification-strength finding does not itself restate the specific mean±SD area differences the three claims assert, so it bears on the topic without directly establishing those quantitative comparisons. However, the sourceStatement itself bundles three distinct pairwise AUC findings (active-vs-latent, active-vs-normal, latent-vs-normal) into a single statement, each of which is independently testable and could hold or fail separately — this is a compound statement that should be split, consistent with the panel's objection already raised about sibling records.); split into VASO-E104, VASO-E105, VASO-E106, VASO-E107