R0051/2026-03-31/Q003 — Self-Audit¶
ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶
Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Criteria defined before searching | Yes — papers must explicitly discuss absence/gap in evidence evaluation methodology |
| Criteria consistently applied | Yes |
Notes: Clear eligibility criteria.
Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Multiple search strategies used | Yes — 3 distinct searches |
| All results dispositioned | Yes — 30 results dispositioned |
| Source diversity achieved | Yes — spanning 2013-2026, multiple disciplines |
Notes: The S03 search was particularly diagnostic — pairing evidence quality concepts with fact-checking revealed that the vocabulary has not crossed disciplinary boundaries.
Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| All sources scored consistently | Yes |
| ACH matrix applied | Yes — 5 evidence items against 3 hypotheses |
| Diagnosticity analysis performed | Yes |
Notes: Consistent application.
Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| All hypotheses given fair hearing | Yes — actively searched for solution proposals (H1) |
| Contradictory evidence surfaced | N/A — no contradictory evidence found |
| Confidence calibrated | Yes |
| Gaps acknowledged | Yes |
Notes: H1 was given fair hearing through searches designed to find framework proposals.
Domain 5: Source-Back Verification¶
Rating: Low risk
| Source | Claim in Assessment | Source Actually Says | Match? |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC02 | Methods fail scientific standards | Confirmed via multiple search summaries and direct quotes | Yes |
| SRC04 | "What does 65 versus 74 confidence mean?" | Directly quoted from WebFetch extraction | Yes |
| SRC05 | Introduces "emergent facts" concept | Confirmed via search summary | Yes |
Discrepancies found: 0
Corrections applied: None needed
Unresolved flags: None
Notes: Key claims verified against direct extractions.
Overall Assessment¶
Overall risk of bias: Low risk
Well-structured process with clear evidence convergence.
Researcher Bias Check¶
- Confirmation bias risk: The query assumes the gap exists and asks if it is documented. Q001 confirmed the gap exists, reducing the risk that we are looking for documentation of a non-existent gap. However, the framing could bias toward finding documentation. Mitigated by the explicitness of the evidence (papers with "epistemology" in the title are unambiguous about their subject).