Level 6 · Research preparation · advanced assessment
Claim-to-defense evidence compiler
Compile a dissertation as a network of bounded claims, reproducible artifacts, adversarial tests, and honest residual limitations.
Complete all three challenges. Show assumptions, units, uncertainty, and the boundary between calculation, model-dependent inference, observation, and unresolved claim.
Challenge 1 · derivation
Compile the central claim graph
Express a proposed dissertation contribution as a graph linking premises, methods, artifacts, intermediate results, and bounded conclusions. Reconstruct the strongest central result from the graph and identify single points of failure.
Required deliverables
- • Claim-dependency graph
- • Reconstruction of the central result
- • Single-point-of-failure and limitation register
Scoring criteria · 20 points
- • Claims trace to evidence: 8 points
- • Reconstruction is technically complete: 7 points
- • Failure points and scope are honest: 5 points
Challenge 2 · analysis
Run the robustness matrix
Evaluate the central conclusion across data exclusions, calibration choices, model families, priors or thresholds, and plausible alternative explanations. Distinguish specification sensitivity from genuine contradiction.
Required deliverables
- • Prespecified multiverse or robustness matrix
- • Effect and uncertainty summary across variants
- • Decision table for stable, conditional, or unsupported claims
Scoring criteria · 20 points
- • Variants cover material choices: 7 points
- • Uncertainty and multiplicity addressed: 7 points
- • Claim status follows the matrix: 6 points
Challenge 3 · design
Design the hostile defense and release
Create an adversarial defense protocol in which reviewers challenge provenance, calibration, inference, alternative models, and reproducibility. Pair every challenge with an artifact, bounded response, or planned concession.
Required deliverables
- • Challenge-response matrix
- • Reproducibility and publication package manifest
- • Correction, embargo, and post-publication monitoring rules
Scoring criteria · 20 points
- • Strongest objections are represented fairly: 7 points
- • Responses point to inspectable evidence: 7 points
- • Release and correction rules are operational: 6 points
Instructor solution outlines
Look for reasoning that survives inspection
1. Compile the central claim graph
- • Give every empirical and inferential edge an artifact or explicit assumption.
- • Recompute the central result from archived inputs.
- • Narrow the headline claim if it depends on an untested or nonportable edge.
2. Run the robustness matrix
- • Separate defensible alternatives from arbitrary perturbations.
- • Show the full distribution of results rather than selecting favorable specifications.
- • Carry conditionality into the abstract and public summary when the result is not stable.
3. Design the hostile defense and release
- • Assign reviewers to attack different dependency classes, not just presentation.
- • Permit revise, narrow, or withdraw outcomes rather than forcing defense of every claim.
- • Release data, code, environment, negative results, and limitations to the maximum ethically and legally allowed.