# Evidence Gap Map

Find unsupported sections, weak sources, unresolved contradictions, missing perspectives, and the exact research actions needed to close or disclose them.

## Usage note

Use this map between outlining and final drafting, then revisit it after substantive edits. It helps teams see where evidence is absent, mismatched, or contested. It does not mean every sentence requires a citation: prioritize claims whose accuracy materially affects understanding or action, while still checking names, numbers, quotations, and other verifiable details.

## How to use this template

1. Extract material claims and label their type, scope, consequence, and intended level of certainty.
2. Connect each claim to existing evidence and diagnose the exact mismatch or absence.
3. Check for contradictory sources, missing perspectives, stale versions, and hidden dependencies.
4. Choose a treatment—research, narrow, qualify, restructure, or remove—and assign an owner.
5. Recheck revised wording against the evidence and carry unresolved limitations into publication review.

## Blank template

### 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.