Q001 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0027 — Multilingual prompt engineering challenges
Run	2026-03-26
Query	Q001

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Pass

Criterion	Assessment
Evidence types defined before searching	Yes — academic papers, benchmarks, and quantified comparisons specified in advance
Criteria stable throughout research	Yes — no criteria shift after seeing results
Inclusion/exclusion applied consistently	Yes — all 20 results dispositioned with rationale

Notes: Eligibility criteria were straightforward for this query. Academic rigor and quantified performance data were the primary inclusion criteria.

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Pass

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies used	Yes — 2 searches targeting academic research and benchmark studies separately
Searches designed to test each hypothesis	Yes — searched for evidence of both performance gaps and equivalent performance
All results dispositioned	Yes — 20 results returned, 10 selected, 10 rejected, all with rationale
Source diversity achieved	Yes — 8 sources from 7+ institutions across 4 countries

Notes: 2 searches, 20 results, 10 selected. 8 sources scored. Good diversity of benchmarks, controlled experiments, and surveys.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶

Rating: Pass

Criterion	Assessment
All sources scored using same framework	Yes — identical scorecard format for all 8 sources
Evidence typed consistently	Yes — Statistical, Analytical types applied uniformly
ACH matrix applied	Yes — 11 evidence items evaluated against all 3 hypotheses
Diagnosticity analysis performed	Yes — most and least diagnostic evidence identified

Notes: Consistent application of scoring framework across all sources.

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Rating: Pass

Criterion	Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing	Yes — H2 (no gap) was actively searched for despite being unlikely
Contradictory evidence surfaced	Yes — SRC01-E02 showing native prompts winning on some tasks was prominently noted
Confidence calibrated to evidence	Yes — High confidence justified by 8 independent converging sources
Gaps acknowledged	Yes — Japanese-specific study, longitudinal data, and controlled isolation gaps noted

Notes: The query's framing implicitly assumed a gap exists. This was mitigated by including H2 and actively searching for counter-evidence.

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

The research process was methodologically sound. The main limitation is that the query's framing ("how does effectiveness vary") presupposes variation, which could create subtle confirmation bias. This was actively mitigated by testing H2 (no gap). No evidence supporting H2 was found, confirming that the framing did not distort the outcome.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Confirmation bias risk: The query assumes variation exists. Mitigated by testing the null hypothesis (H2). No evidence for H2 found.
English-centric bias: The research is conducted in English about English-centricity, which could reinforce the framing. Mitigated by including non-English-authored sources (Bar-Ilan, Qatar University, Asian institutions).
Availability bias: Academic papers in English are more accessible, potentially underrepresenting non-English research on this topic. This is a genuine limitation that may bias the evidence base toward English-language perspectives on multilingual challenges.