C001 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0053 — Prompt Claims
Run	2026-03-31-02
Claim	C001

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Defined what counts as "published" before searching	Yes — publicly accessible without authentication
Defined what counts as "complete" before searching	Partially — "complete" is subjective; defined as having structured sections implementing named analytical standards
Defined what counts as "full analytical rigor framework"	No — this term is inherently ambiguous and was not precisely defined before searching

Notes: The ambiguity in "full analytical rigor framework" is a limitation of the claim itself, not of the search process. The criteria did not shift after seeing results.

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Some concerns

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies used	Yes — searched for Choe specifically and for competing frameworks separately
Searches designed to test each hypothesis	Yes — S01 tested existence (H1/H3), S02 tested uniqueness (H1/H2)
All results dispositioned	Yes — 20 results returned, all dispositioned
Source diversity achieved	Partial — Substack, FindSkill.ai, arXiv, OpenPraxis

Notes: 2 searches with 20 total results. The search for competing frameworks could have been broader — additional searches for GitHub-hosted prompts, academic prompt repositories, or commercial AI research tools would strengthen the assessment.

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 framework applied across all sources.

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing	Yes — H1 was genuinely tested, not just dismissed
Contradictory evidence surfaced	Yes — competing frameworks surfaced to test exclusivity
Confidence calibrated to evidence	Yes — Medium confidence reflects genuine uncertainty about completeness of competing frameworks
Gaps acknowledged	Yes — inability to survey all published prompts acknowledged

Notes: The assessment fairly represents the tension between Choe's genuine contribution and the exclusivity claim's fragility.

Domain 5: Source-Back Verification¶

Rating: Low risk

Source	Claim in Assessment	Source Actually Says	Match?
SRC01	Choe published 7-section ICD 203 prompt	Choe's article describes Executive Summary, Source Ledger, Baseline Fact Pattern, Analytic Assessment, ACH, Intel Gaps, Source Credibility Audit	Yes
SRC01	Prompt publicly accessible	"an article that's now free"	Yes
SRC03	Deep Research Framework includes quality guardrails	"quality guardrails that instruct AI on standards"	Yes

Discrepancies found: 0

Corrections applied: None needed

Unresolved flags: None

Notes: All claims in the assessment trace accurately to source content.

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

The main limitation is search breadth — a comprehensive survey of all published AI research prompts would require more extensive searching than was performed. However, the finding of even a few competing frameworks is sufficient to undermine the exclusivity claim.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Confirmation bias risk: The claim originates from the methodology's own attribution, creating incentive to confirm it. Mitigated by actively searching for competing frameworks.
Anchoring bias risk: Low — the claim's three components were decomposed and tested independently.
No researcher profile provided: Cannot check for declared biases. This gap is noted.