R0002/2026-03-13/C003 — Self-Audit¶
Summary¶
| Domain | Rating |
|---|---|
| Eligibility criteria | Low risk |
| Search comprehensiveness | Low risk |
| Evaluation consistency | Low risk |
| Synthesis fairness | Low risk |
Overall risk of bias: Low
Detail¶
Eligibility Criteria¶
Rating: Low risk
Sources were included if they directly addressed the IPCC uncertainty framework, confidence levels, or likelihood scale. The primary IPCC guidance document was targeted. The GreenFacts summary was included because it provided the most complete likelihood table found. No borderline decisions were required.
Search Comprehensiveness¶
Rating: Low risk
Five searches conducted: initial framework search (S01), confidence levels search (S02), likelihood scale search (S03), GreenFacts direct fetch (S04), and IPCC guidance note PDF attempt (S05). The PDF was unreadable but content was confirmed via secondary sources. Multiple independent sources converge on the framework structure. The critical finding (likelihood term count ambiguity) was surfaced by the targeted search.
Evaluation Consistency¶
Rating: Low risk
All sources evaluated using the same scorecard dimensions. The GreenFacts source — which provided the most detailed evidence about the counting ambiguity — was rated Medium-High reliability, appropriately lower than the IPCC primary source. No differential treatment of confirming vs. complicating evidence.
Synthesis Fairness¶
Rating: Low risk
The synthesis explicitly preserves the counting ambiguity rather than forcing a binary verdict. The assessment notes that "nine" is defensible under one method but is not the standard presentation. Both the confirmed elements (003a-003d) and the debatable element (003e) are treated with appropriate nuance. The terminology imprecisions ("Source agreement" vs. "degree of agreement") are flagged without being treated as errors of substance.
Flags¶
No flags raised.