Q001 — AI Training Limitations — Self-Audit¶
Domain 1 — Eligibility Criteria¶
| Criterion | Rating |
|---|---|
| Were inclusion/exclusion criteria pre-specified? | Low risk |
| Were criteria applied consistently? | Low risk |
| Were borderline cases documented? | Low risk |
Notes: Sources were selected based on relevance to the specific question of what AI training teaches about limitations. Commercial training descriptions, government guidance, policy templates, and effectiveness surveys were all included. The scope was limited to publicly available materials, which was pre-specified in the query.
Domain 2 — Search Comprehensiveness¶
| Criterion | Rating |
|---|---|
| Were multiple sources/databases searched? | Low risk |
| Were search terms comprehensive? | Some concerns |
| Were non-English sources considered? | High risk |
Notes: Searches covered major consulting firms, US and UK government agencies, commercial training providers, and policy templates. Search terms covered the core concepts but may have missed training programs not described in English or not publicly marketed. The EU AI Act was included but EU-specific training implementations (in non-English languages) were not examined.
Domain 3 — Evaluation Consistency¶
| Criterion | Rating |
|---|---|
| Were all sources evaluated using the same criteria? | Low risk |
| Were ratings applied consistently? | Low risk |
| Were COI assessments performed? | Low risk |
Notes: All sources received the same scorecard treatment. COI was identified for commercial sources (NAVEX, DataCamp, Microsoft) that benefit from either selling training or identifying training gaps.
Domain 4 — Synthesis Fairness¶
| Criterion | Rating |
|---|---|
| Were all hypotheses given fair treatment? | Low risk |
| Was contradicting evidence weighted appropriately? | Low risk |
| Were conclusions driven by evidence? | Low risk |
Notes: H1 (adequate training) received favorable evidence from multiple sources (training exists, covers risks). The assessment concluded H3 (superficial) based on the consistent pattern across all sources, not on selective reading. Sources favorable to H1 (Deloitte, UK Playbook) were noted as partial exceptions.
Domain 5 — Source-Back Verification¶
| Source | Extract Verified | Assessment Consistent | Discrepancy |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC02 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC03 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC04 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC05 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC06 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC07 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC08 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC09 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC10 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC11 | Yes | Yes | None |
- Discrepancy count: 0
- Corrections applied: None
- Unresolved flags: None
Overall Assessment¶
Rating: Low risk
The research methodology was systematic, sources were evaluated consistently, and the conclusion follows directly from convergent evidence. The main limitation is reliance on publicly available training descriptions rather than actual training module content, which could understate actual coverage depth.
Researcher Bias Check¶
The researcher acknowledges that the framing of Q001 (asking what training teaches about limitations) may predispose toward finding limitations in the training itself. This was mitigated by actively seeking evidence of comprehensive training programs (Deloitte, UK Playbook, Microsoft) and giving them fair weight in the assessment.