{"path":"research/what-counts-as-evidence/README.md","content":"# What counts as evidence — the research dossier (2026-09-26)\n\nThe working material behind [`../what-counts-as-evidence.md`](../what-counts-as-evidence.md), which is the\nsynthesis and the place to start. Nothing here is ruled; the proposals live as ledger Arc Q in\n[`../session26-open-rulings.md`](../session26-open-rulings.md).\n\n**How it was made.** The founder asked for the corpus to be read first and the outside literature second.\nThree readers mapped what the Deliberus corpus says about evidence — the research docs, the code, and the\nfounder's own words — and only then five research strands went outside, each briefed with that map\n([`research-briefing.md`](research-briefing.md)) so they would deepen, test or challenge the corpus rather\nthan restate it. Each strand marks what it verified against a primary source during the pass and what it\nstated from memory; check the marks before citing anything outward.\n\n## The corpus maps\n\n| File | What it maps |\n|---|---|\n| [`corpus-map-research-docs.md`](corpus-map-research-docs.md) | Everything the research and design docs say about evidence: definitions, kinds, entry, weighing, where it bottoms out, time, measured facts, open questions, and fourteen contradictions between docs |\n| [`corpus-map-code.md`](corpus-map-code.md) | How evidence is represented and computed in code, with file and line: the data model, every entry path, the exact arithmetic with worked examples, evidence-shaped schemes, what is inert, what is missing, and what the tests pin |\n| [`corpus-map-founder-voice.md`](corpus-map-founder-voice.md) | About 55 founder statements on evidence, 2012 → 2026-09, each tagged ruling, position, question or musing; the convictions that constrain evidence handling; the history of the concept; every open loop |\n\n## The research strands\n\n| File | Scope |\n|---|---|\n| [`philosophy-of-evidence.md`](philosophy-of-evidence.md) | What evidence is; confirmation theory and likelihoods; weight versus balance; independence, variety and coherence; holism; higher-order evidence, disagreement, uniqueness and permissivism; evidence of absence; testimony; the Given and hinges; evidence in ethics |\n| [`grading-evidence-in-science-and-policy.md`](grading-evidence-in-science-and-policy.md) | Evidence hierarchies and their critiques; GRADE in depth; risk-of-bias tools; meta-analysis; causal inference beyond trials; statistics as evidence and the replication record; IPCC, IARC, EFSA, EEF; an assessment of the platform's methodology ladder |\n| [`testimony-experience-and-normative-evidence.md`](testimony-experience-and-normative-evidence.md) | Epistemic injustice and standpoint; lived experience in policy; case studies and anecdotes; introspection; expert elicitation and forecasting; evidence for normative claims; source credibility and crowdsourced testimony |\n| [`formal-and-computational-models-of-evidence.md`](formal-and-computational-models-of-evidence.md) | Toulmin, Pollock, ASPIC+, Walton, Carneades, Bex, Bayesian argumentation; belief functions and subjective logic; evidence idioms in Bayesian networks; truth discovery and copy detection; evidence ontologies; automated fact-checking; production weighting systems (STRING, ACMG) |\n| [`law-intelligence-history-journalism-forensics.md`](law-intelligence-history-journalism-forensics.md) | Evidence law and standards of proof; Wigmore, Schum and the new evidence scholarship; intelligence source grading and competing hypotheses; historical source criticism; journalistic verification; forensic science and likelihood-ratio reporting |\n"}