Investigation: Evidence Audit

Evidence is not a binary: there or not there. A study can exist and be worthless. Multiple sources can exist and all be downstream of the same flawed original. The question is never just "is there evidence?" but "what kind, how strong, and what's missing?" A structured evidence audit answers all three. It places the available evidence in a hierarchy, evaluates it against the claim it's supposed to support, flags conflicts of interest, and explicitly names what should exist but doesn't.

Your Process

Step 1: State the Claim and Evidence Inventory Write out the claim you're evaluating. List all evidence currently offered in support — each study, data point, expert opinion, case, or example. Do not filter yet: capture the full inventory.

Framing check: Confirm the specific claim and evidence set before continuing. State what you've identified — the precise claim being evaluated and the body of evidence offered in its support — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:

• Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the claim and its evidence]. Is that right?"
• Header: "Framing"
• Options:
  • Yes — proceed — framing is correct
  • Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
  • Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding