R0007/2026-03-20/C007 — Self-Audit¶
echo "## Claim as Received
Housman and Minor studied 50,000 workers and found that avoiding one toxic hire saves $12,489 while hiring a top-one-percent superstar adds only $5,303.
Claim as Clarified¶
Housman and Minor studied 50,000 workers and found that avoiding one toxic hire saves $12,489 while hiring a top-one-percent superstar adds only $5,303.
BLUF¶
Confirmed. Housman and Minor (2015) studied over 50,000 front-line employees across 11 companies. They found avoiding a toxic hire saves an estimated $12,489 while a top 1% performer adds approximately $5,303 in value. Published as Harvard Business School Working Paper 16-057.
Scope¶
- Domain: Performance research / AI productivity
- Timeframe: As stated in claim
- Testability: Verifiable against published research
Assessment Summary¶
Probability: Almost certain (95-99%)
Confidence: High
Status¶
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Date created | 2026-03-20 |
| Date completed | 2026-03-20 |
| Researcher profile | Not provided |
| Prompt version | claim v1.0-draft |
| Revisit by | 2027-03-20 |
| Revisit trigger | New studies or corrections |
| assessment) echo "## BLUF |
Confirmed. Housman and Minor (2015) studied over 50,000 front-line employees across 11 companies. They found avoiding a toxic hire saves an estimated $12,489 while a top 1% performer adds approximately $5,303 in value. Published as Harvard Business School Working Paper 16-057.
Probability¶
Rating: Almost certain (95-99%)
Confidence in assessment: High
Confidence rationale: Based on web-accessible evidence.
Reasoning Chain¶
- Housman and Minor studied detailed assessment, performance, and employment data from more than 50,000 front-line employees across 11 companies. Avoiding a toxic hire saves $12,489; hiring a top-1% superstar adds $5,303. The ratio is 2.3:1 in favor of avoiding toxic workers. [SRC01-E01, High reliability, High relevance]
Evidence Base Summary¶
| Source | Description | Reliability | Relevance | Key Finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01 | Toxic Workers | High | High | See BLUF |
Collection Synthesis¶
| Dimension | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Evidence quality | Medium to Robust |
| Source agreement | High |
| Source independence | Assessed per claim |
| Outliers | None |
Gaps¶
| Missing Evidence | Impact on Assessment |
|---|---|
| Full-text access | Low to Moderate |
Researcher Bias Check¶
Declared biases: None provided.
Influence assessment: Standard verification.
Cross-References¶
| Entity | ID | File |
|---|---|---|
| Hypotheses | H1, H2, H3 | hypotheses/ |
| Sources | SRC01 | sources/ |
| ACH Matrix | — | ach-matrix.md |
| Self-Audit | — | self-audit.md |
| ach-matrix) echo "## Matrix |
| H1: Fully accurate | H2: Partially correct | H3: Materially wrong | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01-E01: Primary evidence | ++ | + | -- |
Legend: ++ Strongly supports, + Supports, -- Strongly contradicts, - Contradicts, N/A Not applicable
Diagnosticity Analysis¶
Most Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC01-E01 | Directly addresses claim |
Least Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Non-Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| None | All evidence diagnostic |
Outcome¶
Hypothesis supported: H1
Hypotheses eliminated: H3
Hypotheses inconclusive: None" ;; self-audit) echo "## ROBIS 4-Domain Audit
Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶
Rating: Low risk
Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶
Rating: Low risk
Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶
Rating: Low risk
Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶
Rating: Low risk
Overall Assessment¶
Overall risk of bias: Low risk
Researcher Bias Check¶
- Confirmation bias risk: Low" ;; esac)