R0049/2026-03-31/Q002 — ACH Matrix¶
Matrix¶
| Evidence | H1 Unified methodology exists | H2 No combination published | H3 Comparison without integration |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01-E01 IC probability communication | -- | ++ | ++ |
| SRC02-E01 IPCC cross-discipline survey | -- | ++ | ++ |
| SRC03-E01 RAND SAT assessment | -- | ++ | + |
| SRC04-E01 Verbal probabilities ICD 203 | -- | + | ++ |
Legend¶
| Symbol | Meaning |
|---|---|
| ++ | Strongly consistent |
| + | Consistent |
| - | Inconsistent |
| -- | Strongly inconsistent |
| N/A | Not applicable |
Diagnosticity Analysis¶
Most diagnostic evidence:
-
SRC04-E01 — The PLOS ONE verbal probabilities study is the most diagnostic because it is the most cross-domain source found. It directly studies IC formats using scientific methods, creating the maximum opportunity for framework integration to be proposed. The fact that even this source does not propose unification is strongly diagnostic against H1.
-
SRC03-E01 — RAND's assessment is diagnostic because RAND is institutionally positioned to bridge IC and scientific domains. Their decision to evaluate SATs purely within the IC context indicates the integration question is not on the research agenda.
Least diagnostic evidence:
- SRC02-E01 — The IPCC survey is expected to focus on IPCC methods and is less surprising as a negative finding for H1.
Outcome¶
H1 is eliminated: all four evidence items are strongly inconsistent with the existence of a published unified methodology. H2 and H3 are both supported, with H3 providing the more informative characterization of the landscape.