Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.

Claim: Government is actively involved in the property sector, having provided more than 4 million houses since 1994.

Q1: Which country does the claim refer to?
A1: South Africa.

Q2: When was the claim made?
A2: 13th Febuary 2020.

Q3: How many homes have been provided by the South African Government from 1994 till 2020?
A3: 3,030,824 housing units were delivered from 1994/1995 to 2015/16

Q4: How many houses were delivered in 2016/17?
A4: A total of 90,692 houses were built in the 2016/17 financial year

Q5: How many houses were delivered in 2017/18?
A5: 86,048 in 2017/18

Q6: How many houses were delivered in 2028/19?
A6: 77,584 in 2018/19.

Q7: What do all the years between 1994 and 2020 add up to?
A7: 3,285,148.

Q8: Do the figures shown from the department of human settlements show all housing supplied by the government of SA?
A8: These numbers do not include what is called 'serviced sites'

Q9: When 'serviced sites' are included in the housing numbers what is the total provided housing?
A9: 4.7 million.

Q10: Are there any concerns over the figures provided by the 'department of human settlements'?
A10: professor Aly Karam warns that the department’s housing statistics “have not been independently verified and should be read with caution, as indicative rather than entirely conclusive”.

Q11: What is a service site?
A11: Sites that have the potential to become homes, but are not yet developed.

Q12: Are serviced sites considered houses when referring to the housing data?
A12: Housing units and serviced sites are counted separately.
user
justification: It is true that government of  South Africa is actively involved in the property sector, but the number 4 millon is not fully supported, if we do not consider serviced sites.

verdict: 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'
assistant