A review result now explains itself. When you finish reviewing an argument, the results screen tells you two things: what the conclusion came out to, and what the argument's own reasoning achieved. They now sit side by side in one panel, given equal weight — they answer different questions and are allowed to disagree, so neither is the headline and neither is the footnote. Each is coloured so you can read it at a glance: green where something holds, amber where an argument falls short of its conclusion rather than fails, red where a set of premises genuinely cannot all be true at once. An unknown stays plain, because it is a gap rather than a result. Every value keeps its full wording, so nothing is carried by colour alone.

Each comes with a plain-language explanation of what it means, and what it does not mean. "Show example" opens a small worked argument drawn the same way Proposit draws yours, clearly framed as an illustration so it can never be mistaken for your own review, plus links to freely readable references if you want to go deeper.

The statements beside the conclusion are explained too. "It holds only because you assigned it" is a fact about the argument, not a criticism of you, and it now says so.

Rejected steps are shown as rejected. In the results detail list, a step you turned down used to be listed with a True/False value beside it — usually False, which read as though you had called it untrue. Turning a step down only sets it aside; it says nothing about whether what it claims is true. Those steps are now crossed out and carry no value, so you can tell them apart from steps that genuinely came out false.

Every premise in the detail list has a name. Some of the steps Proposit builds for you — the ones that carry a claim's supporting sources — have no title, and those rows used to show a long identifier instead. They now read "Support for «the claim»", so you can tell at a glance which part of the argument each row belongs to.

Failing cases are readable. "Check all possible assignments" now describes each failing case in your argument's own words — which claim would have to be true, false or unknown — instead of showing raw data.