Q002 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0049 — Landscape Scan
Run	2026-03-31
Query	Q002

Domain 1: Study Eligibility Criteria¶

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

Notes: Eligibility required explicit proposal of IC-scientific framework integration, not mere parallel mention. This was applied consistently; the PLOS ONE source was evaluated generously as the most cross-domain source despite falling short of the integration criterion.

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 search strategies covered direct combination terms, bridging literature, and probability language cross-domain. Some concerns: methodology journals were not searched specifically (e.g., Journal of Mixed Methods Research), and dissertation databases were not searched. Classified IC research is inherently inaccessible.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶

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

Notes: All four sources are peer-reviewed or high-credibility institutional reports. Scoring was consistent across domains.

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: H1 was given every opportunity for support through search design. No evidence was found supporting H1, but this absence was not assumed — it was documented through systematic search.

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


Discrepancy count	0
Corrections applied	None
Unresolved flags	None

Overall Assessment¶

Low risk with some concerns about search comprehensiveness. The finding of absence is well-supported by four independent high-quality sources from different domains. The main risk is that integration work exists in venues not searched (classified IC research, dissertations, methodology journals).

Researcher Bias Check¶

The researcher has a direct interest in the finding that no unified framework exists (as builder of one). Mitigation measures were applied: targeted searches for integration, generous evaluation of cross-domain sources, and transparent documentation of search limitations.