gh-lyndonkl-claude/skills/research-claim-map/resources/template.md

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.

Step 2: Gather evidence for and against

Find sources supporting and contradicting claim. See Evidence Categories.

Step 3: Rate evidence quality

Apply evidence hierarchy (primary > secondary > tertiary). See Evidence Quality Rating.

Step 4: Assess source credibility

Evaluate expertise, independence, track record, methodology. See Credibility Assessment.

Step 5: Identify limitations

Document gaps, assumptions, uncertainties. See Limitations Documentation.

Step 6: Synthesize conclusion

Determine confidence level (0-100%) and recommendation. See Confidence 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]

---

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)