evidence-map

name	evidence-map
description	Use when facts, claims, assumptions, missing evidence, and confidence levels need to be separated before diagnosis. Use when applying an evidence map, evidence ledger, fact-versus-assumption review, proof inventory, or evidence-strength assessment.
license	Apache-2.0

Evidence Map

Use this skill to turn mixed user input into a clear evidence base before making a recommendation.

Method Notes

• Evidence mapping separates what is known, inferred, assumed, missing, and contradicted.
• It is most useful early in a diagnostic, before strong hypotheses or action plans are formed.
• The goal is not to demand perfect proof; it is to prevent weak evidence from carrying strong conclusions.

Required Inputs

Collect or infer these inputs before execution:

• decision or diagnostic question
• raw statements, observations, documents, or claims
• source of each statement when available
• current conclusion or proposed action
• decision deadline or consequence if relevant

If an input is missing, mark it as missing, state the assumption used, and add a validation action.

When Not To Use

Do not use when the facts are already clean and the main need is choosing among options. Use decision-matrix, weighted-scorecard, or effort-impact-matrix instead.

Step-by-Step Execution

Step	Required input	How to execute	Output
Define the decision question	Decision, objective, current recommendation.	State the question the evidence must support or disprove.	Evidence question.
Extract evidence items	Raw notes, claims, observations, artifacts.	Split compound statements into atomic items. Keep one fact or claim per row.	Evidence inventory.
Classify item type	Each evidence item, source, timing.	Label each item as fact, direct observation, document, inference, assumption, hearsay, estimate, contradiction, or missing evidence.	Evidence type map.
Rate strength and relevance	Source quality, recency, directness, decision linkage.	Rate strength as strong / medium / weak / missing and relevance as high / medium / low. Explain why.	Evidence rating table.
Identify evidence gaps	Desired confidence, decision risk, weak or missing rows.	Name the 3-5 gaps most likely to change the conclusion.	Evidence gap list.
Convert gaps into tests	Evidence gaps, available access, timeline.	Define the fastest practical way to confirm, disconfirm, or reduce uncertainty.	Validation actions.

Output Template

### 1. Evidence Question
- Decision / diagnosis to support:
- Current conclusion being tested:
- Decision consequence:

### 2. Evidence Map
| Evidence item | Type | Source | Strength | Relevance | Supports / weakens which claim | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|  | fact / observation / document / inference / assumption / hearsay / missing |  | strong / medium / weak / missing | high / medium / low |  |  |

### 3. Evidence Gaps
| Gap | Why it matters | Fastest way to check | Owner / actor | Deadline |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |  |

### 4. Confidence Readout
- Strongly supported:
- Plausible but not proven:
- Risky assumption:
- Do not conclude yet:

### 5. Next Diagnostic Move
- Next question or test:
- What result would change the recommendation:

Quality Gate

• Split mixed statements instead of giving one vague evidence grade.
• Do not treat seniority, confidence, repetition, or relationship closeness as proof by itself.
• Separate fact evidence strength from inference confidence.
• Highlight contradictions rather than smoothing them over.
• Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use it.