Davidovits' 2020 model of Pumapunku geopolymer casting specifies uncrushed natural andesite sand from Cerro Khapia, stored at Iwawe (Isbell & Burkholder 2002, Stratum V), as the aggregate, and holds that the quadrangular 'piedras cansadas' blocks were not used as building material.

Davidovits & Davidovits (2020) formally published this updated Pumapunku casting model, specifying natural, uncrushed andesite sand from Cerro Khapia stored at Iwawe (Stratum V) as the aggregate and asserting that the transport-abandoned 'piedras cansadas' were never used in construction. The claim provides an exact, verified description of the published model. Strongest opposing consideration: None against the statement as an accurate description of the proponents' published theoretical model, though the underlying archaeological assumptions of the model remain unvalidated.

This is a theory-description claim, and the 2020 GPSA abstract directly states each element: Khapia andesite sand as aggregate, storage at Iwawe Stratum V per Isbell & Burkholder 2002, and non-use of the piedras cansadas. The strongest opposing consideration is that only the abstract was read (the PDF was inaccessible), the venue is the proponents' own journal, and the Iwawe deposit's actual character is exactly what the research agenda (GEO-R009, GEO-R012) exists to check.

The abstract verified verbatim (GEO-E035) states every element of the model description: Khapia andesite sand, storage at Iwawe Stratum V, the organo-mineral binder, and the non-use of the piedras cansadas. As a theory-description claim it is accurately reported. The strongest opposing consideration: only the abstract was read (the PDF returned 403), and it appears in the proponents' own non-independent venue.

GEO-E035 directly quotes the 2020 abstract describing uncrushed Cerro Khapia andesite sand, storage at Iwawe Stratum V, and rejection of the quadrangular piedras cansadas as construction material. It therefore establishes this claim as an accurate description of Davidovits' model, not as evidence that the model is archaeologically correct. The strongest opposing consideration is that only the proponent-authored abstract was available, so qualifications in the inaccessible paper body cannot be excluded.

GEO-E035 quotes the proponents' abstract specifying natural sand-consistency andesite from Cerro Khapia, storage at Iwawe Stratum V, and non-use of the quadrangular piedras cansadas blocks. As a description of Davidovits' model rather than a claim that the model is true, the primary statement establishes it directly. The strongest opposing consideration is that only the abstract was available, so the model's detailed evidential and archaeological basis could not be checked.

The claim is theory_description of Davidovits’ 2020 model. The GPSA 2020 abstract states exactly that builders used uncrushed natural andesite sand from Cerro Khapia stored at Iwawe (Isbell & Burkholder Stratum V), with an organo-mineral binder, and did not use the quadrangular piedras cansadas. Strongest opposing consideration: none for the descriptive claim itself; whether the model is empirically true is a separate question addressed under GEO-C021 and open tasks GEO-R009/R012.

The 2020 abstract explicitly states the model uses uncrushed natural andesite sand from Cerro Khapia stored at Iwawe Stratum V and that the quadrangular piedras cansadas were not used as building material; the claim is a faithful description of that published model. Strongest opposing consideration is that only the abstract was available and the full PDF body was not read, yet the quoted elements match exactly.

This is a description of what a specific paper's model asserts, and the description is verified against the abstract, including the quoted "They did not use the many quadrangular volcanic blocks" and the identification of natural Khapia andesite sand stored at Iwawe Stratum V per Isbell & Burkholder. Descriptive accuracy is all the claim asserts, and it holds. The strongest opposing consideration is that only the landing page and abstract were read — the PDF body returned HTTP 403 — so details of the model beyond the abstract are unconfirmed, and the claim's value lies in the falsifiable predictions it fixes (GEO-R009, GEO-R012), not in any support it lends the hypothesis.

This is a theory-description claim, and GEO-E035 quotes the 2020 abstract directly for each element: natural uncrushed Cerro Khapia andesite sand, storage at Iwawe identified with Isbell & Burkholder's Stratum V, and the explicit statement that the quadrangular piedras cansadas were not used. The description matches the source. The strongest opposing consideration is that only the abstract and landing page were read, the PDF body being inaccessible, so nuances of the model inside the paper could differ from the summary — a limit on completeness rather than on accuracy.

GEO-E035 (strong) is the primary statement of the model in the proponents' own abstract: natural Khapia andesite sand stored at Iwawe Stratum V (Isbell & Burkholder 2002), piedras cansadas not used. Descriptive claim; only the abstract was read, hence moderate confidence.

This claim is an accurate description of Davidovits' published theoretical model in the 2020 Journal on Geopolymer Science Applied to Archaeology (GPSA). The abstract of that paper explicitly specifies uncrushed volcanic sand from Cerro Khapia, references the Iwawe Stratum V excavation, and asserts that the quadrangular piedras cansadas were bypassed. The strongest opposing consideration is that this model is a proponent desk hypothesis whose archaeological and geological assumptions regarding Stratum V remain unverified by excavation restudy.

