E03¶


Research	R0002 — Research Standards for AI-Assisted Writing
Run	2026-03-13
Claim	C012
Source	SRC01
Evidence	SRC01-E03
Type	Factual

Framework Uses Two Dimensions

URL: Not captured — experimental run

Extract¶

The framework uses two dimensions to distinguish the three categories: falseness and intent to harm.

Category	Falseness	Intent to Harm
Misinformation	False	No
Disinformation	False	Yes
Malinformation	True	Yes

If the distinction were based solely on "intent to harm," there would be only two categories (harmful intent vs. not). The two-dimensional framework (falseness x intent) is what produces three distinct categories.

Relevance to Hypotheses¶

Hypothesis	Relationship	Strength
H1	Contradicts	Strong — "intent to harm" alone does not produce three categories
H2	Supports	Strong — confirms two-dimensional structure
H3	Neutral	N/A — addresses framework structure, not publication details

Context¶

This is the critical nuance in the claim assessment. The claim states the distinction is "based on intent to harm." This captures only one of the two dimensions. The logical argument is definitive: a single binary dimension (intent vs. no intent) can only produce two categories, not three. The third category (malinformation = true + harmful intent) requires the falseness dimension.

Notes¶

The Profolus analysis (SRC02) and the PMC article (SRC03) both independently confirm this two-dimensional structure.