R0050/2026-03-31/Q002/H2¶
Statement¶
No examined discipline contributes genuinely novel concepts not already captured by the nine baseline frameworks.
Status¶
Current: Eliminated
Legal evidence law's admissibility gating, privilege doctrines, and adversarial testing requirements have no clear analogue in any of the nine frameworks. These are genuinely novel concepts arising from law's distinctive operating constraint: procedural fairness that deliberately limits truth-seeking.
Supporting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC04-E01 | Bradford Hill criteria are largely subsumed by GRADE and IPCC |
| SRC06-E01 | OCEBM is a precursor to GRADE's evidence hierarchy |
| SRC08-E01 | SIFT and CRAAP are simplified versions of existing concepts |
Contradicting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC02-E01 | Legal admissibility, privilege, and adversarial testing are genuinely novel |
| SRC05-E01 | FMEA's three-axis quantitative risk scoring has no direct analogue |
| SRC07-E01 | Internal/external criticism distinction formalizes authentication separately from evaluation |
Reasoning¶
H2 is eliminated because at least legal evidence law contributes concepts with no analogue in the nine frameworks. The concept that evidence can be logically relevant yet procedurally inadmissible, or that truth-seeking should be deliberately constrained by fairness principles, is absent from all nine scientific and intelligence frameworks.
Relationship to Other Hypotheses¶
H2 represents the researcher's completeness bias — the desire to find the nine frameworks sufficient. The evidence does not support this position.
ACH Consistency¶
| Rating | Count |
|---|---|
| Consistent | 3 |
| Inconsistent | 3 |
| N/A | 2 |