SACM — SAEM: Page 13, section 7.4, in table

It is not clear why the EvidenceEvaluation relationship types “weakens” and “amplifies” are themselves between Evidence relations.

Change text in section 14.5.3, page 84 from
For example, one may assert that the evidence that support the claim that “Bob is married
to Alice” weakens the claim that “Bob is single” (see weakens element). These
dependencies help further evaluation of evidence.
into
For example, let's assume the following evidentiary relationships:
Exhibit A supports claim "Bob is married to Alice"
Exhibit A challenges claim "Bob is single"
We can observe that the claim "Bob is married to Alice" conflicts with the claim "Bob is
single"
Let's further assume the following evidentiary relationship:
Exhibit C supports claim Exhibit A is likely a forgery
We can observe that
The evidence assertion Exhibit C supports claim "Exhibit A is likely a forgery" weakens
support given by the Exhibit A to the claim "Bob is married to Alice"
at the same time we do not directly assert that
Exhibit C challenges the claim "Bob is married to Alice"
Evidence observations help capture dependencies between related claims and thus
facilitate evaluation of evidence.
Change text in section 14.5.4, page 85 from
Weakens element asserts that one EvidenceRelation-1 element weakens another
EvidenceRelation-2 element. This has a different meaning that the statement that any
evidence supporting DomainAssertion-1 that is the assertion of EvidenceRelation-1,
challenges the DomainAssertion-2 that is the assertion of the EvidenceRelation-2.
Weakens relation may imply a conflict between DomainAssertion-1 and
DomainAssertion-2. In that case evidence in support of DomainAssertion-1 is not
relevant to DomainAssertion-2. For example, one may assert that the evidence that
support the claim that “Bob is married to Alice” weakens the claim that “Bob is single.”
Weakens dependencies help further evaluation of evidence.
into
Weakens element asserts that the subject EvidenceRelation weakens another
EvidenceRelation2. This statement has a different meaning than a statement about
existence of an evidence item that (directly) challenges the FormalAssertion that is
involved in the EvidenceRelation2. Weakens relation may imply a conflict between the
subject FormalAssertion that is involved in the subject EvidenceRelation and FornalAssertion2. In that case the evidence in support of the subject FormalAssertion is
not relevant to FormalAssertion2.
change text in the Semantics subsection from:
The Weakens element asserts a state of affairs that the EvidenceRelation-1, identified as
relation1 of the Weakens element, weakens EvidenceRelation-2 that is identified as
relation2 of the Weakens element.
into
The Weakens element asserts a state of affairs that the EvidenceRelation-1, identified as
the 'subject' of the Weakens element, weakens EvidenceRelation-2 that is identified as the
'relation' of the Weakens element. The Weakens statement asserts a negative contribution
made by one EvidenceEvaluation to another EvidenceEvaluation.
Change text on page 85 from:
This characteristic is verbalized as follows: “Evidentiary support to DomainAssertion-1
weakens evidentiary support to DomainAssertion-2”
into
This characteristic is verbalized as follows: “Evidentiary support to the subject
FormalAssertion weakens evidentiary support to FormalAssertion-2”, where "Evidentiary
support to a FormalAssertion C1" is an objectified assertion that there is an evidence
item E1 that supports the FormalAssertion C1.
Change text section 14.5.5, page 85 from
Amplifies element asserts that one EvidenceRelation-1 element amplifies another
EvidenceRelation-2 element. This has a different meaning that the statement that any
evidence supporting DomainAssertion-1 that is the assertion of EvidenceRelation-1,
supports the DomainAssertion-2 that is the assertion of the EvidenceRelation-2.
Amplifies relation may imply a coupling between DomainAssertion-1 and
DomainAssertion-2. In that case evidence in support of DomainAssertion-1 may be
relevant to DomainAssertion-2. For example, one may assert that the evidence that
support the claim that “Bob is married to Alice” amplifies the claim that “Bob is not
single.” Amplifies dependencies help further evaluation of evidence.
into
Amplifies element asserts that the subject EvidenceRelation amplifies another
EvidenceRelation2. This statement has a different meaning than the statement about
existence of an evidence item that (directly) supports the FormalAssertion that is
involved in the EvidenceRelation2. Amplifies relation may imply a coupling between
subject FormalAssertion and the FormalAssertion2. In that case evidence in support of
the subject FormalAssertion may be relevant to the FormalAssertion2.
Change text in the Semantics subsection from "The Amplifies statement represents a
negative contribution made by one EvidenceEvaluation to another EvidenceEvaluation."
into
The Amplifies statement asserts a positive contribution made by one EvidenceEvaluation
to another EvidenceEvaluation."
Change text on page 86 from This characteristic is verbalized as follows: “Evidentiary support to DomainAssertion-1
amplifies evidentiary support to DomainAssertion-2”
into
This element can be verbalized as follows: “Evidentiary support to the subject
FormalAssertion amplifies evidentiary support to FormalAssertion-2”