Checking normalizes exceptions

Can checking a true statement make people transmit an exception as the ordinary rule? This hypothesis asks whether verification changes meaning while the source stays visible. The test puts identical statements beside an accessible source. One group actively verifies them; another gets a matched view without judging meaning. Checks are deliberately authored or automatically generated, and a notice says repetition gives no clue about what is typical. The prediction is a larger effect for deliberate certification: recipients infer the marked exception as ordinary while retaining the source cues. A model of pragmatic inference, meaning drawn from why a speaker chose words, should underpredict this contrast. If it predicts it, the distinct mechanism loses support.