Q001 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0051 — Fact-Checking Gap
Run	2026-03-31
Query	Q001

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Evidence criteria defined before searching	Yes — defined as formal frameworks with hierarchical quality scales, calibrated uncertainty, structured bias assessment, and/or source reliability tiering
Criteria consistently applied	Yes — same threshold applied to all sources
Criteria did not shift after seeing results	Confirmed — the comparison class (GRADE/IPCC/ICD 203) was defined by the query

Notes: The eligibility criteria were well-defined by the query itself. The comparison class was clear and stable throughout.

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies used	Yes — three distinct searches targeting different domains (academic, GRADE-crossover, computational)
Searches designed to test each hypothesis	Yes — searches were designed to find frameworks (testing H1), partial frameworks (testing H2), and absence (testing H3)
All results dispositioned	Yes — 30 results returned, all dispositioned (12 selected, 18 rejected)
Source diversity achieved	Yes — theoretical papers, empirical studies, practitioner interviews, computational systems

Notes: 30 results across 3 searches. All dispositioned. Sources span 2013-2025, multiple countries, and both academic and practitioner domains.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All sources scored using same framework	Yes — reliability/relevance/bias framework applied consistently
Evidence typed consistently	Yes — Analytical/Reported types applied based on content
ACH matrix applied	Yes — all 8 evidence items evaluated against all 3 hypotheses
Diagnosticity analysis performed	Yes — most and least diagnostic evidence identified

Notes: Consistent application across all sources. No special treatment for any source.

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing	Yes — H1 was actively searched for, not just assumed absent
Contradictory evidence surfaced	Yes — the absence of contradictory evidence to the finding is itself documented
Confidence calibrated to evidence	Yes — High confidence reflects strong convergence across independent sources
Gaps acknowledged	Yes — IFCN internals, non-English literature, EFCSN standards identified as gaps

Notes: The query's framing implied a negative answer, creating confirmation bias risk. This was mitigated by designing searches specifically to find positive evidence (frameworks that exist).

Domain 5: Source-Back Verification¶

Rating: Low risk

Source	Claim in Assessment	Source Actually Says	Match?
SRC01	Three deep-rooted epistemological challenges framed as unsolved	Search summaries consistently describe three challenges and their unresolved nature	Yes
SRC02	Methods fail scientific standards	Multiple search results confirm this characterization	Yes
SRC04	"What does 65 versus 74 confidence mean?"	Directly quoted from WebFetch extraction of the paper	Yes
SRC04	Primary source preference documented	Directly quoted: "We try to find always the most primary, most original source"	Yes
SRC05	Verification follows "scientific reproducibility principles"	Confirmed in search summary	Yes

Discrepancies found: 0

Corrections applied: None needed

Unresolved flags: None

Notes: Limited access to full-text papers (several paywalled) means some characterizations rely on consistent search summaries rather than direct full-text verification. This is a methodological limitation but the consistency across multiple independent search results mitigates the risk.

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

The research process was well-structured, searches were comprehensive, and evidence was consistently evaluated. The primary limitation is paywall access restricting full-text verification of some sources.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Confirmation bias risk: The query implies a gap exists, which could bias toward finding absence. Mitigated by designing S02 specifically to find GRADE-comparable frameworks and S03 to find computational evidence quality scoring. Neither found formal frameworks, confirming the absence is genuine, not an artifact of search design.
Anchoring bias risk: Comparison to GRADE/IPCC/ICD 203 sets a high bar. If the bar were lower (e.g., "any structured approach"), more positive findings might emerge. However, the query explicitly asks for comparable frameworks, making this threshold appropriate.