# Research Claim Map Template

## Workflow

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

```
Research Claim Map Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Define claim precisely
- [ ] Step 2: Gather evidence for and against
- [ ] Step 3: Rate evidence quality
- [ ] Step 4: Assess source credibility
- [ ] Step 5: Identify limitations
- [ ] Step 6: Synthesize conclusion
```

**Step 1: Define claim precisely**

Restate as specific, testable assertion with numbers, dates, clear terms. See [Claim Reformulation](#claim-reformulation-examples).

**Step 2: Gather evidence for and against**

Find sources supporting and contradicting claim. See [Evidence Categories](#evidence-categories).

**Step 3: Rate evidence quality**

Apply evidence hierarchy (primary > secondary > tertiary). See [Evidence Quality Rating](#evidence-quality-rating).

**Step 4: Assess source credibility**

Evaluate expertise, independence, track record, methodology. See [Credibility Assessment](#source-credibility-scoring).

**Step 5: Identify limitations**

Document gaps, assumptions, uncertainties. See [Limitations Documentation](#limitations-and-gaps).

**Step 6: Synthesize conclusion**

Determine confidence level (0-100%) and recommendation. See [Confidence Calibration](#confidence-level-calibration).

---

## Research Claim Map Template

### 1. Claim Statement

**Original claim**: [Quote exact claim as stated]

**Reformulated claim** (specific, testable): [Restate with precise terms, numbers, dates, scope]

**Why this claim matters**: [Decision impact, stakes, consequences if true/false]

**Key terms defined**:
- [Term 1]: [Definition to avoid ambiguity]
- [Term 2]: [Definition]

---

### 2. Evidence For

| Source | Evidence Type | Quality | Credibility | Summary |
|--------|--------------|---------|-------------|---------|
| [Source name/link] | [Primary/Secondary/Tertiary] | [H/M/L] | [H/M/L] | [What it says] |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |

**Strongest evidence for**:
1. [Most compelling evidence with explanation why it's strong]
2. [Second strongest]

---

### 3. Evidence Against

| Source | Evidence Type | Quality | Credibility | Summary |
|--------|--------------|---------|-------------|---------|
| [Source name/link] | [Primary/Secondary/Tertiary] | [H/M/L] | [H/M/L] | [What it says] |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |

**Strongest evidence against**:
1. [Most compelling counter-evidence with explanation]
2. [Second strongest]

---

### 4. Source Credibility Analysis

**For each major source, evaluate:**

**Source: [Name/Link]**
- **Expertise**: [H/M/L] - [Why: credentials, domain knowledge]
- **Independence**: [H/M/L] - [Conflicts of interest, bias, incentives]
- **Track Record**: [H/M/L] - [Prior accuracy, corrections, reputation]
- **Methodology**: [H/M/L] - [How they obtained information, transparency]
- **Overall credibility**: [H/M/L]

**Source: [Name/Link]**
- **Expertise**: [H/M/L] - [Why]
- **Independence**: [H/M/L] - [Why]
- **Track Record**: [H/M/L] - [Why]
- **Methodology**: [H/M/L] - [Why]
- **Overall credibility**: [H/M/L]

---

### 5. Limitations and Gaps

**What's unknown or uncertain**:
- [Gap 1: What evidence is missing]
- [Gap 2: What couldn't be verified]
- [Gap 3: What's ambiguous or unclear]

**Assumptions made**:
- [Assumption 1: What we're assuming to be true]
- [Assumption 2]

**Quality concerns**:
- [Concern 1: Weaknesses in evidence or methodology]
- [Concern 2]

**Further investigation needed**:
- [What additional evidence would increase confidence]
- [What questions remain unanswered]

---

### 6. Conclusion

**Confidence level**: [0-100%]

**Confidence reasoning**:
- [Why this confidence level based on evidence quality, source credibility, limitations]

**Assessment**: [Choose one]
- ✓ **Claim validated** (70-100% confidence) - Evidence strongly supports claim
- ≈ **Claim partially true** (40-69% confidence) - Mixed or weak evidence, requires nuance
- ✗ **Claim rejected** (0-39% confidence) - Evidence contradicts or insufficient support

**Recommendation**:
[Action to take based on this assessment - what should be believed, decided, or done]

**Key caveats**:
- [Important qualification 1]
- [Important qualification 2]

---

## Guidance for Each Section

### Claim Reformulation Examples

**Vague → Specific:**
- ❌ "Product X is better" → ✓ "Product X loads pages 50% faster than Product Y on benchmark Z"
- ❌ "Most customers are satisfied" → ✓ "NPS score ≥50 based on survey of ≥1000 customers in Q3 2024"
- ❌ "Studies show it works" → ✓ "≥3 peer-reviewed RCTs show ≥20% improvement vs placebo, p<0.05"

**Avoid:**
- Subjective terms ("better", "significant", "many")
- Undefined metrics ("performance", "quality", "efficiency")
- Vague time ranges ("recently", "long-term")
- Unclear comparisons ("faster", "cheaper" - than what?)

