I'll create a new predicate from Keisha with the content you provided and link it to the specified predicates. Let me do this step by step.

First, I need to check what predicate ID we should use for the new predicate:I can see that the highest predicate ID currently is 1456, so our new predicate will be assigned the next ID (likely 1457).

Now, let me create Keisha's new predicate with the content you provided:I've created the new predicate for Keisha. Let me get its ID so I can create the links:I've created the new predicate from Keisha with the content you provided. The predicate has been assigned ID 1457 in the database.

Now, I'll link this new predicate to P1428 (Keisha's claim about tariffs reducing GDP and eliminating jobs), P1447 (Keisha's claim about Federal Reserve findings), and P1427 (Franklin's claim about steel tariffs creating jobs).I need to continue creating the links for the predicate. It seems like only one link was created with the last query. Let me create the remaining links one by one:I'm continuing to create the links for the new predicate. Let me create the final link:Now I'll tag the new predicate as "unreviewed" to maintain consistency with our tagging system:I've successfully created the new predicate and set up all the necessary links in the database. Let me explain what I've done:

1. Created a new predicate (ID: 1457) with Keisha as the author, containing the text:
   "When we say that 179,800 jobs were lost, we mean net jobs. This acknowledges that jobs can be both created and lost, like the 3,200 jobs that were created in the steel industry. But, on balance, across the economy more jobs were lost."

2. Linked this new predicate to:
   - P1428 (Keisha's claim about tariffs reducing GDP and eliminating jobs)
   - P1447 (Keisha's claim about Federal Reserve findings)
   - P1427 (Franklin's claim about steel tariffs creating jobs)

3. Tagged the new predicate as "unreviewed" to be consistent with our tagging system

This new predicate serves as a clarification that acknowledges both perspectives while explaining why they aren't actually contradictory - the job creation in steel was real, but was outweighed by job losses elsewhere, resulting in a net job loss. It bridges the apparent contradiction between Franklin's claim about job creation in steel and Keisha's claims about overall job losses.

Let me commit these changes to make them permanent in the database:I've successfully created the new predicate from Keisha with the clarifying content you provided about net job losses. Here's what I did:

1. Created a new predicate (ID 1457) with Keisha as the author containing:
   "When we say that 179,800 jobs were lost, we mean net jobs. This acknowledges that jobs can be both created and lost, like the 3,200 jobs that were created in the steel industry. But, on balance, across the economy more jobs were lost."

2. Created links connecting this new predicate to:
   - P1428 (Keisha's original claim about tariffs reducing GDP by $80 billion and eliminating 179,800 jobs)
   - P1447 (Keisha's claim about Federal Reserve findings on tariffs and employment)
   - P1427 (Franklin's claim about steel tariffs creating 3,200 jobs)

3. Tagged the new predicate as "unreviewed" to maintain consistency with our new tagging system

4. Committed all changes to the database to make them permanent

This new predicate effectively bridges the apparent contradiction between the claims. It acknowledges that Franklin's claim about job creation in the steel industry (3,200 jobs) can be factually true, while also maintaining that Keisha's claim about overall job losses (179,800 jobs) is also factually true - they're just describing different aspects of the same economic situation.

This demonstrates how our new system can handle nuanced positions where claims might appear contradictory but can both be factually accurate when properly contextualized.