C002 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0052 — Methodology Claims
Run	2026-03-31
Claim	C002

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Low risk | Criterion | Assessment | |-----------|------------| | Criteria defined before searching | Yes — looking for works that systematically combine IC + scientific frameworks | | Criteria consistent throughout | Yes | Notes: Clear eligibility: published, accessible works that integrate (not merely cite) both IC and scientific methodology frameworks.

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Some concerns | Criterion | Assessment | |-----------|------------| | Multiple search strategies used | Yes — two different query formulations | | Searches designed to test each hypothesis | Yes — designed to find prior work if it exists | | All results dispositioned | Yes | | Source diversity achieved | Limited — English-language web search only | Notes: Could not search classified databases or non-English literature. This is an inherent limitation.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶

Rating: Low risk | Criterion | Assessment | |-----------|------------| | All sources scored using same framework | Yes | | Evidence typed consistently | Yes | | ACH matrix applied | Yes | | Diagnosticity analysis performed | Yes | Notes: Consistent evaluation despite the unusual nature of "absence as evidence."

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Rating: Some concerns | Criterion | Assessment | |-----------|------------| | All hypotheses given fair hearing | Yes — H2 kept inconclusive | | Contradictory evidence surfaced | No contradictory evidence found | | Confidence calibrated to evidence | Yes — Medium confidence acknowledges limitations | | Gaps acknowledged | Yes — classified and non-English literature noted | Notes: Researcher conflict of interest means extra scrutiny is warranted.

Domain 5: Source-Back Verification¶

Rating: Low risk | Source | Claim in Assessment | Source Actually Says | Match? | |--------|-------------------|---------------------|--------| | SRC01 | No matching published work found | Search returned no results matching the combination | Yes | | SRC02 | IC standards discussed in isolation | Reinhold & Russo analyze IC standards within the IC context | Yes | Discrepancies found: 0 Corrections applied: None needed Unresolved flags: None Notes: The assessment accurately represents the search findings.

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Some concerns The primary concern is the inherent limitation of proving a negative, combined with the researcher's conflict of interest.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Confirmation bias (HIGH RISK): The researcher has a direct interest in this claim being validated. Mitigation: confidence reduced to Medium; H2 kept inconclusive.
Availability bias (medium risk): The researcher may not be aware of obscure academic work in domains outside their expertise.