CORE GUIDE
Claim–evidence matrix
A claim–evidence matrix maps important conclusions to supporting and contradicting sources, provenance, freshness and confidence so research can be audited before it is compressed into a narrative.
Mental model
Treat every important claim as a row whose evidence must earn the right to appear. Sources are not decoration after writing; they are structured inputs that reveal support, disagreement and missing proof.
Why it matters
Research assistants can produce fluent synthesis while hiding weak provenance or combining sources that repeat the same underlying report. A matrix makes independence and conflict visible and gives reviewers a compact artifact for deciding which claims are ready, disputed or unsupported.
01
Separate claims from the evidence that qualifies them
Define candidate claims at the level a reader could challenge. For each, record supporting sources, contradicting sources, original provenance, date and notes on independence. Mark whether evidence is direct or inferred and whether the claim is ready, needs qualification or remains unresolved. Generate prose from the matrix only after the evidence state is explicit.
02
Example: five articles appear to confirm one market number
A research agent finds five articles quoting the same market-size figure and reports strong consensus. The matrix traces all five back to one vendor report, so independence is actually one. A second source gives a different estimate, and the final claim is written as a range with provenance rather than as falsely certain consensus.
Common failure modes
- Counting syndicated or derivative sources as independent confirmation.
- Storing citations without recording which exact claim each source supports.
- Collapsing conflicting evidence into one average before a reviewer can see the disagreement.
Engineering heuristics
- Track original provenance behind repeated coverage.
- Require important claims to point to explicit supporting evidence rows.
- Preserve contradiction and uncertainty as states in the matrix.
Takeaways
- 01Evidence quality depends on provenance and independence, not citation count.
- 02A matrix exposes unsupported claims before narrative compression.
- 03Research synthesis is stronger when disagreement remains inspectable.
Reading evidence
This records actions you actually took; it does not claim mastery, proficiency, or certification.
Used in
This Concept is reused across these canonical learning paths.
Related concepts from the Knowledge Graph
These relationships come from the canonical graph, not a separate Guide taxonomy.