| name | evidence-weighing |
| description | Tactic for assessing the strength and relevance of evidence for causal claims — distinguishes correlation from causation. |
| execution | tactic |
| dependencies | {"sops":["confidence-scoring","contradiction-flagging","evidence-linking"]} |
Evidence Weighing
Assess the strength of evidence for causal claims. Not all evidence is equal — RCTs > observational studies > expert opinion > anecdote.
Available SOPs
- evidence-linking — connect evidence to claims
- confidence-scoring — assign calibrated confidence
- contradiction-flagging — identify conflicting evidence
Guiding Principles
- Hierarchy of evidence. Interventional > observational > theoretical > anecdotal.
- Effect size matters. A statistically significant but tiny effect is weak evidence for practical causation.
- Replication is king. Single studies are suggestive; replicated findings are convincing.
- Confounders weaken. Evidence from studies with uncontrolled confounders gets lower weight.
- Mechanism strengthens. Evidence backed by a plausible mechanism gets higher weight.
Minimum Yield
≥2 evidence assessments with explicit strength ratings per invocation.
Available SOPs
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP | When to use |
|---|
| confidence-scoring | SOP for assigning calibrated confidence scores to causal claims based on evidence quality and quantity. |
| contradiction-flagging | SOP for flagging contradictions in the causal model — identify conflicting evidence or mechanism claims. |
| evidence-linking | SOP for linking evidence pages to causal claims — creates supported_by or contradicts edges. |
