Ergometrine and ergometrinine remained detectable in the kykeon preparation reported in the 2026 paper (5% w/v ergot, pH 12.5 lye, 120 min) in which the predominant peptide ergot alkaloids were no longer detected.

The claim is anchored to the preprint's results but no accepted evidence record quotes the passage; TIK-E038's editorial note records ergometrine persistence as stated by the source without comment. Quantities are not in the ledger. Graded on the anchor's existence, with the thinness stated.

Held on its anchor alone: no admitted evidence record quotes the Results passage, and the second reader found TIK-E038 does not bear on it. A source is not evidence; the ledger records where the proposition is stated and has not admitted the observation behind it.

The 2026 paper's qualitative analytical spectra show that signals corresponding to ergometrine and its epimer ergometrinine remained detectable even in the fully hydrolyzed preparation where predominant toxic peptide alkaloids had disappeared. The strongest opposing consideration is that the authors did not systematically evaluate the pharmacological potency or toxicology of this residual non-peptide alkaloid fraction.

No evidence record in the ledger attaches to this claim: the intake verification explicitly detached the E038 passage from C029 because the quoted text does not bear on ergometrine persistence, and the separate passage this claim needs was never extracted into an evidence record. The claim's own source anchor quotes the preprint's Results directly, which suggests it is accurate, but under this ledger's rules that untested anchor is not evidence; the passage should be captured and verified before the claim is graded.

No admitted evidence record directly documents the claimed detection of both ergometrine and ergometrinine in the specified preparation. TIK-E038's title and editor note allude to residual ergometrine, but its quoted source statement does not provide this result and its verified claim links explicitly exclude TIK-C029. That allusion is the strongest consideration favoring the claim, but it is insufficient under the evidence-record-only rule.

The 2026 qualitative analysis reports that signals for ergometrine and ergometrinine remained visible in the preparation in which the peptide ergot alkaloids had been cleared. The observation is part of the same experimental record that supports the conversion claim. The strongest opposing consideration is the absence of a dedicated, independently verified evidence record that isolates this residual after the claim-ID pruning, plus lack of pharmacological evaluation of the residual in the source.

No evidence record is formally linked: the second reader removed C029 from E038 because E038's quoted passage lacks the ergometrine statement. The basis I disclose instead is the claim's own anchor, a verbatim quote from the retrieved preprint ("while the signals corresponding to ergometrine (Em) and ergometrinine (Emn) were observed"), together with E038's title and editorial note, which record the source as reporting ergometrine persisting. For a narrow claim about what a text says, that suffices for provisional support. Strongest opposing consideration: the quote is a fragment whose link to the optimal condition is inferred from its locator rather than shown, and the published version has not been checked for this passage. Whether residual ergometrine matters pharmacologically is an editor's note, not the source's, and belongs to R003.

Held on its source passage alone. No evidence record carries it, and the second reader found that TIK-E038 does not bear on it. That residual ergometrine matters pharmacologically is an editorial note, not the paper's claim.