R0050/2026-03-31/Q002 — Self-Audit

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

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Evidence criteria defined before searching	Yes — "novel concepts not captured by nine frameworks" is the criterion
Criteria applied consistently	Yes — same novelty assessment applied to all eight sources
Scope appropriate	Yes — all named disciplines examined

Notes: The criterion for "novel" requires comparison against nine specific frameworks, which provides a clear benchmark.

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness

Rating: Some concerns

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies used	Yes — 5 search operations plus 3 WebFetch retrievals
Searches designed to test each hypothesis	Partial — searches focused more on understanding each discipline than on falsifying specific hypotheses
All results dispositioned	Yes — all results selected or rejected with rationale
Source diversity achieved	Some concerns — heavy reliance on Wikipedia for overview sources

Notes: Wikipedia was used for four of eight sources. While Wikipedia articles on established academic frameworks tend to be well-sourced and accurate, this concentration reduces source diversity. The Stanford Encyclopedia and PCAOB primary standard provide counterbalance for the most critical findings.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All sources scored using same framework	Yes
Evidence typed consistently	Yes
ACH matrix applied	Yes — all evidence against all hypotheses
Diagnosticity analysis performed	Yes

Notes: Consistent framework applied across all eight disciplines.

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing	Yes — H1, H2, and H3 all evaluated against evidence
Contradictory evidence surfaced	Yes — evidence against researcher's completeness bias clearly identified
Confidence calibrated to evidence	Yes — High confidence justified by clear two-tier pattern
Gaps acknowledged	Yes — FTA, CASP details, and jurisdiction limitations noted

Notes: The assessment explicitly identifies that legal evidence law challenges the nine-framework sufficiency claim, directly confronting the researcher's declared completeness bias.

Domain 5: Source-Back Verification

Rating: Low risk

Source	Claim in Assessment	Source Actually Says	Match?
SRC01	Legal standards define policy-driven probability thresholds	Search results confirm hierarchy: probable cause, preponderance, clear and convincing, beyond reasonable doubt	Yes
SRC02	Legal evidence has admissibility gating, privilege, adversarial testing	Stanford Encyclopedia confirms "Law subordinates accuracy to procedural fairness" with explicit identification of unique concepts	Yes
SRC03	Auditing parallels GRADE	AS 1105 uses sufficiency/appropriateness with qualitative reliability factors	Yes
SRC04	Bradford Hill subsumed by GRADE/IPCC	Hill's nine viewpoints map to GRADE/IPCC concepts; Hill himself said they are "viewpoints" not criteria	Yes
SRC05	FMEA has three-axis scoring with detection	RPN = Severity x Occurrence x Detection confirmed; detection is distinct dimension	Yes
SRC06	OCEBM is precursor to GRADE	OCEBM defines 5-level hierarchy by study type; GRADE evolved from this	Yes
SRC07	Source criticism has external/internal distinction	Wikipedia article confirms two-phase approach: authentication then evaluation	Yes
SRC08	SIFT/CRAAP are pedagogical simplifications	CRAAP = Currency/Relevance/Authority/Accuracy/Purpose; SIFT = Stop/Investigate/Find/Trace	Yes

Discrepancies found: 0

Corrections applied: None needed

Unresolved flags: None

Notes: All characterizations match source content accurately.

Overall Assessment

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

The research covered seven disciplines systematically with consistent evaluation criteria. The main limitations are reliance on Wikipedia for overview sources and the inherent difficulty of determining "novelty" against a complex nine-framework baseline.

Researcher Bias Check

• Completeness bias (declared): Directly relevant and actively compensated for. The assessment identifies three disciplines with genuinely novel concepts rather than dismissing all as "already captured."
• IC framing bias (declared): Relevant. Evaluating other disciplines through IC-derived criteria may undervalue approaches that achieve similar goals through different mechanisms. The assessment notes that legal evidence law's novel contributions arise precisely because law has fundamentally different operating constraints.
• Confirmation risk: Low. The finding that some disciplines contribute novel concepts directly challenges the researcher's declared completeness bias.