docs: archive all synchronized claim-relief research and work products

2026-09-05 13:14:33 +09:00
parent 42797463a2
commit 6f596c1de7
2835 changed files with 591933 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+# Knowledge-Work Workflow
+
+## 1. Frame the task
+
+Record:
+- the exact question or decision;
+- audience and intended use;
+- scope, jurisdictions, industries, entities, and time period;
+- cutoff date for current information;
+- required deliverables and level of detail;
+- material assumptions and exclusions.
+
+## 2. Build the source hierarchy
+
+Default priority:
+1. primary documents, official data, statutes, regulations, judgments, filings, contracts, and original research;
+2. high-quality institutional or peer-reviewed analysis;
+3. reputable secondary reporting;
+4. commentary and discovery sources.
+
+Use lower-tier material to locate or contextualize higher-tier evidence. Do not use it to overrule primary evidence without explanation.
+
+## 3. Retrieve and verify
+
+For each material source:
+- verify title, author or institution, date, version, and relevant scope;
+- inspect the underlying text, table, appendix, or data—not only a snippet or abstract;
+- capture the smallest locator that supports the proposition;
+- note limitations, conflicts, and whether the source is current enough.
+
+## 4. Maintain a claim-evidence matrix
+
+| Material claim | Evidence | Source quality | Counterevidence | Status |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| ... | ... | Primary/Secondary | ... | Verified/Qualified/Unverified |
+
+Do not draft a confident synthesis while decisive claims remain unmapped.
+
+## 5. Analyze
+
+Separate:
+- descriptive facts;
+- causal claims and identification assumptions;
+- legal or institutional interpretation;
+- the source author's conclusion;
+- the agent's critique;
+- the agent's proposal.
+
+For quantitative claims, check definitions, units, denominators, sample construction, timing, missingness, and comparability.
+
+## 6. Adversarial review
+
+Before finalizing:
+- search for disconfirming evidence;
+- identify alternative explanations;
+- check whether sources are independent or merely repeat one another;
+- test whether the conclusion depends on a single fragile assumption;
+- identify what evidence would reverse the conclusion.
+
+## 7. Deliver
+
+Lead with the conclusion and decision relevance. Then provide:
+- scope and method;
+- evidence-backed findings;
+- disagreements and counterevidence;
+- assumptions and limitations;
+- implications or recommendations;
+- a clear separation between verified findings and original inference.