Content Warning: Meta-analysis of research practices around a high-profile criminal case; no graphic content.
1. Problem Statement
Complex, emotionally charged cases attract narrative accretion: unsourced claims, conflated timelines, and misapplied statistical inferences. This article proposes an Epistemic Hygiene Stack to preserve analytic clarity.
2. Failure Modes
| Mode | Description | Effect |
|---|
| Source Dilution | Secondary quoting without original verification | Confidence inflation |
| Temporal Conflation | Events from different years merged | False causal chains |
| Allegation Elevation | Unverified claim treated as established | Distorted prioritization |
| Confirmation Sampling | Selective data inclusion | Biased pattern assertion |
| Over-Extending Statistical Tools | Inference beyond dataset scope | Pseudo-quantification |
3. Epistemic Hygiene Stack
| Layer | Mechanism | Outcome |
|---|
| Source Ledger | Canonical register with classification | Provenance clarity |
| Confidence Tiers | Structured assignment (1–5) | Interpretation discipline |
| Change Log | Versioned updates w/ rationale | Accountability |
| Hypothesis Registry | Pre-declared analytic questions | Bias constraint |
| Retraction Protocol | Formal correction workflow | Trust preservation |
4. Source Classification Schema
| Class | Criteria | Example |
|---|
| Primary Documentary | Official filing / direct artifact | Court docket extract |
| Corroborated Report | 2+ independent reputable outlets | Power-of-attorney scope detail |
| Single-Source Media | One reputable outlet | Specific negotiation date claim |
| Testimonial Allegation | Individual statement | Interview assertion |
| Derived Synthesis | Aggregated analysis | Network structure diagram |
5. Confidence Tiering (Illustrative)
| Tier | Basis | Usage |
|---|
| 5 | Primary + multi-source reinforcement | Anchor fact |
| 4 | Multi reputable sources | Core inference support |
| 3 | Single strong source | Conditional inclusion |
| 2 | Testimonial without doc backing | Flagged provisional |
| 1 | Hypothesis only | Not for inference |
6. Fact vs Narrative Table Template
| Item | Raw Fact Statement | Narrative Layer | Risk |
|---|
| A | Property acquired in Year X (deed) | Strategic expansion phase | Low |
| B | Multiple visits logged (manifest) | Influence cultivation pattern | Medium |
| C | Unverified travel companion claim | Coordinated operation | High |
7. Analytical Workflow
- Intake raw material →
- Normalize & classify →
- Assign confidence tier →
- Map to hypotheses →
- Generate provisional models →
- Peer review challenge session →
- Publish with tier annotations.
8. Retraction / Update Protocol
| Trigger | Action |
|---|
| Source Discredited | Immediate deprecation + note |
| Superior Evidence Emerges | Confidence tier upgrade |
| Ambiguity Introduced | Suspend usage pending review |
| Function | Tool |
|---|
| Ledger Storage | Git repo + structured YAML |
| Change Diffing | Version control hooks |
| Hypothesis Registration | Timestamped markdown index |
| Confidence Assignment | Custom linter enforcing annotation |
| Peer Review | Issue tracker w/ tagging |
10. Cognitive Debiasing Techniques
| Bias | Countermeasure |
|---|
| Anchoring | Present alternative model exercise |
| Availability | Force inclusion of less-cited documents |
| Motivated Reasoning | Assign devil’s advocate role |
| Patternicity | Randomization test for co-occurrence |
11. Quantitative Integrity Checks
| Check | Method |
|---|
| Date Consistency | Temporal sorting anomaly alerts |
| Duplication | Hash-based duplicate detection |
| Attribution Drift | Compare citation chains |
| Confidence Inflation | Distribution monitoring |
12. Publication Annotation Standard
Each analytical paragraph includes inline markers (e.g., [T4], [T2]) referencing confidence tiers; aggregate legend at conclusion.
13. Ethical Boundary Principles
- Avoid identity amplification unless materially necessary.
- Distinguish interpretive framing from established sequence.
- Maintain adversarial scrutiny posture toward favored hypotheses.
14. Peer Review Rubric
| Dimension | Question |
|---|
| Sourcing | Are primary documents directly cited? |
| Tier Discipline | Do claims exceed their tier? |
| Logical Cohesion | Are causal links explicitly supported? |
| Ambiguity Disclosure | Are uncertainties surfaced? |
| Retraction Responsiveness | Are prior corrections traceable? |
15. Key Takeaways
Rigor is procedural, not rhetorical. A transparent epistemic stack constrains narrative drift, preserving analytical credibility in high-scrutiny domains.
16. Forward Development
Prototype an open-source Epistemic Linter that scans markdown for un-tiered claims; integrate into CI pipeline for research publication repositories.