R0050/2026-03-31-02/Q002/H2¶
Statement¶
Some disciplines have formal truth-seeking methodologies but most contribute concepts already captured by the nine reference frameworks — the novel contributions are few.
Status¶
Current: Inconclusive
Supporting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC03-E01 | Bradford Hill criteria overlap substantially with GRADE's approach to causal inference |
| SRC08-E01 | OCEBM levels of evidence hierarchy is closely related to GRADE |
| SRC09-E01 | CASP checklists overlap with Cochrane and ROBIS |
Contradicting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC01-E01 | Legal standards contribute clearly novel consequence-calibrated proof hierarchy |
| SRC02-E01 | Auditing contributes novel sufficiency-appropriateness framework |
| SRC04-E01 | FMEA's RPN is conceptually distinct from anything in the reference set |
Reasoning¶
H2 is partially correct — some disciplines (Bradford Hill, OCEBM, CASP) do overlap heavily with the reference set. But five of eight disciplines contribute clearly novel concepts, which makes H2 too conservative overall. H1 is better supported.
Relationship to Other Hypotheses¶
H2 occupies the middle ground between H1 (most contribute novel concepts) and H3 (none contribute novel concepts). The evidence supports H1 over H2.