A face-centred cubic unit cell is crystallographically distinct from a body-centred tetragonal unit cell

the verdict

COMMON KNOWLEDGE

Legacy classification; evidence review pending

Recorded sources

no sources on either side

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that a face-centred cubic unit cell is crystallographically distinct from a body-centred tetragonal unit cell?

A face-centred cubic (FCC) unit cell and a body-centred tetragonal (BCT) unit cell are fundamentally different crystal systems with distinct lattice parameters and symmetry properties.

Verdict: COMMON KNOWLEDGE · 0 sources for, 0 against · Last checked 4 Aug 2026

The analysis

The claim states a basic, universally accepted crystallographic fact: face-centred cubic and body-centred tetragonal are distinct unit cell types defined by different Bravais lattices. According to the instructions, statements that are trivially true by definition or direct everyday/textbook observation are classified as COMMON_KNOWLEDGE and do not require citations, even though background papers discuss FCC and BCT structures.

What does the evidence say?

Receipt History

first checked04 Aug 2026

judged → COMMON KNOWLEDGE · 9504 Aug 2026

Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.

Check your own claim

Challenge the receipt

I have a source that contradicts this verdict I have a source that supports it No source: request a receipt review Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work