How to choose: Do you only need to calibrate how strongly X supports Y, or do you need to name a specific alternative explanation for the same evidence?
Core distinction
Use CLF051 when X supports Y but does not prove it; alternative explanations can remain implicit. Use CLF052 when the same observation fits Y but you need to keep a specific competing explanation Z visible.
First pattern · CLF051
[X] suggests that [Y], but it doesn't prove it.
Distinguish suggestive evidence from proof.
EN
[X] suggests that [Y], but it doesn't prove it.
DE
[X] deutet darauf hin, dass [Y], beweist es aber nicht.
Formula: [X] suggests that [Y], but it doesn't prove it.
Example: The repeated timeout suggests that the queue is overloaded, but it doesn't prove it.
CLF052
Formula: [X] is consistent with [Y], but it could also mean [Z].
Example: The missing record is consistent with a replication failure, but it could also mean the source never created it.
Pattern Choice
Test the distinction before practising it
Situation · benchmark-suggests-not-proves
A first benchmark makes the new model look faster, but the result is not decisive. Calibrate the evidence without introducing a specific competing explanation.
Choose a pattern
A · CLF051
[X] suggests that [Y], but it doesn't prove it.
EN
[X] suggests that [Y], but it doesn't prove it.
DE
[X] deutet darauf hin, dass [Y], beweist es aber nicht.
B · CLF052
[X] is consistent with [Y], but it could also mean [Z].
EN
[X] is consistent with [Y], but it could also mean [Z].
DE
[X] passt zu [Y], könnte aber auch [Z] bedeuten.
Reveal answer and explanation
Best-fit pattern: CLF051 · [X] suggests that [Y], but it doesn't prove it.
Why it fits: Choose CLF051 because the observation supports the hypothesis but does not prove it. The task is about evidential strength, not about naming another cause.
Why not the nearby pattern: CLF052 would be useful if you needed to keep a concrete alternative visible, such as an easier test set. The scenario does not ask for that second explanation.
A missing record fits a replication failure, but it could also mean that the source never created the record. Keep both interpretations visible.
Choose a pattern
A · CLF051
[X] suggests that [Y], but it doesn't prove it.
EN
[X] suggests that [Y], but it doesn't prove it.
DE
[X] deutet darauf hin, dass [Y], beweist es aber nicht.
B · CLF052
[X] is consistent with [Y], but it could also mean [Z].
EN
[X] is consistent with [Y], but it could also mean [Z].
DE
[X] passt zu [Y], könnte aber auch [Z] bedeuten.
Reveal answer and explanation
Best-fit pattern: CLF052 · [X] is consistent with [Y], but it could also mean [Z].
Why it fits: Choose CLF052 because one observation is compatible with two specific explanations and the alternative must remain explicit.
Why not the nearby pattern: CLF051 could correctly say that the missing record suggests replication failure without proving it, but it would leave the competing source-side explanation implicit.
