Research and Source Management
Evidence Gap Map
Find unsupported sections, weak sources, unresolved contradictions, missing perspectives, and the exact research actions needed to close or disclose them.
Free editable Markdown · Researchers, editors, and analysts ·
Accessible HTML preview
Blank template
The downloaded file contains the same fields in editable Markdown.
Gap record
- Gap ID
- [Stable identifier]
- Draft section
- [Heading or paragraph]
- Exact claim
- [Copy current wording]
- Claim type
- [Definition, fact, number, comparison, cause, prediction, or advice]
- Consequence if wrong
- [Low, medium, or high with reason]
- Current evidence
- [Source IDs or None]
- Gap diagnosis
- [Absent, partial, stale, indirect, conflicting, or out of scope]
- Mismatch
- [Population, period, version, method, geography, or wording]
- Missing perspective
- [Affected or qualified voice, if relevant]
Resolution plan
- Treatment
- [Close, narrow, disclose, restructure, or remove]
- Research action
- [Specific document, calculation, interview, or check]
- Owner
- [Name or team]
- Due date
- [YYYY-MM-DD]
- Revised wording
- [Claim evidence can support]
- Residual uncertainty
- [What remains unknown]
- Approval
- [Reviewer and date]
Final evidence checks
- High-consequence claims were reviewed first.
- Each source supports the exact wording, not just the topic.
- Dates, versions, populations, and units align.
- Conflicting evidence is explained or reflected.
- Missing perspectives are addressed where they affect interpretation.
- Research tasks are specific enough to complete.
- Qualifications remain beside the claims they limit.
- Removed claims are also removed from summaries and metadata.
How to use this template
- Extract material claims and label their type, scope, consequence, and intended level of certainty.
- Connect each claim to existing evidence and diagnose the exact mismatch or absence.
- Check for contradictory sources, missing perspectives, stale versions, and hidden dependencies.
- Choose a treatment—research, narrow, qualify, restructure, or remove—and assign an owner.
- Recheck revised wording against the evidence and carry unresolved limitations into publication review.
Audit claims at the right level
Break the outline or draft into discrete assertions. A paragraph may contain a definition, a historical statement, a number, a causal explanation, and a recommendation that require different support. Record the precise wording and the consequence if it is wrong. Mark evidence as absent, partial, stale, indirect, conflicting, or outside scope rather than using a single “needs source” label. This diagnosis determines the next action and prevents a link from being added merely to make the paragraph look researched.
Test whether evidence fits
Check population, period, geography, version, measurement, and source role. A source may be credible yet unable to support the draft's exact breadth or certainty. Separate primary records, independent context, expert interpretation, and firsthand experience. Look for missing affected perspectives where the content recommends action or describes consequences. Contradictory results are not clutter to remove; compare definitions and methods, then reflect meaningful uncertainty or narrow the conclusion. One precise, suitable source can be stronger than several repetitive summaries.
Close, narrow, disclose, or remove
Every material gap needs a decision. Close it by obtaining suitable evidence; narrow the wording to what existing evidence supports; disclose uncertainty where it is important; or remove the claim when it adds more risk than value. Assign an owner and due date so gaps do not disappear into comments. Record dependencies when one unresolved definition affects several sections. Before approval, an editor should see both the remaining gaps and why the chosen treatment is responsible.
See the fields in context
Fictional example: school garden guide
Lakepath School and its garden survey are invented to demonstrate an evidence-gap decision.
- Claim: “Raised beds always reduce maintenance time for school gardens.”
- Diagnosis: The fictional survey covers four gardens for one season and reports satisfaction, not measured maintenance time.
- Contradiction: An invented facilities interview notes additional repair work in one site.
- Treatment: Remove “always” and the time claim; describe raised beds as one option with access and maintenance tradeoffs.
- Residual gap: Long-term maintenance data is unavailable and is disclosed in the planning section.
Frequently asked questions
Is a missing citation always an evidence gap?
Not necessarily. Common connective or clearly labeled opinion may not need citation, while an uncited consequential claim does. Evaluate verifiability, consequence, and reader expectations.
How should conflicting evidence be scored?
Do not average it into a false consensus. Compare scope and method, document the disagreement, and decide whether the draft should narrow or present uncertainty.
Can internal data close a gap?
It can support an appropriately scoped claim when its origin, method, permissions, and limitations are documented. Do not present internal evidence as independent.
When is removing a claim the best choice?
Remove it when suitable evidence is unavailable, the point is not essential, or qualifications would leave it misleading or unhelpful.