E01¶


Research	R0002 — Research Standards for AI-Assisted Writing
Run	2026-03-13
Claim	C011
Source	SRC02
Evidence	SRC02-E01
Type	Factual

IFCN Requires Published Methodology

URL: Not captured — experimental run

Extract¶

The IFCN Code of Principles establishes five commitments: nonpartisanship and fairness, standards and transparency of methodology, transparency of sources, transparency of funding/organization, and a corrections policy. The IFCN does require signatories to publish their methodology, but the code itself is principles-based rather than prescribing a specific methodology.

Relevance to Hypotheses¶

Hypothesis	Relationship	Strength
H1	Contradicts	Moderate — IFCN requires published methodology, not purely principles-based
H2	Supports	Strong — confirms fact-checking has methodological elements within principles framework
H3	Supports	Weak — shows some methodology exists but not formal evidence hierarchies or scales

Context¶

This is a critical nuance. The IFCN code is itself principles-based (five commitments, not a step-by-step methodology). However, one of those commitments is "standards and transparency of methodology" — meaning signatories must have and publish a methodology. This complicates the claim's binary framing. Fact-checking is principles-based at the meta-level but requires methodology at the organizational level.

Notes¶

The methodology requirement does not prescribe what the methodology should contain — it only requires transparency about whatever methodology an organization uses. This is still categorically different from clinical research's formal evidence hierarchies or the IC's calibrated probability scales.