Evidence 105bd5f9447e shows a 'Python 3.15.0' entry in the release table with a Download link, which supports the listing component. Evidence 6c7990d6022e shows a 'bugfix' status, but on the 3.15 series row rather than explicitly on 3.15.0. The word 'stable' does not appear in either passage, so the 'stable release' characterization is not verified. The prosecution also notes that both passages come from one source (923b8a98f603), and the record does not establish that this source is python.org.

Missing: Explicit text describing 3.15.0 as stable or as a bugfix release; confirmation that source 923b8a98f603 is the python.org domain or URL; a clear mapping of the bugfix status to 3.15.0 specifically rather than the 3.15 series.

Both passages list October 9, 2026 (Oct. 9, 2026 and 2026-10-09) as the release date for Python 3.15, so the date itself is well mapped. However, the prosecution correctly points out that a release table may list scheduled dates, and the record contains no evidence that the release actually occurred or that the current date is past October 9, 2026. The past-tense 'was released' therefore goes beyond the evidence. Both passages also come from a single source, so there is no independent corroboration.

Missing: Evidence that the release actually occurred (for example, release notes, a published download, or a changelog entry dated on or after the release day); an independent second source; a timestamp confirming the current date.

Evidence 6c7990d6022e places 'PEP 790' in the same row as the 3.15 series, which supports an association between the two. The association is inferred from table layout and is not explicitly labeled as the PEP for 3.15. The claim's characterization of PEP 790 as the document that 'tracks' the release is not established, since the passage only shows a reference in a table. The PEP number was not checked against a PEP index or the PEP's own header, and only one evidence item supports this claim.

Missing: An explicit label or statement that PEP 790 is the PEP for Python 3.15; the PEP 790 document or index entry confirming its subject and relationship to the release; a second independent source.

The evidence row for 3.15 contains the value '2031-10' in the fourth position, which matches the claimed October 2031 date. However, the passage has no column headers, so mapping that value to 'end-of-life' rests on inference from row layout. The defense's cross-reference to the 3.16 row is also inferential, since that row's labels are not shown either. The prosecution correctly notes that the column-to-meaning mapping is unstated, that no retrieval timestamp is provided, and that the schedule is a projection tied to PEP 790 without any qualifier. The date value is present, but its identification as end-of-life is not directly verified.

Missing: A labeled source showing the column headers (or an explicit 'End of life' field) for the 3.15 row, a retrieval date for the snapshot, and ideally the PEP 790 text or a statement that the date is subject to revision.

The 3.16 row directly shows the 'pre-release' status field, which verifies the status component of the claim. The attribution to 'the python.org release table' is not verified: the evidence record shows only an opaque source_id (923b8a98f603), and the passage does not show the table's name or domain. The fragment also does not establish whether 'pre-release' is a status column or part of another field. The present-tense 'lists' is undated, and release statuses change over time.

Missing: Confirmation that source_id 923b8a98f603 corresponds to python.org (URL or domain in the record), the surrounding table structure showing the status column header, and a retrieval date.

The passage contains the string '2027-10-06 (planned)' in the 3.16 row, which directly maps to the claim's 'planned release date ... October 6, 2027.' The 'planned' qualifier in the source matches the claim's wording. The prosecution's concern about present-tense framing is a matter of tone rather than substance, since the claim is about the listed planned date and does not assert that the date is firm. The PEP 826 basis and retrieval date are not supplied, but they are not required to verify what the table lists. Confidence is tempered by the absence of a retrieval timestamp and by the lack of a qualifier on the date's possible revision.

Missing: A retrieval date for the snapshot. The PEP 826 text is not required for the claim as stated but would strengthen it.

The passage ('Python releases are now listed on the downloads page') supports the component that releases are listed on the downloads page. Neither the claim's domain attribution ('on python.org') nor the implied completeness of 'all Python releases' is stated in the passage. The defense concedes the passage does not mention python.org. The prosecution's point that 'now' is undated and the scope of 'releases' is unqualified is also valid, though it weighs less than the missing domain. Because the domain is an unverified component, the claim cannot be fully supported.

Missing: A source that names python.org as the downloads page's domain, and ideally a dated or versioned statement confirming the listing is current and covers the release types the claim describes.

