C007 — Researcher Profile for Bias Calibration and Self-Audit¶
Research: R0053 Run: 2026-03-31 Mode: claim
BLUF¶
The claim is almost certainly correct. The methodology prompt contains a dedicated "Researcher Profile" section with a template documenting three categories: Declared Biases, Conflicts of Interest, and Acknowledged Blind Spots. The prompt instructs the AI to use this profile at two specific points: (1) at the start during Step 1 ("Researcher profile check") to calibrate analysis and confront the researcher about relevant biases before proceeding, and (2) during Step 9 (Self-Audit) to check whether declared biases influenced the research. Every element described in the claim is present in the prompt.
Probability / Answer¶
Rating: Almost certain(ly) / Nearly certain (95-99%) Confidence: High Rationale: Direct inspection of the primary source artifact confirms all elements of the claim. The three categories match exactly, and the two usage points (start calibration and self-audit verification) are explicitly documented.
Reasoning Chain¶
-
The methodology prompt contains a "Researcher Profile" section (lines 569-612) with source attribution "[Source: NAS conflict of interest + ROBIS self-audit + net-new researcher profile concept]". [Source: SRC01, High reliability, High relevance]
-
The profile template (lines 593-612) defines three categories:
- DECLARED BIASES: "what the researcher tends to believe or assume, and in what direction it might influence research"
- CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: "professional roles, financial interests, organizational affiliations, tool dependencies that could influence which inputs are investigated and how results are interpreted"
-
ACKNOWLEDGED BLIND SPOTS: "areas where the researcher's knowledge or perspective is limited, and what kinds of evidence might be overlooked as a result" [Source: SRC01, High reliability, High relevance]
-
Step 1 (lines 215-219) contains "Researcher profile check": "Before proceeding, review the researcher profile against this specific input. If any declared bias, conflict of interest, or blind spot is relevant, stop and tell the researcher explicitly." This is described as "not a silent calibration -- it is a transparent confrontation." [Source: SRC01, High reliability, High relevance]
-
Step 9 Self-Audit (lines 427-429) includes: "Also check the researcher profile: did any of the researcher's declared biases or conflicts of interest influence the questions asked, the searches designed, or the interpretation of results? If so, flag it." [Source: SRC01, High reliability, High relevance]
-
Rule 2 in Truth Hierarchy references the profile: "The researcher profile (provided separately) documents known biases and conflicts of interest that may affect the inputs you receive. Use it." [Source: SRC01, High reliability, High relevance]
-
The profile section provides four specific behavioral instructions for how the AI uses the profile: extra scrutiny for evidence aligning with declared biases, fair treatment for contradicting evidence, explicit flagging of relevant conflicts of interest, and active searching in declared blind spots. [Source: SRC01, High reliability, High relevance]
-
JUDGMENT: The claim is an accurate, comprehensive description of the researcher profile feature. Every element is confirmed: three categories (biases, conflicts of interest, blind spots), start-of-research calibration (Step 1), and self-audit verification (Step 9).
Hypotheses¶
H1: The claim is substantially correct — the researcher profile contains all three categories and is used at both start and self-audit.¶
Status: Supported Evidence for: Direct inspection confirms all elements. Evidence against: None.
H2: The claim is substantially incorrect — the profile does not work as described.¶
Status: Eliminated Evidence for: None. Evidence against: Every claim element verified against primary source.
H3: The claim is partially correct — some elements are present but not all.¶
Status: Eliminated Evidence for: None. Evidence against: All three categories, both usage points, and the calibration mechanism are present exactly as described.
Evidence Summary¶
| Source | Description | Reliability | Relevance | Key Finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01 | research.md (methodology prompt) | High | High | Profile section, template, Step 1 check, Step 9 check, Rule 2 reference, behavioral instructions -- all confirmed |
Collection Synthesis¶
| Dimension | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Evidence quality | Robust -- primary source artifact |
| Source agreement | High -- single authoritative source |
| Source independence | N/A -- single primary source |
| Outliers | None |
Gaps¶
| Missing Evidence | Impact on Assessment |
|---|---|
| Evidence of the profile being used effectively in practice | Would confirm the feature works as intended, not just as designed |
| Completed researcher profiles from actual research runs | Would show whether the template is practical |
Researcher Bias Check¶
Declared biases: No researcher profile was provided for this research run. Influence assessment: This is a self-referential observation: C007 describes the researcher profile feature, and no profile was provided for this run. The absence of a profile means this very assessment could not benefit from the feature it is describing.
Revisit Triggers¶
| Trigger | Type | Check |
|---|---|---|
| The researcher profile section is modified | event | Check if research.md Researcher Profile section has changed |
| Additional usage points for the profile are added | event | Check for new references to the researcher profile in the methodology |
| The profile template categories are changed | event | Compare current template against this snapshot |
Additional Observations¶
The researcher profile feature is referenced in three locations within the methodology prompt, creating redundant enforcement of its use: 1. Rule 2 (Truth Hierarchy) -- directs the AI to use the profile when evaluating inputs 2. Step 1 (Receive and Clarify) -- requires a transparent confrontation with the researcher about relevant biases 3. Step 9 (Self-Audit) -- requires checking whether biases influenced the research
This triple-reference pattern is consistent with the prompt's overall enforcement approach: important behaviors are stated as rules AND embedded in workflow steps, reducing the likelihood that context compaction will eliminate all references.