The Love Equations Lab
Bring a claim. See where it fits, where it strains, and what the map is missing.
Paste text or drop a file. The Lab shows which ideas on this site your text touches, where its claims overreach, and what it could not match.
Add something to analyze.
The Lab reads text. Paste it directly, or attach files, images, documents, or subtitles—everything is converted to plain text on your device before the analysis starts.
Analysis
Run the Demo Test or add your own text to fill this page with real results.
Nothing was skipped.
The Lab skips text that does not look like it is about dating or relationships. It decides by wording, so it can get this wrong. Everything it skipped is listed here with the reason. If something relationship-related was skipped, add it back — the analysis re-runs instantly on your device. You can also leave out anything it kept by mistake. Your choices last for this session and are noted in every export.
From your text to matched concepts
Where the matches landed
Waiting for resultsMatched topics will appear here.
Claims matched
provisional · still being calibrated
Coverage is the share of relationship claims in your text that found a solid match on this site. If no such claims were detected, coverage does not apply. It is not a truth score—a high number only means your text talks about things this site covers.
Match table
Nothing analyzed yet.
| Feedback | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run an analysis to fill this table. | |||||||
Stance
What your text does with each conceptNo alignment labels yet.
Evidence tier
How well-supported the matched concepts areNo matched evidence tiers yet.
Your words beside this site’s.
Every match shows your passage, this site’s own summary, a link to the exact page, and the words that earned the match. Weak overlap is labeled weak.
Solid matches will appear here. Shared everyday words alone never earn a citation.
Where a claim overreaches—and what would change the verdict.
The Lab flags the risky patterns: absolute language, causal leaps, collapsed stages, moralized market value, scope errors, and ignored boundary conditions. A flag is a question to investigate, not a conviction.
Run an analysis to see which claims deserve scrutiny first.
What didn’t match stays visible.
Claims with no solid match are collected here, with the closest concept this site has, the question each one raises, and how you could check it.
Claims that match nothing on this site stay visible here instead of being forced into the closest canon concept.
Exactly what was analyzed.
Check how your text was read: warnings, speakers, timestamps, and every passage in order. If reading was partial, that limitation belongs next to the results.
Reading warnings
Run the demo, paste text, or attach a file to see what the Lab reads.
A map is not a verdict.
Matching is not proof. Word overlap can find a relevant concept on this site; it cannot establish that either side is true.
Coverage describes your text only. A high matched share means your text talks about things this site covers—not that it represents anyone else.
Unmatched is useful. It may be noise, a source error, a gap on this site, or a lead worth chasing. The Open Questions view keeps those possibilities separate.
Irony is read straight. The stance label reads negation, quotation, attribution, and qualification from the sentence itself. It has no way to detect sarcasm, so a passage that mocks an idea by stating it is recorded as stating it. Where a stance label looks backwards, check the tone first.
Word shapes are approximated too. A short list of technical words stops a term like provider being read in its vendor sense, and that list is compared against the passage by stripping suffixes rather than by knowing English. It reaches too far in places and not far enough in others: paying is treated as payment, while carers is not treated as care. Where a plainly relational sentence is rejected, or a technical one is accepted, the word's shape is the first thing to check.
Clauses are guessed from punctuation. Deciding who is claiming what, and which words a borrowed term is standing next to, both need to know where one clause ends and the next begins. That boundary is approximated from commas, semicolons and dashes rather than parsed, so coordination without a comma, a negator inside a subordinate clause, an appositive, and a chain of attributions can all put a word in the wrong place. Flagged cases route to the feedback pipeline, where they accumulate as the argument for a real parser.
- This site says
- Boundary conditions
- What would weaken it
- Evidence that would change the verdict
- Did the source supply it?
- The tension
- Closest canon concepts by wording
- Where it could belong
- The question it raises
- What would disprove it
- Suggested search terms