Level 6 · Research preparation teaching kit · Doctoral and independent-research pathway
DIRD critical-reading seminar
Use the learner record during the live investigation, then use the instructor guide to facilitate comparison, address misconceptions, and assess evidence-bounded reasoning.
Learner lab record
DIRD claim-provenance and forecast audit
Which claims are directly sourced, which are inferences, and which dated forecasts survived contact with later evidence?
Setup
Use the claim graph. Select one central DIRD proposition, trace every dependency to a dated primary source or marked inference, and score one forecast using only evidence available by the declared cutoff.
Predict first
- 1. Predict which dependency would most change the central claim if removed.
- 2. Record a forecast score before reading post-cutoff commentary.
| Variable | Role | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| Claim node and evidence cutoff | audit inputs | identifier and date |
| Source type and dependency path | provenance inputs | category and edges |
| Claim confidence | evaluated output | declared tier |
| Forecast outcome and calibration | dependent audit | score |
Observation columns
Analyze
- 1. Is the commissioned scope distinct from evidentiary support?
- 2. Which edge relies on secondary retelling?
- 3. Did later commentary introduce hindsight drift?
- 4. What adversarial source would most efficiently test the claim?
Conclusion frame
Claim ___ rests on ___ direct sources and ___ inference steps; forecast ___ scored ___ at cutoff ___, so the evidence tier is ___ pending ___.
Instructor guide · 75–100 minutes
Teach the investigation, not the interface
Learning target: Researchers reconstruct provenance, separate source from inference, and score dated forecasts without personality-based deference or hindsight leakage.
Prepare
- • Freeze a document and evidence cutoff.
- • Define direct, inferred, contextual, and contradictory edges.
- • Prepare one missing-primary-source case.
Facilitation moves
- • Ask what the source actually demonstrates.
- • Require dates on forecasts and outcomes.
- • Assign an adversarial reviewer to attack the highest-leverage dependency.
Accessibility and participation
- • Provide the graph as a sortable edge table.
- • Use edge labels and shapes, not color alone.
- • Allow oral provenance defense with a written citation map.
Evidence of learning
- • A complete provenance chain
- • A cutoff-safe forecast score
- • An adversarially revised evidence tier
Misconception checks
A government-commissioned document establishes every claim it discusses.
Commissioning establishes provenance and purpose, not independent experimental confirmation.
A correct later interpretation validates an earlier vague forecast.
Forecast scoring requires preregistered specificity and a fixed evidence cutoff.
Extension
Publish a machine-readable adversarial dossier with disputed edges, source snapshots, and versioned confidence changes.