Skip to content

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

Query as Received

Beyond intelligence analysis and science, which other disciplines have formal truth-seeking methodologies that include structured evidence evaluation? Search across: legal standards of proof, auditing standards (PCAOB, GAAS), epidemiology (Bradford Hill criteria), medical diagnosis (OCEBM, CASP), engineering safety analysis (FMEA, FTA), historical source criticism, and information literacy frameworks (SIFT, CRAAP). For each, identify whether it contributes concepts not already captured by ICD 203, GRADE, PRISMA, Cochrane, Chamberlin/Platt, ROBIS, or NAS.

Query as Clarified

  • Subject: Formal truth-seeking methodologies across named disciplines
  • Scope: Whether each discipline has structured evidence evaluation, and whether any contribute concepts novel to the researcher's existing nine-framework methodology
  • Evidence basis: Published standards, frameworks, criteria, and methodology documents from each named discipline
  • Baseline for novelty: ICD 203, GRADE, PRISMA, Cochrane, Chamberlin/Platt, ROBIS, NAS (the nine frameworks in the researcher's existing methodology)
  • Disciplines examined: Legal standards of proof, auditing (PCAOB/GAAS), epidemiology (Bradford Hill), medical diagnosis (OCEBM, CASP), engineering safety (FMEA, FTA), historical source criticism, information literacy (SIFT, CRAAP)

Ambiguities Identified

  1. "Concepts not already captured" requires defining what the nine frameworks already cover. The query assumes the reader knows these frameworks, which creates an embedded assumption that the nine frameworks are comprehensive. This is precisely the researcher's completeness bias at work.
  2. "Structured evidence evaluation" could range from simple checklists to fully formalized quantitative frameworks. Interpreted broadly to include any defined, repeatable evaluation procedure.
  3. The query lists seven disciplines but these vary enormously in scope — legal evidence law is an entire field, while SIFT is a four-step heuristic.

Sub-Questions

  1. Does each named discipline have a formal, structured evidence evaluation methodology?
  2. For each discipline that does, what are its core structured elements?
  3. For each discipline, does it contribute any concept genuinely not captured by the nine baseline frameworks?
  4. Are there cross-cutting patterns in how different disciplines structure evidence evaluation?

Hypotheses

ID Hypothesis Description
H1 Multiple disciplines contribute novel concepts Several of the examined disciplines have formal elements that contribute concepts genuinely not captured by the nine baseline frameworks
H2 No discipline contributes genuinely novel concepts All examined disciplines' concepts are already captured by the nine frameworks
H3 A few disciplines contribute specific novel concepts Most disciplines' contributions are already captured, but a small number contribute genuinely novel concepts in specific areas