C006 — Assessment¶


Research	R0054 — Prompt Claims v2
Run	2026-03-31
Claim	C006

BLUF¶

The claim is exactly correct. The methodology and output format exist as separate documents with distinct responsibilities. The output format self-identifies as a "custom" layer, confirming designed separability. Claude's own documentation recommends this separation as a best practice.

Probability¶

Rating: Almost certain(ly) / Nearly certain (95-99%)

Confidence in assessment: High

Confidence rationale: Direct verification against two primary source documents and supported by external best practice documentation.

Reasoning Chain¶

FACT: The methodology (prompt-snapshot.md) specifies analytical steps and report content sections without prescribing file formats or directory structures. [SRC01-E01, High reliability, High relevance]
FACT: The output format (output-format-snapshot.md) self-describes as "a custom output format for the ai-research-methodology plugin" — confirming it is a separable, swappable component. [SRC02-E01, High reliability, High relevance]
REPORTED: Claude's documentation recommends "clear separation" of context, constraints, and output format for reliable instruction following. [SRC03-E01, High reliability, Medium relevance]
JUDGMENT: The separation implements the software engineering principle of separation of concerns. The methodology could be paired with a different output format (e.g., JSON, PDF, plain text) without modifying the analytical methodology.

Evidence Base Summary¶

Source	Description	Reliability	Relevance	Key Finding
SRC01	prompt-snapshot.md	High	High	Methodology references generic report structure
SRC02	output-format-snapshot.md	High	High	Self-described as custom, separable layer
SRC03	Claude best practices	High	Medium	Separation recommended by model provider

Collection Synthesis¶

Dimension	Assessment
Evidence quality	Robust — primary source verification + external validation
Source agreement	High
Source independence	Medium — primary sources share authorship; Claude docs are independent
Outliers	None

Gaps¶

Missing Evidence	Impact on Assessment
No evidence of the output format actually being swapped for a different one	Would provide functional proof of separability

Researcher Bias Check¶

Declared biases: Researcher is the prompt author (COI). Has professional interest in presenting the design as well-architected.

Influence assessment: The separation is objectively verifiable from the document structure. The COI does not affect this assessment.

Cross-References¶

Entity	ID	File
Hypotheses	H1, H2, H3	`hypotheses/`
Sources	SRC01, SRC02, SRC03	`sources/`
ACH Matrix	—	ach-matrix.md
Self-Audit	—	self-audit.md