This is a purely descriptive claim detailing Davidovits' 2020 published hypothesis regarding Pumapunku andesite sand sourcing from Cerro Khapia and storage at Iwawe. The evidence record (GEO-E035) confirms that the abstract of Davidovits & Davidovits (2020) explicitly specifies these exact mechanisms and assertions. The strongest opposing consideration is that the underlying archaeological report by Isbell & Burkholder (2002) may characterize Stratum V differently than Davidovits asserts.

This claim accurately details the specific parameters of Davidovits' 2020 casting model, including the proposed use of uncrushed Cerro Khapia andesite sand stored at Iwawe Stratum V and the exclusion of the piedras cansadas. The claim summarizes the model as stated in the proponent literature (SRC-DAVIDOVITS-2020). The strongest opposing consideration is that the model's archaeological assertions have not been substantiated by the excavators of Iwawe or corroborated by independent field surveys.

This is a theory-description claim that accurately summarizes Joseph and Frédéric Davidovits' published 2020 model from their GPSA paper. Their published abstract explicitly asserts the use of uncrushed natural volcanic andesite sand from Cerro Khapia stored at Iwawe (Stratum V) and specifically argues that the carved quadrangular 'piedras cansadas' blocks were bypassed. The strongest opposing consideration is that this represents an uncorroborated proponent hypothesis published in a non-peer-reviewed institute journal.

This is a theory-description claim, and the primary abstract (GEO-E035, verified against the geopolymer.org landing page) states exactly what the claim says: natural Khapia andesite sand stored at Iwawe Stratum V, no crushing, and the piedras cansadas not used. The main caveat is that only the abstract was read and the venue is the proponents' own journal, but for a claim about what the model specifies, that suffices. Its empirical testability is precisely what GEO-R009 and GEO-R012 target.

This is a descriptive claim about what Davidovits' 2020 paper specifies, and the abstract quote directly confirms every element: Khapia andesite sand, Iwawe storage (Stratum V), and non-use of the piedras cansadas. Confidence is moderate rather than high only because the claim rests on the abstract of a self-published proponent paper, with the PDF body unread; the model's factual accuracy (e.g., Stratum V's actual character) is a separate open question tracked in GEO-R009.

GEO-E035 is a direct read of the primary statement of the model, with verbatim abstract quotes matching the claim, including the piedras-cansas exclusion and the Iwawe Stratum V attribution. Confidence is capped because only the abstract was retrieved (the PDF returned 403) and the venue is the proponents' own journal. As a theory-description claim it is fully carried by its source.

This is a descriptive claim about Davidovits' 2020 model, and the abstract states exactly these elements — Khapia andesite sand stored at Iwawe (Isbell & Burkholder Stratum V) and non-use of the piedras cansadas — in the quoted language (GEO-E035). The strongest opposing consideration is that only the abstract/landing page was read and the PDF was inaccessible, so the claim's full correspondence with the paper body is unconfirmed.

GEO-E035 quotes the 2020 abstract specifying natural Cerro Khapia andesite sand, storage at Iwawe Stratum V, and rejection of the quadrangular piedras cansadas as construction material. This directly establishes the claim as a description of Davidovits' model, not as validation of that model. The strongest opposing consideration is that only a proponent-published abstract was examined, but it explicitly contains every material element of the descriptive claim.

GEO-E035 quotes the model's abstract describing natural Cerro Khapia andesite sand stored at Iwawe and expressly denying use of the quadrangular piedras cansadas as building material. This directly establishes the claim as a description of Davidovits' model. The strongest opposing consideration is that only the abstract was examined, so the model's fuller qualifications and evidential basis remain unchecked.

GEO-E035 quotes the model's abstract describing natural Cerro Khapia andesite sand stored at Iwawe, rejection of the quadrangular piedras cansadas as construction material, and no need to crush andesite. That directly establishes the claim as a description of Davidovits' model. The strongest opposing consideration is that only the abstract was examined, so the archaeological basis for its Stratum V interpretation remains untested; this limits the model's truth, not the accuracy of the description.

GEO-E035 reproduces the 2020 model's abstract: natural andesite sand from Cerro Khapia was transported to Iwawe, while the quadrangular piedras cansadas were said not to have supplied the construction material. That directly establishes this claim as a description of the proponents' model. The strongest opposing consideration is that only the abstract was examined, so the archaeological basis for the model was not verified.

The 2020 abstract directly states the model elements (uncrushed Cerro Khapia andesite sand stored at Iwawe Stratum V; piedras cansadas not used as building material). Strongest opposing consideration is that only the abstract was available and the journal is proponent-run, yet the descriptive claim matches the source text.

The claim is a faithful descriptive summary of the abstract of Davidovits & Davidovits 2020: uncrushed Cerro Khapia andesite sand stored at Iwawe Stratum V, piedras cansadas not used as building stone. No interpretive leap is required. Strongest opposing consideration is none; the record simply states what the model says.

The claim describes Davidovits’ 2020 model contents: uncrushed Cerro Khapia andesite sand stored at Iwawe Stratum V as aggregate, and non-use of the piedras cansadas. The GPSA 2020 abstract states exactly that. Strongest opposing consideration is that only the abstract was read in the ledger, not the full PDF body, but the descriptive match is already sufficient for a theory-description claim.

