So what you are saying is that one could claim to be true based on future investigation. In actual fact you are saying that you do not know which is true based on the limited information presented, not that neither can claim to be true.

In fact, one could be true based on enough evidence. Your claim of reasonableness is a red herring - it could be that one interpretation may seem reasonable but on further investigation it is not.

I’m merely pointing out you don’t know which proposition is true, not that neither can claim to be true. In fact, if one happens to be true then it can claim to be true, and will actually be true. That’s an important distinction.

There is not enough evidence to know which of the claims is true: either one or neither could be. But both claims are as valid as each other in that the observations are true (but correlation != causation applies: both claims show a correlation, there is not enough evidence of whether either of them show causation)

Which negates the statement “neither can claim to be true”.