More like, if it's that A and B are collectively sufficient to guarantee C, and A and B are true, then you know, visually, that C is proven. If one of A or B are contested and (validly) claimed false, then the truth/proof state propagates and you know, visually, that C is not proven.
And then yes, C can be used to support something else, so you can chain multiple together. Kialo - and really, the whole warrant/claim method of argument-mapping - doesn't have the concept of truth (or sufficiency, or necessity) built into the machinery.
It goes deeper than that, there's a distinction between syntax and semantics (or form and content) - all of these design decisions are driving exactly how the project evolves.