Q002 — Self-Audit
Domain 1: Study Eligibility Criteria
| Criterion |
Assessment |
Notes |
| Inclusion criteria clearly defined |
Pass |
Published frameworks systematically integrating IC and scientific methodology |
| Exclusion criteria clearly defined |
Pass |
Single-tradition works; mentions without integration |
| Criteria applied consistently |
Pass |
All sources evaluated against same integration criterion |
| Criteria appropriate for the query |
Pass |
Criteria map directly to query requirements |
Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness
| Criterion |
Assessment |
Notes |
| Multiple search strategies used |
Pass |
3 distinct searches from different angles |
| Academic literature searched |
Pass |
IEEE, Taylor & Francis, SAGE, Cambridge UP |
| Grey literature searched |
Pass |
CIA publications, RAND reports, Swedish NDC |
| Search terms varied appropriately |
Pass |
IC terms, scientific terms, bridging terms all used |
| Negative results documented |
Pass |
All rejected results logged |
Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency
| Criterion |
Assessment |
Notes |
| Same scoring criteria applied |
Pass |
Uniform reliability/relevance/bias assessment |
| Supporting and contradicting evidence equal treatment |
Pass |
Bridging works and siloed works scored equally |
| Source independence assessed |
Pass |
Sources from different institutions and traditions |
| Outliers identified |
Pass |
No outliers; evidence converges |
Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness
| Criterion |
Assessment |
Notes |
| All evidence considered |
Pass |
All 6 sources and evidence items included |
| Alternative interpretations considered |
Pass |
Three hypotheses including H1 (affirmative) |
| Confidence level justified |
Pass |
Based on systematic evidence absence |
| Gaps acknowledged |
Pass |
Four gaps documented including classified literature |
Domain 5: Source-Back Verification
| Source |
Claim Verified |
Match |
| SRC01 |
Scientific method via Wigmore charts for IC |
Match |
| SRC02 |
Social science methods applied to IC |
Match |
| SRC03 |
Calls for bridge between science and IC |
Match |
| SRC04 |
Experimental evaluation of ICD 203 |
Match |
| SRC05 |
66 SATs, IC-internal tradition |
Match |
| SRC06 |
IC baseline, no scientific framework references |
Match |
Overall Assessment
Low risk of bias. The search comprehensively covered both IC and scientific methodology literature. The finding of "no unified framework" is supported by evidence of absence (direct searches returning no results) and by positive evidence (bridging calls from authorities confirming the gap exists).
Researcher Bias Check
Primary risk: the researcher's own methodology derives from both traditions, potentially motivating a "no prior art" finding. Mitigated by including all partial bridging evidence and by searching specifically for H1-confirming results.