{ "editorial": { "method": "original_editorial", "review_status": "contract_validated", "source_reuse": false }, "entries": [ { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "Report an empirical association with its population or analytic scope attached.", "disciplines": [ "quantitative_research", "health_sciences", "social_sciences" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "quantitative_empirical", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "describe_association", "id": "RLX-ASC-001", "keywords": [ "association", "correlation", "covariation", "observational result" ], "notes": "Include direction, scale, uncertainty, and adjustment set where relevant.", "placeholders": [ "scope", "estimate", "variable_a", "variable_b" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "analysis output", "association versus causation", "behavioral research", "biomedical writing", "causal overclaim", "correlation is not causation", "correlation wording", "empirical quantitative", "findings", "health research", "non causal link", "relationship between variables", "social research", "statistical analysis" ], "skill_areas": [ "evidential_verbs", "results" ], "stage": "results", "template": "Within {scope}, {estimate} indicates an association between {variable_a} and {variable_b}.", "title": "Report a scoped association", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "Describe an adjusted association without implying that adjustment removes every source of bias.", "disciplines": [ "clinical_research", "quantitative_research", "social_sciences" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "quantitative_empirical", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "describe_association", "id": "RLX-ASC-002", "keywords": [ "adjusted association", "covariates", "multivariable model", "confounding" ], "notes": "Do not replace associated with affected, influenced, or caused.", "placeholders": [ "covariates", "finding", "outcome" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "high", "search_aliases": [ "analysis output", "association versus causation", "behavioral research", "causal overclaim", "clinical study", "correlation is not causation", "correlation wording", "empirical quantitative", "findings", "non causal link", "relationship between variables", "social research", "statistical analysis", "trial reporting" ], "skill_areas": [ "evidential_verbs", "results" ], "stage": "results", "template": "After adjustment for {covariates}, {finding} remained associated with {outcome}.", "title": "Report adjusted association", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "Describe a graded or dose-related observational pattern without assigning a causal mechanism.", "disciplines": [ "sciences", "health_sciences", "quantitative_research" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "experimental_science", "quantitative_empirical" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "describe_association", "id": "RLX-ASC-003", "keywords": [ "dose response pattern", "trend", "graded association", "exposure levels" ], "notes": "A gradient can support but does not alone establish causation.", "placeholders": [ "exposure_levels", "pattern", "outcome" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "high", "search_aliases": [ "analysis output", "association versus causation", "biomedical writing", "causal overclaim", "correlation is not causation", "correlation wording", "empirical quantitative", "experimental research", "findings", "health research", "natural science", "non causal link", "relationship between variables", "statistical analysis" ], "skill_areas": [ "evidential_verbs", "results" ], "stage": "results", "template": "Across {exposure_levels}, {pattern} was observed for {outcome}.", "title": "Report a graded pattern", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "Report predictive improvement against a benchmark without claiming explanation or intervention benefit.", "disciplines": [ "computer_science", "quantitative_research", "clinical_research" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "engineering_computing", "quantitative_empirical" ], "evidence_requirement": "direct", "function": "describe_association", "id": "RLX-ASC-004", "keywords": [ "predictive performance", "benchmark model", "incremental prediction", "not causation" ], "notes": "Name the held-out population, horizon, metric, and uncertainty when available.", "placeholders": [ "evaluation_scope", "estimate", "predictor", "outcome", "benchmark" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "algorithm evaluation", "analysis output", "association versus causation", "causal overclaim", "clinical study", "correlation is not causation", "correlation wording", "empirical quantitative", "findings", "machine learning paper", "non causal link", "relationship between variables", "statistical analysis", "trial reporting" ], "skill_areas": [ "evidential_verbs", "results" ], "stage": "results", "template": "In {evaluation_scope}, {estimate} shows that {predictor} improves prediction of {outcome} relative to {benchmark}.", "title": "Separate prediction from explanation", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Keep a proposition attached to the source that advances it and to its stated boundary.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "attribute_source", "id": "RLX-ATR-001", "keywords": [ "source attribution", "citation boundary", "reported claim", "literature review" ], "notes": "Retain the citation and do not present the attributed claim as an uncontested fact.", "placeholders": [ "source", "claim", "scope" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "according to source", "authors argue", "background literature", "calibrate evidence verb", "citation boundary", "evidential verb strength", "meaning preserving rewrite", "plagiarism safe", "preserve citation", "related work", "structural paraphrase", "suggests indicates supports demonstrates confirms" ], "skill_areas": [ "evidential_verbs", "literature_writing", "paraphrasing" ], "stage": "literature_review", "template": "According to {source}, {claim} within {scope}.", "title": "Attribute a source claim", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Represent a source's interpretation together with the limitation it recognizes.