R0024/2026-03-25/Q002 — Self-Audit¶
ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶
Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶
Rating: Pass
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Evidence criteria defined before searching | Yes — legal analysis connecting social media and AI liability |
| Criteria applied consistently | Yes |
| Criteria did not shift after seeing results | Pass |
Notes: Clear eligibility criteria for legal analysis sources.
Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶
Rating: Pass
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Multiple search strategies used | Yes — two searches targeting different facets (verdict coverage and legal analysis) |
| Searches designed to test each hypothesis | Yes — searched for both connections and absence |
| All results dispositioned | Yes — 20 results total, all dispositioned |
| Source diversity achieved | Yes — law firm, policy institute, academic institute |
Notes: 2 searches, 20 results dispositioned, 3 sources selected.
Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶
Rating: Pass
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| All sources scored using same framework | Yes |
| Evidence typed consistently | Yes |
| ACH matrix applied | Yes |
| Diagnosticity analysis performed | Yes |
Notes: Consistent evaluation framework applied.
Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶
Rating: Pass
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| All hypotheses given fair hearing | Yes — H3's temporal nuance was acknowledged |
| Contradictory evidence surfaced | No contradictory evidence found; noted as finding |
| Confidence calibrated to evidence | Yes — acknowledged limitation of verdict recency |
| Gaps acknowledged | Yes — three specific gaps identified |
Notes: The recency of the March 25 verdict is a genuine limitation acknowledged in the assessment.
Overall Assessment¶
Overall risk of bias: Low risk
The query asked about a well-documented legal trend. The evidence clearly supports the connection. The main bias risk was accepting the connection too readily, but the evidence from three independent legal analysis sources confirms it.
Researcher Bias Check¶
- Confirmation bias risk: Low. The legal parallel is documented in active litigation and judicial rulings.
- Temporal bias risk: Some concern. The verdict is from today, so analysis of its specific AI implications cannot yet exist. This is noted but does not undermine the broader finding.