The passage ('Once a version has been fully released, bug fixes and security fixes are accepted') maps directly onto the claim's conditional structure and both fix types. The prosecution's objections concern what the claim omits (duration of support, end-of-life, definition of 'fully released', source date), not what it asserts. The claim does not state indefinite support, so these objections do not contradict it. The 'fully released' term appears in the passage itself, so it is not undefined within the evidence. Confidence is reduced slightly because the source is undated and the defense did not address the time-limited nature of support.

Missing: A dated source, and optionally a statement of how long fixes are accepted, to make the claim's currency and scope explicit.

The passage ('New binaries are built and released roughly every two months') supports the two-month cadence. However, the claim restricts this cadence to versions 'in bugfix status,' a term the passage never uses. The passage refers only to unspecified new binaries, with no subject tied to bugfix status, version phase, or 'Python versions.' The defense's claim that 'the timing matches' verifies the cadence but not the population the claim applies it to. The prosecution correctly identifies this scope mismatch, and the evidence does not rule out different schedules in other support phases. The cadence component is verified, but the scope component is not.

Missing: A source that explicitly ties the binary release cadence to versions in bugfix status, and that specifies which platforms and artifact types are covered.

The defense passage c073d35c3737 nearly verbatim states that after two years (18 months for versions before 3.13) only security fixes are accepted and no more binaries are released. This maps directly to every component of the claim. The prosecution's objections concern the currency of the source, the undefined scope of 'binaries', and the undefined reference point for the two-year window. These are valid limits on how precisely the claim can be read, but the evidence states the same terms as the claim, and none of the objections shows the passage says something different. The prosecution raised no contradicting evidence. The unverified currency of the source and the unspecified trigger date reduce confidence somewhat.

Missing: Publication or last-revision date of the source policy; a definition of the reference point for the 'two years' (first release, final feature release, or GA); clarification of whether 'binaries' covers all types and platforms and whether source releases continue.

The defense passage b167a2cc0715 states that support ends five years after a release and that the release cycle is frozen with no further changes allowed. Both halves of the claim are matched. The prosecution's concerns are mainly about scope and generalization: whether the freeze is absolute, whether it applies to all versions including those under earlier schedules, and whether exceptions exist. These are not contradictions of the evidence, which uses the same unqualified wording. The claimed tension with claim 853b83f96f0d does not hold on inspection, since that claim governs the 2-to-5-year window and this one governs the period after end of support. Confidence is moderated because the evidence is a single source with no version-history or exception language.

Missing: Confirmation that the freeze and end-of-support apply to all versions, including those released under earlier schedules; statement of any exceptions for critical or security fixes after end of support; source date or version-history verification.

The defense passage e945ea97079e supports the core statement that dates shown in italic are scheduled and can be adjusted. The minor wording difference ('italic' versus 'italics') does not change meaning. The claim also places these dates on a 'release status page', and the defense concedes that no passage establishes this location or identifies the source (09ba7ee5fb0d) by title or URL. That component is therefore unverified. The prosecution's points that 'can be adjusted' is vague and that the page may have changed since recording go to precision and currency rather than contradiction, so they lower confidence without refuting the claim.

Missing: A passage identifying the source as the release status page and confirming that the italic convention appears there; a title or URL for source 09ba7ee5fb0d; the timestamp or version of the page; the mechanism and notice for adjusting scheduled dates, if the claim is to retain 'can be adjusted' in any detail.

Evidence: 4 · Sources: 2 · Verified claims: 0 · Contradictions: 0

Evidence: 2 · Sources: 1 · Verified claims: 0 · Contradictions: 0

Evidence: 4 · Sources: 2 · Verified claims: 0 · Contradictions: 0

No contradictions detected.

Criteria: A specific version number (e.g., X.Y.Z) is identified from python.org's official downloads page or release listings, with the source URL and retrieval date noted. Pre-release, beta, and release-candidate versions are excluded.

Criteria: A calendar date is confirmed from an official Python source, such as the python.org release page, the release announcement, or the Python Developer's Guide release schedule, for the exact version identified in the first subquestion. The date should be cited with its source.

Criteria: The evidence confirms that no newer final (non-pre-release) Python version has been published as of the date checked, using python.org or the Python Developer's Guide. Any newer patch or feature release is identified, or the absence of one is documented with the date of verification.

Limitations

• Search coverage depends on Brave Search results and retrievable public pages
• Certificate metrics measure internal claim-to-evidence integrity, not external truth