The claim asserts that the FSU shooting resulted in 'two people killed and seven others wounded.' The 'two killed' element is fully confirmed by all authoritative sources. The 'seven others wounded' element, however, is directly contradicted by the settled factual record: the established victim injury count is six, not seven. Multiple independent Tier 4 sources — NPR (headline: '2 killed, 6 others wounded'), CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, Al Jazeera, and the Fox 35 one-year anniversary report contemporaneous with the April 24, 2026 broadcast — uniformly report six non-shooter victims wounded. Police explicitly clarified to CBS News the day after the shooting that five victims were shot by gunfire and a sixth was injured fleeing — the shooter himself was a separate, seventh hospitalized person who was not a victim. The 'seven' figure traceable to the initial police report expressly included the suspect, a fact that was publicly corrected by law enforcement within 24 hours of the shooting. Gate 1 nominated MISLEADING via FRAMING on the theory that the claim was 'technically grounded' in the initial police report; however, MISLEADING requires that 'every fact in the claim must be confirmable.' The specific numeric assertion 'seven others wounded' is not confirmable as a victim count — it is directly contradicted by post-clarification authoritative sources. Under the verdict definitions, a claim where the 'core assertion is directly contradicted by authoritative sources' qualifies for FALSE, not MISLEADING. The materiality is clear: the difference between six and seven wounded victims is a concrete, directional numerical error (per the MOSTLY TRUE boundary test: the inaccuracy is not merely immaterial imprecision — it misdescribes the victim count by one full victim). Because the number is wrong — not merely framed misleadingly — the correct verdict is FALSE, not MISLEADING. Minimum source requirements for FALSE are met: five or more independent Tier 4 sources directly contradict the 'seven wounded' figure with the correct count of six.

Methodology note: The MISLEADING/FALSE boundary turns on a key definitional rule: 'Every fact in the claim must be confirmable — if a specific fact is wrong, the verdict is MOSTLY TRUE or FALSE, not MISLEADING.' Gate 1's FRAMING theory required treating 'seven' as technically accurate (sourced to the initial police count), but that count was explicitly clarified by law enforcement within 24 hours and corrected universally across major outlets. By broadcast date (April 24, 2026 — over a year after the event), 'six wounded' was the unambiguously settled factual record; '七 others wounded' cannot be characterized as a confirmable fact that is misleadingly framed. Reviewers should consider whether a broadcast claim that uses an initial, publicly-superseded police count — without qualification — meets the MISLEADING standard or the FALSE standard. Gate 2 finds FALSE is the correct boundary placement.