For a reliable non-mudallis pair, Muslim permits a presumption of connection where meeting was genuinely possible and no contrary indication is known. Al-Nawawī favors the requirement of an established meeting, attributing it to ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī and al-Bukhārī. He also records three *different* further formulations:
Al-Qābisī: «أَدْرَكَهُ إِدْرَاكًا بَيِّنًا» — an evidently established temporal overlap or acquaintance, not an undefined possibility.
Abū al-Muẓaffar al-Samʿānī al-Shāfiʿī: «طُولَ الصُّحْبَةِ» — lengthy companionship between transmitter and teacher.
Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī al-Muqriʾ: «مَعْرِفَتَهُ بِالرِّوَايَةِ عَنْهُ» — the transmitter must be known to narrate from that particular teacher.
Evident contact, prolonged companionship, and a known pattern of narration are distinct evidentiary demands, not three interchangeable names for a single meeting.
Al-Nawawī’s argument is inductive: Non-mudallis transmitters ordinarily apply such formulas to material they actually heard. Once contact is established, that observed reporting practice (istiqrāʾ) supports ghalabat al-ẓann, a preponderant probability of continuity. With only feasible but unproven contact, he says the same probability is not yet established. Withholding a presumption for insufficient positive evidence does not accuse the transmitter of lying or unreliability; nor does proof of one link certify the whole report.