R0050/2026-03-31-02/Q002
Query: Beyond intelligence analysis and science, which other disciplines have formal truth-seeking methodologies that include structured evidence evaluation? For each, identify whether it contributes concepts not already captured by ICD 203, GRADE, PRISMA, Cochrane, IPCC, Chamberlin/Platt, ROBIS, or NAS.
BLUF: All eight named disciplines have formal truth-seeking methodologies. Five contribute novel concepts: law (consequence-calibrated proof thresholds), auditing (sufficiency-appropriateness dual-axis with reliability hierarchy), FMEA (three-factor RPN with detection dimension), historical source criticism (external/internal criticism, proximity hierarchy), and SIFT (lateral reading). Three contribute refinements already captured by GRADE/Cochrane: Bradford Hill, OCEBM, CASP.
Probability: N/A (open-ended survey) | Confidence: High
Summary
| Entity |
Description |
| Query Definition |
Query text, scope, status |
| Assessment |
Full analytical product with reasoning chain |
| ACH Matrix |
Evidence x hypotheses diagnosticity analysis |
| Self-Audit |
ROBIS-adapted 5-domain audit (process + source verification) |
Hypotheses
| ID |
Hypothesis |
Status |
| H1 |
All formal + most contribute novel concepts |
Supported |
| H2 |
Formal but mostly redundant with reference set |
Inconclusive |
| H3 |
Not formal or not novel |
Eliminated |
Searches
| ID |
Target |
Results |
Selected |
| S01 |
Legal standards of proof |
10 |
2 |
| S02 |
PCAOB/GAAS auditing standards |
10 |
1 |
| S03 |
Bradford Hill, FMEA, FTA |
30 |
3 |
| S04 |
Historical criticism, SIFT, CRAAP |
20 |
2 |
| S05 |
OCEBM, CASP |
20 |
2 |
Sources
| Source |
Description |
Reliability |
Relevance |
| SRC01 |
Legal standards of proof |
High |
High |
| SRC02 |
PCAOB AS 1105 |
High |
High |
| SRC03 |
Bradford Hill criteria |
Medium-High |
High |
| SRC04 |
FMEA methodology |
Medium-High |
High |
| SRC05 |
FTA methodology |
Medium-High |
Medium-High |
| SRC06 |
Historical source criticism |
Medium |
High |
| SRC07 |
SIFT / CRAAP |
Medium |
Medium |
| SRC08 |
OCEBM levels of evidence |
High |
Medium |
| SRC09 |
CASP checklists |
High |
Medium |
Novelty Assessment Summary
| Discipline |
Formal? |
Novel? |
Key Novel Concept |
| Legal standards of proof |
Yes |
Yes |
Consequence-calibrated proof thresholds |
| Auditing (PCAOB) |
Yes |
Yes |
Sufficiency-appropriateness dual axis; evidence reliability hierarchy |
| Epidemiology (Bradford Hill) |
Yes |
No |
Captured by GRADE |
| Medical diagnosis (OCEBM) |
Yes |
No |
Refinement of GRADE (question-type specificity) |
| Medical appraisal (CASP) |
Yes |
No |
Captured by Cochrane/ROBIS |
| Engineering safety (FMEA) |
Yes |
Yes |
RPN with detection dimension |
| Engineering safety (FTA) |
Yes |
Yes |
Boolean logic for causal decomposition |
| Historical source criticism |
Yes |
Yes |
External/internal criticism; proximity hierarchy |
| Information literacy (SIFT) |
Yes |
Yes |
Lateral reading |
| Information literacy (CRAAP) |
Yes |
No |
Captured by GRADE/Cochrane |
Revisit Triggers
- Publication of a cross-disciplinary evidence evaluation synthesis that integrates these frameworks
- Major revision to GRADE or Cochrane that incorporates concepts from law, auditing, or engineering safety
- Development of a unified evidence evaluation framework for AI/research agents that draws on multiple disciplines