What is the ruling when signs of pregnancy are absent, and it is possible the pregnancy resulted from intercourse after the oath, following the conditional divorce stating 'If you are pregnant, you are divorced'?

Primary text

There are two views. One view states the divorce occurs because the default assumption is no pregnancy before the intercourse. The second view states divorce does not occur because the certainty is the continuation of the marriage, and certainty is not removed by doubt or possibility. The husband is forbidden from intercourse before 'istibra' (seeking a period of abstinence to ascertain purity of the womb), which here is one menstrual cycle. If she menstruates according to her usual cycle, it confirms the divorce occurred. If she does not menstruate according to her usual cycle, it indicates she is pregnant and intercourse is permissible.