R0029/2026-03-27/Q003 — ACH Matrix¶
Matrix¶
| H1: Universal prohibition + consensus | H2: No policies or inconsistent | H3: Prohibition consensus, disclosure varies | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01-E01: Nature prohibits; editing exempt | + | -- | ++ |
| SRC02-E01: Science reversed ban; requires prompts | + | -- | ++ |
| SRC03-E01: ACM prohibits; acknowledgments | + | -- | + |
| SRC04-E01: IEEE prohibits; section-specific | + | -- | ++ |
| SRC05-E01: NeurIPS prohibits; methodology-only | + | -- | ++ |
| SRC06-E01: Big 5 all prohibit; 5 approaches | + | -- | ++ |
Legend:
- ++ Strongly supports
- + Supports
- -- Strongly contradicts
- - Contradicts
- N/A Not applicable to this hypothesis
Diagnosticity Analysis¶
Most Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC05-E01 | NeurIPS methodology-only disclosure is maximally diagnostic — it confirms prohibition (consistent with H1) while showing the most permissive disclosure approach (discriminating H1 from H3) |
| SRC02-E01 | Science's prompt requirement is the strictest disclosure — combined with NeurIPS, the two endpoints define the disclosure spectrum |
Least Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Non-Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC03-E01 | ACM's middle-of-the-road approach supports both H1 and H3 nearly equally |
Outcome¶
Hypothesis supported: H3 — Prohibition consensus exists (universal), but disclosure requirements form a spectrum from permissive to strict.
Hypotheses eliminated: H2 — Every venue has a formal policy. No exceptions found.
Hypotheses inconclusive: H1 — Correct on prohibition, overstates consensus on disclosure. Partially supported.