The claim is a theory-description of the 2020 model; the geopolymer.org abstract states uncrushed Cerro Khapia andesite sand stored at Iwawe Stratum V and explicit non-use of the quadrangular piedras cansadas. It is true as a description of what the model specifies. Strongest opposing consideration is that only the abstract was available and the deposit’s actual character is unchecked (research agenda GEO-R009/R015).

This is a theory-description claim and GEO-E035 quotes the 2020 abstract directly on all three specifics: uncrushed natural Khapia andesite sand, storage at Iwawe Stratum V per Isbell & Burkholder 2002, and the statement that the quadrangular blocks were not used. Verification is limited to the landing-page abstract (the PDF returned 403), which is the only real weakness. The strongest opposing consideration is that an abstract may compress or overstate what the body argues, so a body-text check could alter details — but not, plausibly, the three quoted elements.

This is a description of what Davidovits & Davidovits 2020 assert, and GEO-E035 quotes the abstract verbatim on all three elements: uncrushed Cerro Khapia andesite sand, storage at Iwawe (Isbell & Burkholder Stratum V), and the explicit statement that the quadrangular blocks were not used. The only caveat is that solely the abstract was read; the PDF body was inaccessible. Nothing here bears on whether the model is true — the strongest opposing consideration is that a faithfully described model can still be wholly unsupported, and the checks that would test it (GEO-R009, GEO-R012) are unrun.

This is a description of a theory, and GEO-E035 quotes the 2020 abstract directly for each element: uncrushed natural Khapia andesite sand, storage at Iwawe Stratum V citing Isbell & Burkholder 2002, and the explicit statement that the quadrangular piedras cansadas were not used as building material. The strongest opposing consideration is that only the abstract and landing page were read (the PDF returned 403), so a qualification in the body could shift details — a small risk for a claim tied this closely to quoted language.

This is a description of a theory, and the 2020 abstract states each element: uncrushed natural andesite sand from Cerro Khapia, transported and stored at Iwawe corresponding to Isbell & Burkholder's Stratum V, an organo-mineral binder from local biomass, and the explicit statement that the quadrangular volcanic blocks were not used. Confidence is moderate rather than high only because the PDF body was never opened; the record rests on the abstract and landing page. The opposing consideration is not about accuracy but about consequence: the model hangs on the identity of one lakeshore deposit that nobody in this ledger has examined against the excavators' description (GEO-R009, GEO-R015).

GEO-E035 quotes the proponents' 2020 abstract stating each element: natural sand-consistency andesite from Cerro Khapia, storage at Iwawe Stratum V per Isbell & Burkholder 2002, and non-use of the quadrangular piedras cansadas. A descriptive claim about the model, directly supported by its primary statement. Not established because only the abstract was read (the PDF returned 403) and the venue is the proponents' own journal.

A description of the proponents' own model, stated directly in the abstract of GEO-E035: natural, uncrushed andesite sand from Cerro Khapia, stored at Iwawe as Stratum V of Isbell & Burkholder 2002, with the piedras cansadas not used as building material. GEO-E036 confirms continuity with Parts I–III.

GEO-E035 states the model directly in the proponents' 2020 abstract: natural uncrushed Khapia sand stored at Iwawe Stratum V, and the piedras cansadas never used. As a description of a theory it is well supported, though only the abstract was read. It is not evidence that the model is true.

The 2020 abstract, verified on the geopolymer.org page, states exactly what the claim reports: Khapia andesite sand stored at Iwawe (Stratum V, Isbell & Burkholder), and non-use of the piedras cansadas. Confidence is capped because only the abstract was read, in the proponents' own self-published venue, and the Isbell & Burkholder stratum description has not been checked against the excavation report.

GEO-E035 directly states the 2020 model's use of natural Cerro Khapia andesite sand stored at Iwawe and its rejection of the quadrangular piedras cansadas as construction material. This establishes the model's content, not its archaeological correctness. The strongest opposing consideration is that only the proponent paper's abstract was available, so the supporting treatment of Iwawe Stratum V was not examined.

The 2020 abstract directly states the model: uncrushed Cerro Khapia andesite sand stored at Iwawe Stratum V, piedras cansadas unused (GEO-E035). The claim is descriptive of the published model, not a test of its truth. Strongest opposing consideration is none for the descriptive content.

The 2020 abstract states every element of the claim: natural volcanic andesite sand from Cerro Khapia, transported and stored at Iwawe in Isbell & Burkholder's Stratum V, no crushing required, and "They did not use the many quadrangular volcanic blocks", the piedras cansadas (GEO-E035). As a description of the model in its authors' own words it is established. Strongest opposing consideration: only the abstract was read (the PDF returned 403), so the body could qualify these statements, and an accurate description says nothing about whether Stratum V really is a natural andesite sand (GEO-R009, GEO-R015).

GEO-E035 is the proponents' own abstract stating the model: natural Khapia sand stored at Iwawe Stratum V, and the tired stones not used. As a description of the model it is secure. Only the abstract was read, and whether the model is true is a separate question, carried by GEO-C021.