Q001 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0047 — Source-Back Test
Run	2026-03-29
Query	Q001

Domain 1: Study Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Low concern

Criterion	Assessment
Were eligibility criteria clearly defined?	Yes -- the query specified the exact article URL and the exact claims to verify.
Were sources selected consistently?	Yes -- single primary source, directly fetched. No selection bias possible.
Were inclusion/exclusion decisions documented?	Yes -- S01 search log documents the single fetch with 1 returned, 1 selected, 0 rejected.

Notes: This is a source-back verification query, not a discovery query. The "eligibility" question reduces to: did we fetch the right article? The URL matches, the title matches, the author matches. No concern.

Domain 2: Identification and Selection of Studies¶

Rating: Low concern

Criterion	Assessment
Was the search comprehensive?	N/A -- this is a single-source verification, not a literature search.
Were search terms appropriate?	N/A -- direct URL fetch.
Was grey literature considered?	N/A -- the article itself is the subject of study.

Notes: The search methodology is minimal by design. The purpose was to read one specific article and compare it against prior claims, not to discover new sources.

Domain 3: Data Collection and Study Appraisal¶

Rating: Low concern

Criterion	Assessment
Was data extraction systematic?	Yes -- four evidence extracts covering the full article content relevant to the six claims.
Was quality assessment applied?	Yes -- source scorecard completed with reliability, relevance, and bias assessments.
Were extracts verified against source?	Yes -- this entire query IS a source-back verification. Quotes were compared against the article text.

Notes: The article was read in full via both raw HTML fetch and WebFetch tool. All quoted material was verified against the HTML source.

Domain 4: Synthesis and Findings¶

Rating: Low concern

Criterion	Assessment
Was synthesis appropriate?	Yes -- claim-by-claim comparison with explicit verdicts for each.
Were limitations acknowledged?	Yes -- gaps section identifies missing independent corroboration (OSCON program, other press, Moore's own account).
Were conclusions supported by evidence?	Yes -- H3 is supported by all four evidence items; H1 and H2 are each contradicted by multiple items.

Notes: The ACH matrix provides clear diagnosticity analysis. The conclusion (H3) is the only hypothesis consistent with all evidence.

Domain 5: Source-Back Verification¶

Rating: Low concern

Criterion	Assessment
Were all sources re-read in full?	Yes -- the article was fetched and read completely, not just the portions relevant to R0045 Q004's claims.
Were evidence extracts compared against source text?	Yes -- four extracts were created, each containing direct quotes from the article with page context.
Were discrepancies between extracts and source documented?	Yes -- two framing discrepancies and one completeness gap were identified and documented in the assessment.
Were new facts discovered in the source that prior research missed?	Yes -- SRC01-E04 documents extensive additional Moore quotes about Microsoft, overseas adoption, and proprietary vendors that R0045 Q004 did not extract. Also identified the OSBC cancellation context in SRC01-E03 that R0045 Q004 under-characterized.

Notes: This query IS the source-back verification for R0045 Q004. The verification was thorough: the article was read in its entirety (not just the portions cited by R0045), and every claim was compared against the source text. The discrepancies found are real but not material -- they affect framing and completeness, not factual accuracy.