I have to respectfully disagree with this point. Given a well-defined logical statement, either A or not A is true.
You're not disagreeing with me, you just forgot to read the rest of my statement:
"For your model to work, you'd have to deconstruct a claim into a series of binary decisions, and then analyse those one by one."
edby failed to construct a "well-defined logical statement" or (per his own Wikipedia link) a proposition. The language used in this conversation was entirely colloquial, until edby suddenly decided to pretend that we're exchanging Boolean logic statements. This breaks down easily in everyday use since, as you rightly point out, it's easy to construct a statement without a clear truth value.
Specifically, edby's statement fails because he assumes that my denial of (say) option 3 must mean that UA
doesn't affect the bodies mentioned (rather than the correct interpretation of option 3 not being correct due to being incomplete).
Without any context, you could argue that my assumptions were flawed, and that I should consider incomplete answers to be true (by virtue of them not being strictly false). But this is why I followed up with a qualifying statement, removing any possible ambiguity.
You
could adjust the terms of this conversation into sensible logical statements, at which point they could clearly be answered formally. But this hasn't happened thus far, and I honestly don't think it's particularly necessary.