R0050/2026-03-31/Q002/H1

Research	R0050 — Journalism and Other Truth-Seeking Disciplines
Run	2026-03-31
Query	Q002
Hypothesis	H1

Statement

Multiple disciplines contribute genuinely novel concepts not captured by the nine baseline frameworks (ICD 203, GRADE, PRISMA, Cochrane, Chamberlin/Platt, ROBIS, NAS, IPCC, RoB 2).

Status

Current: Partially supported

Three disciplines contribute concepts that are arguably novel: legal evidence law (admissibility gating, adversarial testing, privilege), engineering safety (severity-occurrence-detection multi-axis scoring), and historical source criticism (internal/external criticism distinction). However, several of these have partial analogues in the existing frameworks, making "genuinely novel" a matter of degree.

Supporting Evidence

Evidence	Summary
SRC02-E01	Legal evidence contributes admissibility gating, adversarial testing, privilege doctrines — concepts absent from all nine frameworks
SRC05-E01	FMEA's severity-occurrence-detection three-axis scoring is a novel multi-dimensional risk quantification
SRC07-E01	Historical source criticism's internal/external criticism distinction formalizes authentication before evaluation

Contradicting Evidence

Evidence	Summary
SRC04-E01	Bradford Hill criteria are largely subsumed by GRADE and IPCC synthesis approaches
SRC06-E01	OCEBM evidence hierarchy is essentially a precursor to GRADE
SRC08-E01	Information literacy frameworks are simplified versions of concepts already in ROBIS and NAS

Reasoning

H1 receives partial support because genuinely novel concepts exist, but they are concentrated in legal evidence law and engineering safety analysis rather than spread across multiple disciplines. Bradford Hill, OCEBM, and CASP are largely precursors or subsets of GRADE/Cochrane. SIFT and CRAAP are pedagogical simplifications. The truly novel contributions come from disciplines that have fundamentally different operating constraints (law: adversarial fairness; engineering: quantitative risk management).

Relationship to Other Hypotheses

H1 and H3 differ in the count of contributing disciplines. The evidence better supports H3 (a few disciplines contribute specific novel concepts) than H1 (multiple disciplines broadly contribute).

ACH Consistency

Rating	Count
Consistent	3
Inconsistent	3
N/A	2