Medina (1894) records that López de Gómara cited Orellana's relación of the voyage and called it 'mentirosa'.

E080 (moderate) quotes Medina reporting that Gómara cited Orellana's relación and called it 'mentirosa' without stating his grounds; Gómara's own text has not been read and E082 records Medina's inference that the Amazons claim drew the charge.

AMZ-E080 (moderate, supports) quotes Medina: Gómara cited Orellana's relación and called it 'mentirosa', without stating grounds. Gómara's own text is not in the ledger; the grade rests on Medina's report.

Medina's (1894) introduction explicitly records that Francisco López de Gómara cited Orellana's relación and branded it 'mentirosa'. The presence of this characterization in Medina's historical commentary is directly verified. Strongest opposing consideration: Gómara's charge targeted Orellana's narrative rather than Carvajal's chronicle directly, and Gómara did not detail his formal evidentiary objections in the cited text.

AMZ-E080 verifies the Medina passage verbatim, and Medina notes Gómara gave no grounds. The claim is doubly second-hand — Medina reporting Gómara — and the object of the charge was Orellana's relación, not the Carvajal text; confidence stays low pending a direct read of Gómara's own passage, which is not in the ledger.

AMZ-E080 directly reports Medina's statement that López de Gómara cited Orellana's relación and called it “mentirosa.” The evidence also correctly limits the object of that charge to Orellana's account rather than silently transferring it to Carvajal. The strongest opposing consideration is that Gómara's own passage was not read directly and is known here through Medina.

Medina records that López de Gómara cited Orellana’s relación and labeled it mentirosa (AMZ-E080). The charge targets Orellana’s narrative rather than Carvajal’s text directly, and Gómara is quoted second-hand; still the historical claim as stated is adequately supported.

AMZ-E080 reports Medina's statement that Gómara cited Orellana's relación and called it "mentirosa," with the Spanish quoted. The claim is narrowly about what Medina records, and the record supports exactly that. The opposing consideration is transmission depth: Gómara is quoted by Medina, whose text was read once and never verified by a second reader, and Medina himself notes Gómara gave no grounds — so the fact is secure only at the level of "Medina says so."

Medina (1894) documents that Francisco López de Gómara cited Orellana's relación and applied the term 'mentirosa' to it. The strongest opposing consideration is that Gómara was judging Orellana's personal report rather than Carvajal's text directly, and Gómara's own text is quoted second-hand via Medina.

Medina's record of Gómara's 'mentirosa' citation is quoted verbatim, but it is a quotation of Gómara through Medina, and Gómara's own passage is not in the ledger. As stated the claim is only about what Medina records, which the evidence does establish; confidence stays moderate for the single-pass verification.

AMZ-E080 directly reports Medina's statement that López de Gómara cited Orellana's relación and called it “mentirosa.” The strongest opposing consideration is that Gómara's own passage was not read and the evidence is mediated by Medina. Because the claim is specifically about what Medina records, that mediation limits confidence more than verdict.

Medina (E080) records Gómara citing Orellana’s relación as ‘mentirosa’. Strongest opposing consideration is that the charge targets Orellana’s narrative (especially Amazons) rather than Carvajal’s text directly, and Gómara’s own wording is not independently fetched.

E080 quotes Medina's introduction (p. xxxv): Gómara cites Orellana's relación 'dándole el calificativo de «mentirosa»' without stating his grounds. The claim is narrowly about what Medina records, and the quotation matches it. The strongest opposing consideration is the verification gap: one drafter read an OCR text that the second reader could not retrieve, and Gómara's own passage is absent from the ledger. For the hypothesis, the charge's object matters more than its existence. It targeted Orellana's relación and, on Medina's reading, the Amazons report (E082, E099), not the populous settlements.

AMZ-E080 reports Medina's statement that Gómara cited Orellana's relación and called it 'mentirosa', without stating grounds. The claim concerns what Medina records, which the record quotes. Gómara's own passage is not read, and the Medina quotations await a second reader.