How can I record which source supports each clause in a compound claim?

Treat each independently checkable point as its own claim. The citation’s position at the end of a sentence does not tell you which points its source supports. Break the sentence into clauses, then make a row for each.

For example, consider the illustrative sentence: “The town opened a new library in 2022, extended weekend hours, and saw more visitors afterward.” You could separate it into:

1. The town opened a new library.
2. The opening was in 2022.
3. Weekend hours were extended.
4. Visitor numbers increased afterward.

These are example claims, not facts about a real town. They may need different evidence. A passage about an opening date might support the first two, but it would not automatically establish the hours or visitor trend.

For each row, write down what you checked and how it relates to that particular clause. If you find no relevant passage, mark the clause “unresolved” rather than copying the citation into its row as if it settled the question.

Use fields that let someone identify the claim, return to the relevant material, and see why you judged it supportive. A practical row can include:

• A clause ID and the exact clause wording.
• The source’s identifying label.
• A page, section, paragraph, or other locator, when available.
• A brief quotation or faithful paraphrase of the relevant passage.
• A judgment: supports, partly supports, contradicts, or does not address.
• A note describing the match or what remains unestablished.

For example, a note might say, “The passage gives the opening date; it says nothing about visitor totals.” Keep your claim separate from your evidence note so the reader can distinguish what you are checking from what the passage says.

A copyable layout is:

ID | Clause | Source and location | Relevant passage | Judgment | Gap or note

If one passage bears on multiple clauses, reference it in each applicable row and specify which wording it supports. If you cannot identify a relevant passage, say so; a source being on the same topic is not enough to establish the connection.

Here is a hypothetical map. The bracketed source descriptions and passages are placeholders, not real evidence:

C1 | The town opened a new library | [Source A], “Opening” section | Passage states that a library opened | Supports the opening; confirm it is the library meant in the claim.

C2 | The opening was in 2022 | [Source A], date line | Passage gives [date] | Partly supports | Check that the date refers to the opening, not an announcement or plan.

C3 | Weekend hours were extended | [Source B], [section] | No relevant passage located | Unresolved | Find support or remove the clause.

C4 | Visitor numbers increased afterward | [Source C], [table or passage] | Figures for [periods] | Partly supports | Check whether the periods and measure establish the claimed increase.

The map keeps a supported point from lending its appearance of support to a weaker one. When you mark something “partly supports,” name the missing detail. Then revise the sentence: retain supported wording, qualify what is only partly established, and remove or flag unresolved claims. The map records your assessment; it does not by itself establish that the source is reliable or that the claim is true.

Split at each independent assertion, not at every descriptive word. Ask whether a part could be checked separately and turn out differently from the rest. If so, give it its own row. Keep closely linked wording together when splitting it would distort the meaning, but make important conditions or qualifiers visible in the claim.

After mapping, check that every clause has a judgment and a locator—or an explicit unresolved status. Look for passages that support only narrower wording, such as a particular period, group, or measure. Revise the sentence to match what the mapped evidence establishes, or leave the gap visible for review. If you change a clause later, revisit its row because the changed wording may need different support.

A compact final record might look like this:

Claim: [original compound sentence] C1: [clause] — [source/location]; [passage note]; [judgment]; [gap] C2: [clause] — [source/location]; [passage note]; [judgment]; [gap] Revision: [wording limited to what the mapped support establishes]

This is a traceability aid, not a guarantee of complete evidence. Its purpose is to make each support connection—or missing connection—inspectable.