R0050/2026-03-31-02/Q002/H1¶
Statement¶
All eight named disciplines have formal truth-seeking methodologies with structured evidence evaluation, and most contribute novel concepts not already captured by the nine reference frameworks.
Status¶
Current: Supported
Supporting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC01-E01 | Legal standards of proof form a formal, calibrated hierarchy tied to consequence severity |
| SRC02-E01 | PCAOB AS 1105 defines sufficiency-appropriateness dual-axis evaluation with evidence reliability hierarchy |
| SRC03-E01 | Bradford Hill criteria provide nine structured viewpoints for causal inference |
| SRC04-E01 | FMEA uses structured three-factor Risk Priority Number scoring |
| SRC06-E01 | Historical source criticism has seven formal criteria and external/internal criticism distinction |
| SRC07-E01 | SIFT contributes lateral reading; CRAAP provides five-dimension checklist |
Contradicting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| None directly contradicts H1 | All examined disciplines have formal methodologies |
Reasoning¶
All eight disciplines examined have formalized evidence evaluation methodologies. Five contribute clearly novel concepts: law (consequence-calibrated proof thresholds), auditing (sufficiency-appropriateness with reliability hierarchy), engineering safety (RPN and fault trees), historical criticism (external/internal criticism), and information literacy (lateral reading). The remaining three (Bradford Hill, OCEBM, CASP) are closely related to GRADE/Cochrane and contribute refinements rather than novel concepts.
Relationship to Other Hypotheses¶
H1 is strongest answer. H2 would apply if only some disciplines had formal methods. H3 represents the null case.