How we review

Evidence needs labels, limits and dates.

A short method for keeping claims inspectable without pretending uncertainty can be compressed into one score.

Evidence classes

We use six controlled classes. Established means broad or replicated evidence supports the core pattern. Supported means credible evidence supports it with meaningful limits. Mixed means important versions, measurements or boundary conditions disagree. Contested means serious unresolved challenges remain. Domain-specific means evidence should not be generalized beyond a narrow task or setting. Concept is used for reviewed terms or measurement ideas that are not standalone bias mechanisms.

What the class does not mean

It is not a numeric truth score, a diagnosis, or a claim that every study agrees. The descriptive evidence status and qualification remain more important than the label.

Source selection

We prefer original studies, systematic or serious narrative reviews, meta-analyses and stable scholarly identifiers. A source is linked to the claim it supports; the project’s interpretation remains separate.

Review dates

Each reviewed entry carries a date. Current, due and stale states are generated from the public freshness policy. A stale review is still visible, but it is not silently presented as newly checked.

Decision Audit

Audit eligibility is independent from evidence class. The tool does not diagnose which bias a person has.

Evidence classes

How to read the evidence labels

These labels are editorial reading aids, not numeric truth scores. The entry-specific evidence status and qualification remain primary: a class summarizes the broad strength and scope of the reviewed literature without erasing boundary conditions, mechanism debates, or uncertainty.

Established

Replicated or broad evidence supports the core pattern, while ordinary boundary conditions and mechanism debates may still remain.

Supported

Credible evidence supports the pattern, but the scope is narrower, the literature is smaller, or important boundary conditions deserve emphasis.

Mixed

Evidence supports some versions of the claim while important measurement, magnitude, mechanism, or interpretation disputes remain.

Contested

The named claim or its popular causal interpretation faces substantial unresolved challenge, alternative explanations, or conflicting evidence.

Domain-specific

Evidence is concentrated in a narrow task, research program, or application domain and should not be generalized as a universal cognitive law.

Reviewed concept

A useful reviewed term, measurement concept, or broader construct that is not one standalone cognitive-bias mechanism.