Skip to main content

Assessment and Calibration

Fresh scenario​

A newsletter says “daily journaling raises pass rates by 50%.” It cites an optional workshop where 10 of 50 participants passed an earlier assessment and 15 of 50 passed a later one. No information about comparable tests, attendance or a control group is given. Audit the number and wording, list missing evidence and propose a careful rewrite. Then defend the source trail in your own lab.

Three required dimensions​

Score 0 (missing/incorrect), 1 (partly justified), or 2 (complete and defensible). All three must reach 2, with a fresh scenario after repair.

  • R1 — Meaning: explanation preserves the passage's key condition and uses an original example; quotation and inference are distinguishable.
  • R2 — Provenance: exact claim and source trail are recorded; original evidence and independent context are distinguished; inaccessible evidence is explicitly unverified.
  • R3 — Reasoning: denominator and comparison are checked when available; causal overreach is identified; conclusion and next action match the evidence and state a limitation.

Calibration — read after attempting​

10/50 is 20%; 15/50 is 30%. The increase is 10 percentage points, or 50% relative to 20%. Correct arithmetic does not establish that journaling caused it. Participation, comparability and other explanations remain unresolved. A careful rewrite reports the change in this sample and withholds the causal claim. The exercise does not show journaling is useless either.

For the lab, polished prose without a traceable claim cannot pass R2. An unavailable original source can still support a good audit if you document the search, inspect independent context and narrow the conclusion; it cannot support claiming the missing study was verified.