C011 — ACH Matrix¶


Research	R0002 — Research Standards for AI-Assisted Writing
Run	2026-03-13
Claim	C011

Matrix¶

	H1: Fully accurate	H2: Partially accurate	H3: Claim inaccurate
SRC01-E01: SPJ code is principles-based, voluntary	++	++	--
SRC01-E02: SPJ code lacks formal evidence structures	+	+	-
SRC02-E01: IFCN requires published methodology	--	++	+
SRC02-E02: IFCN code lacks formal evidence structures	+	+	-
SRC03-E01: Field still developing epistemological foundations	+	++	--
SRC04-E01: Fact-checking has "contested epistemology"	+	++	--
SRC05-E01: IC has calibrated probability scale, journalism does not	++	++	--

Legend: - ++ Strongly supports - + Supports - -- Strongly contradicts - - Contradicts - N/A Not applicable to this hypothesis

Diagnosticity Analysis¶

Most Diagnostic Evidence¶

Evidence ID	Why Diagnostic
SRC02-E01	Strongly contradicts H1, strongly supports H2 — this is the key differentiator. IFCN's methodology requirement breaks the pure principles-based characterization.
SRC04-E01	Strongly supports H2 and contradicts H3 — "contested epistemology" confirms methodological elements exist but foundations are unsettled.

Least Diagnostic Evidence¶

Evidence ID	Why Non-Diagnostic
SRC01-E02	Supports both H1 and H2 equally — confirms specific absences but does not differentiate between the two leading hypotheses
SRC02-E02	Same pattern — supports both H1 and H2 on the specific absences

Outcome¶

Hypothesis supported: H2 — Journalism has some methodological structure but lacks the specific formal features named in the claim. The principles-vs-methodology binary oversimplifies.

Hypotheses eliminated: H3 — No evidence found of formal evidence hierarchies, calibrated uncertainty scales, or structured bias assessment domains in journalism comparable to those in clinical research or intelligence analysis.

Hypotheses weakened: H1 — The IFCN's methodology requirement and fact-checking's verification procedures contradict the "purely principles- based" characterization. H1 is too absolute.