Q003 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0049 — Landscape Scan
Run	2026-03-31
Query	Q003

Domain 1: Study Eligibility Criteria¶

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

Notes: Tools were assessed against five specific target features defined in the query. Both formal and informal implementations qualified. The distinction between "implements feature" and "enables users to do feature manually" was noted but both counted as implementations.

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

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

Notes: Three search strategies covered academic platforms, deep research tools, and OSINT/intelligence analysis tools. Open-source tools were directly inspected via GitHub. Major commercial tools were evaluated through product documentation and independent evaluations. Proprietary enterprise tools (Palantir, Maltego) could not be fully evaluated.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶

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

Notes: All seven tools were assessed against the same five-feature checklist. Reliability and relevance ratings were assigned consistently based on source type and feature coverage.

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 tested by examining the three most likely candidates for comprehensive tools (PaperQA2, Elicit, MS Copilot Critique). H2 was tested by searching specifically for any partial feature implementation. H3 was supported by the convergence of evidence from all directions.

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
SRC06	Yes	Yes	No
SRC07	Yes	Yes	No


Discrepancy count	0
Corrections applied	None
Unresolved flags	None

Overall Assessment¶

Low risk. Seven tools examined across three search strategies with direct documentation inspection for open-source tools. Feature absence was verified through GitHub repository analysis, not just product marketing. The main limitation is that proprietary enterprise tools could not be fully evaluated.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Same pattern as Q001 and Q002: incentive to find absence of comprehensive tools. Mitigated by direct repository inspection, generous evaluation of partial features, and documenting three tools (scite, MS Critique, Open Synthesis) that implement individual target features.