R9990/2026-03-31/C001 — ACH Matrix¶
Matrix¶
| H1: STAR is substantially problematic | H2: Partially correct — problematic but adaptable | H3: STAR is neutral/beneficial | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01-E01: Coach identifies STAR sequential thinking barrier | ++ | + | -- |
| SRC02-E01: ADHD TA professional — retrieval failure during STAR | ++ | + | -- |
| SRC03-E01: ADHD impacts all CI components, esp. Change Order | ++ | ++ | -- |
| SRC04-E01: Hiring discrimination stats, open-ended question barriers | + | + | - |
| SRC05-E01: STAR structural flaws — articulateness bias, stress | + | ++ | - |
| SRC06-E01: Central executive WM deficits d=1.62-2.03 in ADHD | ++ | ++ | -- |
| SRC07-E01: Autistic candidates scored lower; adaptations helped | + | ++ | -- |
| SRC08-E01: STAR as beneficial preparation scaffold | - | + | ++ |
| SRC09-E01: BDA — dyslexia recall/organization challenges | + | + | - |
Legend:
- ++ Strongly supports
- + Supports
- -- Strongly contradicts
- - Contradicts
- N/A Not applicable to this hypothesis
Diagnosticity Analysis¶
Most Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence | Why Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC07-E01 | Controlled experiment with measured performance gap AND demonstrated improvement from adaptations — strongly supports H2 over H1 (the problem is real but fixable) and eliminates H3 (the gap is measurable) |
| SRC08-E01 | The only evidence supporting H3 and contradicting H1 — but from a source that also acknowledges the underlying challenges, making it more diagnostic for H2 |
| SRC06-E01 | Very large effect sizes (d=1.62-2.03) on the exact cognitive processes STAR demands — eliminates H3 conclusively |
Least Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence | Why Non-Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC04-E01 | Addresses interview discrimination broadly but does not specifically name STAR — supports the general direction without discriminating between hypotheses |
| SRC05-E01 | Identifies STAR's flaws for all candidates, not neurodivergent-specific — cannot distinguish whether STAR is uniquely problematic for neurodivergent individuals or generally flawed |
Outcome¶
Hypothesis supported: H2 — The STAR interview format is problematic for neurodivergent individuals when applied as a standard, unadapted technique, but can be mitigated through accommodations and can even serve as a beneficial preparation scaffold. The evidence converges on this nuanced position across peer-reviewed, practitioner, and advocacy sources.
Hypotheses eliminated: H3 — The weight of evidence (8 of 9 sources) contradicts the claim that STAR is neutral or beneficial. The single supporting source (SRC08-E01) is better explained by H2.
Hypotheses inconclusive: H1 — Strong evidence supports that STAR is problematic, but the "substantially" qualifier is undercut by evidence that adaptations can significantly reduce the barriers. H1 is not wrong but is less precise than H2.