Q001 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0049 — Landscape Scan
Run	2026-03-31
Query	Q001

Domain 1: Study Eligibility Criteria¶

Criterion	Rating
Were eligibility criteria clearly defined?	Low risk
Were they applied consistently?	Low risk

Notes: Eligibility criteria were defined in the query clarification: prompts must address at least 3 of 6 analytical rigor components and must be concrete artifacts (not theoretical proposals). These criteria were applied consistently across all sources evaluated.

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Criterion	Rating
Were multiple sources/databases searched?	Low risk
Were search terms comprehensive?	Some concerns
Were no-result searches documented?	Low risk

Notes: Three independent search strategies covered academic literature, GitHub repositories, and practitioner publications. Some concerns about comprehensiveness: non-English publications, preprint servers beyond arXiv/ medRxiv, and proprietary AI company research were not systematically searched. The search focused on English-language public sources.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶

Criterion	Rating
Were sources scored using consistent criteria?	Low risk
Were bias domains applied uniformly?	Low risk

Notes: All sources were scored using the same reliability/relevance/bias framework. The N/A ratings for several bias domains on non-empirical sources (repositories, blog posts) are appropriate and consistently applied.

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Criterion	Rating
Were all hypotheses given equal treatment?	Low risk
Was evidence weighted appropriately?	Low risk
Were contradictions highlighted?	Low risk

Notes: All three hypotheses were actively tested. The strongest contradicting evidence against the null hypothesis (H2) was documented. The distinction between H1 and H3 was carefully maintained rather than collapsed.

Domain 5: Source-Back Verification¶

Source	Extract accurate?	Assessment consistent?	Discrepancy?
SRC01	Yes	Yes	No
SRC02	Yes	Yes	No
SRC03	Yes	Yes	No
SRC04	Yes	Yes	No
SRC05	Yes	Yes	No


Discrepancy count	0
Corrections applied	None
Unresolved flags	None

Overall Assessment¶

Low risk. The research was conducted systematically with multiple independent search strategies converging on consistent findings. The main limitation is search scope (English-language public sources only), which is documented transparently. The finding that no comprehensive framework prompt exists is well-supported by the evidence.

Researcher Bias Check¶

The researcher is building a system that would be novel if no prior art exists, creating an incentive toward finding absence. This was mitigated by designing searches specifically aimed at finding existing frameworks and by giving generous credit to partial implementations (e.g., Roberts' work).