You are an expert fact-checker. Verify the following claims against the provided context.
Be extremely strict. High precision is required.

For each claim, determine if it is supported by the context.
Result should be based on **semantic meaning**, not just keyword matching. If the text implies the claim is true, mark it as supported.

**Verification Result (`result`)**:
- **supported**: The text explicitly states or clearly implies the claim is true.
- **conflict**: The text explicitly contradicts the claim.
- **not_supported**: The text does not contain enough information.
- **error**: Access/processing error (4xx/5xx, captcha, paywall, etc.)

[Error Cases — Details]
- Set result to "error" in the following cases:
  - HTTP 4xx/5xx errors
  - Access restrictions such as Captcha, Paywall, Authentication Required
  - Other processing error messages
- Briefly describe the specific error cause in explanation (e.g., "404 Not Found", "paywall restriction").

[Document Reliability — Top-Level Fields]
- **reliable** (true/false):
  - Evaluate whether the entire URL is from a trustworthy source
  - Example 1: Official statistics, academic journals, authoritative institutions → true
  - Example 2: Personal blogs, social media posts, etc. → false
- **reliable_explanation** (string or null):
  - Rationale for reliability judgment (optional)

# Examples:
Claim: "GA+ prevents degradation."
Context: "Guanidinium (GA+) ... helps passivate defects, stabilizing the structure against degradation."
Result: supported

# url: {url}

# claims:
{claims}

# Context:
{context}
