# Claim-Evidence Matrix

Connect every material statement in a draft to relevant evidence, reveal unsupported leaps, and record whether each claim should be kept, qualified, or removed.

## Usage note

Build the matrix from the claims actually written in the draft. One source may support only part of a sentence, and several citations do not repair a mismatch between the evidence and the conclusion.

## How to use this template

1. Extract each material statement and split compound sentences into independent claims.
2. Classify the claim, reader consequence, scope, and precise evidence requirement.
3. Map every source to what it directly supports and note shared evidence origins.
4. Compare wording with evidence, contradictions, recency, and remaining uncertainty.
5. Apply and verify an explicit editorial decision for every matrix row.

## Blank template

### Draft and review context

- **Draft title and version:** [Enter title and version]
- **Draft owner:** [Enter name]
- **Review scope:** [Whole draft / Selected section / High-risk claims]
- **Intended audience:** [Describe reader]
- **Consequence threshold:** [Explain which claims require escalation]
- **Matrix reviewer and date:** [Name, YYYY-MM-DD]

### Claim row

Duplicate this section for each independent claim.

- **Row ID and draft location:** [Example C-01, paragraph 4]
- **Claim as written:** [Copy exact wording]
- **Atomic claim:** [Rewrite as one testable statement]
- **Claim type:** [Fact / Number / Quote / Cause / Comparison / Prediction / Interpretation]
- **Scope:** [Population, product, period, geography, or version]
- **Consequence if wrong:** [Low / Medium / High]
- **Evidence needed:** [Describe what would establish the claim]
- **Source one:** [Reference and access date]
- **What source one directly shows:** [Be precise]
- **Source two:** [Reference or Not required]
- **Independent evidence origin:** [Yes / No / Unknown]
- **Contradictory evidence:** [Reference and summary or None found]
- **Evidence gap:** [Missing scope, method, recency, independence, other]
- **Decision:** [Keep / Qualify / Rewrite / Remove / Unresolved]
- **Revised wording:** [Write final sentence]
- **Decision owner:** [Name and date]

### Matrix completion checks

- [ ] Compound statements were separated instead of supported with one broad citation.
- [ ] Every numerical claim includes its unit, denominator, and measurement period.
- [ ] Causal language is supported by a method capable of testing causation.
- [ ] Quotations preserve speaker, wording, date, and surrounding meaning.
- [ ] Repeated reports from the same underlying evidence are marked as dependent.
- [ ] Conflicts and uncertainty appear in the draft where a reader needs them.
- [ ] Every keep, rewrite, or remove decision was applied to the reviewed version.

### Signoff

- **Unresolved rows:** [List IDs or write None]
- **Specialist escalation:** [Owner, question, and due date]
- **Final draft version checked:** [Enter version]
- **Approver:** [Enter name]
- **Next evidence review trigger:** [Date, product change, new dataset, other]