Q001 — Self-Audit
Domain 1: Study Eligibility Criteria
| Criterion |
Assessment |
Notes |
| Inclusion criteria clearly defined |
Pass |
Published prompts implementing multi-step analytical methodology |
| Exclusion criteria clearly defined |
Pass |
Narrow single-task prompts; theoretical discussions; proprietary unpublished |
| Criteria applied consistently |
Pass |
All sources evaluated against same criteria |
| Criteria appropriate for the query |
Pass |
Criteria directly map to query requirements |
Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness
| Criterion |
Assessment |
Notes |
| Multiple search strategies used |
Pass |
4 distinct searches across different source types |
| Academic literature searched |
Pass |
arXiv, JMIR, JAMIA, EMNLP, NeurIPS |
| Grey literature searched |
Pass |
GitHub repos, blog posts, leaked prompts |
| Search terms varied appropriately |
Pass |
Framework names, tool names, technique names all used |
| Negative results documented |
Pass |
All rejected results logged with rationale |
Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency
| Criterion |
Assessment |
Notes |
| Same scoring criteria applied to all sources |
Pass |
Reliability/Relevance/Bias applied uniformly |
| Supporting and contradicting evidence treated equally |
Pass |
Code-based implementations scored same as prompt-based |
| Source independence assessed |
Pass |
Sources from independent research groups and organizations |
| Outliers identified and explained |
Pass |
No outliers; evidence converges |
Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness
| Criterion |
Assessment |
Notes |
| All evidence considered in synthesis |
Pass |
All 6 sources and 6 evidence items referenced |
| Alternative interpretations considered |
Pass |
Three hypotheses tested, including H1 (affirmative) |
| Confidence level justified |
Pass |
Probability assessment based on evidence pattern |
| Gaps acknowledged |
Pass |
Four specific gaps documented |
Domain 5: Source-Back Verification
| Source |
Claim Verified |
Match |
| SRC01 |
58 prompting techniques cataloged |
Match — verified from arXiv abstract |
| SRC02 |
3 SATs implemented (Starbursting, ACH, KAC) |
Match — verified from blog post |
| SRC03 |
Reporting checklist, not operational prompt |
Match — verified from JMIR article |
| SRC04 |
Zero analytical framework components |
Match — verified from prompt analysis |
| SRC05 |
Multi-phase pipeline, code-based |
Match — verified from arXiv/GitHub |
| SRC06 |
NeurIPS 2025 Spotlight, three-stage |
Match — verified from arXiv/NeurIPS |
Overall Assessment
Low risk of bias. The search was comprehensive across multiple source types, evidence was evaluated consistently, and the synthesis fairly represents the evidence landscape. The primary risk is incompleteness due to inaccessible custom GPT prompts and proprietary internal systems.
Researcher Bias Check
The researcher implementing this query is itself operating under a comprehensive analytical rigor framework (the methodology driving this research run), which could create incentive to confirm uniqueness. This bias was actively mitigated by designing searches specifically aimed at finding confirming evidence for H1.