Q001 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0029 — Plural Voice Attribution
Run	2026-03-27
Query	Q001

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Defined what counts as an "attribution framework" before searching	Yes — distinguished between binary disclosure, structured attribution, and legal authorship
Criteria consistent throughout	Yes — applied the same threshold (must go beyond binary disclosure) to all sources
Criteria not shifted after seeing results	Confirmed — the three-tier distinction was established during Step 1

Notes: The key eligibility decision was distinguishing "attribution frameworks" from "disclosure policies" and "copyright ownership." This distinction was made before searching and held consistent.

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies used	Yes — two searches with different focal points (broad frameworks, then IBM-specific)
Searches designed to test each hypothesis	Yes — search terms could surface evidence for any of H1/H2/H3
All results dispositioned	Yes — 20 results total, all accounted for (4 selected, 16 rejected)
Source diversity achieved	Partial — sources span academic (CHI), legal (JTIP), industry (IBM), and standards (NISO), but all are US/Western

Notes: 2 searches, 20 total results, 4 selected, 16 rejected. Geographic diversity is a gap.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All sources scored using same framework	Yes — GRADE-adapted scorecard applied to all 4 sources
Evidence typed consistently	Yes — Factual, Statistical, and Analytical types applied consistently
ACH matrix applied	Yes — all 4 evidence items evaluated against all 3 hypotheses
Diagnosticity analysis performed	Yes — most and least diagnostic evidence identified

Notes: Consistent application across all sources.

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing	Yes — H2 was tested against all evidence before elimination
Contradictory evidence surfaced	Yes — SRC04-E01 (CRediT lacks AI provisions) noted as contradicting H1
Confidence calibrated to evidence	Yes — Medium confidence reflects the small source count and shared authorship
Gaps acknowledged	Yes — standards body inaction, adoption data, and geographic diversity noted

Notes: The independence concern (SRC01/SRC02 sharing authors) was flagged in the synthesis.

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

The research process was well-structured with clear eligibility criteria, comprehensive search coverage, and consistent evaluation. The main limitation is the small number of truly independent sources (3 research groups), which is a feature of the field's youth rather than a search failure.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Confirmation bias (low risk): The query's phrasing ("Has anyone proposed...") could bias toward finding proposals. Mitigated by also searching for the absence of standards body action, which provided discriminating evidence for H3 over H1.
Availability bias (low risk): IBM's toolkit appeared prominently in both searches, potentially overweighting one proposal. Mitigated by treating SRC01/SRC02 as a single research program in the independence assessment.