### Evidence Categories

**Primary (Strongest):**
- Original research data, raw datasets
- Direct measurements, transaction logs
- First-hand testimony from participants
- Legal documents, contracts, financial filings
- Photographs, videos of events (verified authentic)

**Secondary (Medium):**
- Analysis/synthesis of primary sources
- Peer-reviewed research papers
- News reporting citing primary sources
- Expert analysis with transparent methodology
- Government/institutional reports

**Tertiary (Weakest):**
- Summaries of secondary sources
- Textbooks, encyclopedias, Wikipedia
- Press releases, marketing content
- Opinion pieces, editorials
- Anecdotal reports

**Non-Evidence (Unreliable):**
- Social media claims without verification
- Anonymous sources with no corroboration
- Circular citations (A→B→A)
- "Experts say" without named experts
- Cherry-picked quotes out of context

### Evidence Quality Rating

**High (H):**
- Multiple independent primary sources agree
- Methodology transparent and replicable
- Large sample size, rigorous controls
- Peer-reviewed or independently verified
- Recent and relevant to current context

**Medium (M):**
- Single primary source or multiple secondary sources
- Some methodology disclosed
- Moderate sample size, some controls
- Some independent verification
- Somewhat dated but still applicable

**Low (L):**
- Tertiary sources only
- Methodology opaque or questionable
- Small sample, no controls, anecdotal
- No independent verification
- Outdated or context has changed

### Source Credibility Scoring

**Expertise:**
- High: Domain expert, relevant credentials, published research
- Medium: General knowledge, some relevant experience
- Low: No demonstrated expertise, out of domain

**Independence:**
- High: No financial/personal stake, third-party verification
- Medium: Some potential bias but disclosed
- Low: Direct conflict of interest, undisclosed bias

**Track Record:**
- High: Consistent accuracy, transparent about corrections
- Medium: Unknown history or mixed record
- Low: History of errors, retractions, misinformation

**Methodology:**
- High: Transparent process, data/methods shared, replicable
- Medium: Some details provided, partially verifiable
- Low: Black box, unverifiable, cherry-picked data

### Limitations and Gaps

**Common gaps:**
- Missing primary sources (only secondary summaries available)
- Conflicting evidence without clear resolution
- Outdated information (claim may have changed)
- Incomplete data (partial picture only)
- Methodology unclear (can't assess quality)
- Context missing (claim true but misleading framing)

**Document:**
- What evidence you expected to find but didn't
- What questions you couldn't answer
- What assumptions you had to make to proceed
- What contradictions remain unresolved

### Confidence Level Calibration

**90-100% (Near Certain):**
- Multiple independent primary sources
- High credibility sources with strong methodology
- No significant contradicting evidence
- Minimal assumptions or gaps
- Example: "Earth orbits the Sun"

**70-89% (Confident):**
- Strong secondary sources or single primary source
- Credible sources, some methodology disclosed
- Minor contradictions explainable
- Some assumptions but reasonable
- Example: "Vendor has >5,000 customers based on analyst report"

**50-69% (Uncertain):**
- Mixed evidence quality or conflicting sources
- Moderate credibility, unclear methodology
- Significant gaps or assumptions
- Requires more investigation to be confident
- Example: "Feature will improve retention 10-20%"

**30-49% (Skeptical):**
- More/stronger evidence against than for
- Low credibility sources or weak evidence
- Major gaps, questionable assumptions
- Claim likely exaggerated or misleading
- Example: "Supplement cures disease based on testimonials"

**0-29% (Likely False):**
- Strong evidence contradicting claim
- Unreliable sources, no credible support
- Claim contradicts established facts
- Clear misinformation or fabrication
- Example: "Vaccine contains tracking microchips"

---

## Common Patterns

### Pattern 1: Vendor Due Diligence

**Claim**: Vendor claims product capabilities, performance, customer metrics
**Approach**: Seek independent verification, customer references, trials
**Red flags**: Only vendor sources, vague metrics, "up to X" ranges, cherry-picked case studies

### Pattern 2: News Fact-Check

**Claim**: Event occurred, statistic cited, quote attributed
**Approach**: Trace to primary source, check multiple outlets, verify context
**Red flags**: Single source, anonymous claims, sensational framing, out-of-context quotes

### Pattern 3: Research Validity

**Claim**: Study shows X causes Y, treatment is effective
**Approach**: Check replication, sample size, methodology, competing explanations
**Red flags**: Single study, conflicts of interest, p-hacking, correlation claimed as causation

### Pattern 4: Competitive Intelligence

**Claim**: Competitor has capability, market share, strategic direction
**Approach**: Triangulate public filings, analyst reports, customer feedback
**Red flags**: Rumor/speculation, outdated info, no primary verification

---

## Quality Checklist

- [ ] Claim restated as specific, testable assertion
- [ ] Evidence gathered for both supporting and contradicting
- [ ] Each source rated for evidence quality (Primary/Secondary/Tertiary)
- [ ] Each source assessed for credibility (Expertise, Independence, Track Record, Methodology)
- [ ] Strongest evidence for and against identified
- [ ] Limitations and gaps documented explicitly
- [ ] Assumptions stated clearly
- [ ] Confidence level quantified (0-100%)
- [ ] Recommendation is actionable and evidence-based
- [ ] Caveats and qualifications noted
- [ ] No cherry-picking (actively sought contradicting evidence)
- [ ] Distinction made between "no evidence found" and "evidence against"
- [ ] Sources properly attributed with links/citations
- [ ] Avoided common biases (confirmation, authority, recency, availability)
- [ ] Quality sufficient for decision (if not, flag need for more investigation)
