C001 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R9990 — STAR interview neurodivergent impact
Run	2026-03-20
Claim	C001

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Defined what counts as relevant evidence before searching	Yes — required evidence addressing STAR/behavioral interviews AND neurodivergent populations
Criteria remained stable throughout research	Yes — did not shift criteria after seeing results
Both supporting and contradicting evidence eligible	Yes — actively searched for evidence that STAR helps neurodivergent candidates (S06)

Notes: Eligibility criteria were defined implicitly through the hypothesis structure before searches began. Evidence was included regardless of whether it supported or contradicted the claim.

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Some concerns

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies used	Yes — 6 searches across different angles (STAR+ND, prevalence, ADHD, dyslexia, bias, cognitive mechanisms)
Searches designed to test each hypothesis	Yes — S06 specifically designed to find evidence STAR benefits neurodivergent candidates
All results dispositioned	Yes — 70 total results across 6 searches, all dispositioned
Source diversity achieved	Partial — mix of peer-reviewed (2), surveys (1), practitioner (2), advocacy (2), but heavy reliance on English-language web sources

Notes: 6 searches, 70 results returned, 7 selected, 63 rejected. Key limitation: many relevant peer-reviewed sources were behind paywalls (403 errors, paywall blocks). ADDitude Magazine content was not extractable. Dyslexia-specific interview research was particularly sparse.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All sources scored using same framework	Yes — identical scorecard dimensions applied to all 7 sources
Evidence typed consistently	Yes — Factual, Reported, Statistical, Testimonial types applied based on content
ACH matrix applied	Yes — all 8 evidence items evaluated against all 3 hypotheses
Diagnosticity analysis performed	Yes — identified most and least diagnostic evidence

Notes: Scoring was applied consistently. Peer-reviewed sources received higher reliability ratings. Advocacy sources received lower reliability ratings. No source was privileged or penalized based on whether it supported or contradicted the claim.

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing	Yes — dedicated search (S06) to find evidence for H3 (STAR helps)
Contradictory evidence surfaced	Yes — SRC01 directly contradicts the claim and is prominently featured
Confidence calibrated to evidence	Yes — rated "Likely" not "Very likely" due to absence of STAR-specific research
Gaps acknowledged	Yes — absence of peer-reviewed STAR-specific research is central to the assessment

Notes: The final assessment (H2 supported, Likely) was deliberately conservative. The evidence strongly supports that interviews disadvantage neurodivergent people and that the cognitive demands of STAR align with documented deficits, but the absence of studies directly measuring STAR performance prevents a higher confidence rating.

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

The research process was designed to test all three hypotheses fairly, with dedicated searches for contradicting evidence. The main limitation is the evidence landscape itself — no peer-reviewed study directly examines STAR interview performance for neurodivergent candidates, requiring inference from cognitive research + interview experience studies. The final assessment (H2, with important nuance) reflects this limitation rather than settling for the simpler H1 conclusion.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Confirmation bias risk: The claim as stated invites confirmation — it is easy to find evidence that interviews are hard for neurodivergent people. The agent compensated by actively searching for evidence that STAR helps (S06) and including SRC01 prominently.
Anchoring risk: The initial claim framing ("problematic") could anchor analysis toward negative findings. The agent's assessment (H2 rather than H1) demonstrates resistance to this anchor.
No researcher profile was provided, so profile-based calibration could not be performed. This is a process gap — the agent had no declared biases to check against.