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "attribute_source", "id": "RLX-ATR-002", "keywords": [ "author interpretation", "attribution", "qualified claim", "citation" ], "notes": "Replace source with a grammatical author reference and preserve the citation boundary.", "placeholders": [ "source", "evidence", "claim", "limitation" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "according to source", "authors argue", "background literature", "calibrate evidence verb", "citation boundary", "evidential verb strength", "meaning preserving rewrite", "plagiarism safe", "preserve citation", "related work", "structural paraphrase", "suggests indicates supports demonstrates confirms" ], "skill_areas": [ "evidential_verbs", "literature_writing", "paraphrasing" ], "stage": "literature_review", "template": "{source} interprets {evidence} as support for {claim}, while acknowledging {limitation}.", "title": "Attribute an interpretation", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Introduce a source-specific definition without implying that it is the only accepted usage.", "disciplines": [ "humanities", "law", "social_sciences" ], "domains": [ "humanities_interpretive", "legal_policy", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "attribute_source", "id": "RLX-ATR-003", "keywords": [ "source definition", "concept attribution", "terminology", "citation" ], "notes": "Preserve quotation marks when wording is copied exactly; otherwise paraphrase and cite.", "placeholders": [ "source", "term", "definition" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "according to source", "authors argue", "background literature", "behavioral research", "calibrate evidence verb", "citation boundary", "doctrinal analysis", "evidential verb strength", "interpretive scholarship", "legal scholarship", "meaning preserving rewrite", "plagiarism safe", "preserve citation", "related work", "social research", "structural paraphrase", "suggests indicates supports demonstrates confirms", "textual analysis" ], "skill_areas": [ "evidential_verbs", "literature_writing", "paraphrasing" ], "stage": "literature_review", "template": "As {source} defines it, {term} refers to {definition}.", "title": "Attribute a working definition", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Contrast two attributed positions while preserving ownership of each proposition.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "attribute_source", "id": "RLX-ATR-004", "keywords": [ "compare sources", "attributed positions", "scholarly debate", "citation boundary" ], "notes": "Use parallel descriptions and avoid caricaturing either position.", "placeholders": [ "source_a", "concept", "position_a", "source_b", "position_b" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "according to source", "authors argue", "background literature", "calibrate evidence verb", "citation boundary", "evidential verb strength", "meaning preserving rewrite", "plagiarism safe", "preserve citation", "related work", "structural paraphrase", "suggests indicates supports demonstrates confirms" ], "skill_areas": [ "evidential_verbs", "literature_writing", "paraphrasing" ], "stage": "literature_review", "template": "Where {source_a} treats {concept} as {position_a}, {source_b} treats it as {position_b}.", "title": "Separate source positions", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": true, "claim_strength": "causal", "description": "State a causal effect from a randomized design while retaining its identifying assumptions.", "disciplines": [ "sciences", "health_sciences", "social_sciences" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "experimental_science", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "direct", "function": "causal_claim", "id": "RLX-CAU-001", "keywords": [ "randomized", "causal effect", "changed", "identification" ], "notes": "Report assignment, adherence, estimand, uncertainty, and assumptions relevant to the effect.", "placeholders": [ "evidence", "cause", "outcome", "estimate" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "high", "search_aliases": [ "association versus causation", "behavioral research", "biomedical writing", "causal inference", "causal overclaim", "cause and effect", "correlation is not causation", "experimental research", "health research", "interpretation section", "meaning of findings", "natural science", "social research", "treatment effect" ], "skill_areas": [ "claim_control", "scientific_framing" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "Under the randomized design and stated assumptions, {evidence} indicates that {cause} changed {outcome} by {estimate}.", "title": "Randomized causal effect", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": true, "claim_strength": "causal", "description": "State a quasi-experimental causal estimate conditional on its central identifying assumption.", "disciplines": [ "social_sciences", "health_sciences", "engineering" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "engineering_computing", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "direct", "function": "causal_claim", "id": "RLX-CAU-002", "keywords": [ "quasi-experimental", "identifying assumption", "causal estimate", "effect" ], "notes": "Pair with falsification, balance, sensitivity, or design-specific diagnostic evidence.", "placeholders": [ "identifying_assumption", "estimate", "cause", "outcome" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "high", "search_aliases": [ "association versus causation", "behavioral research", "biomedical writing", "causal inference", "causal overclaim", "cause and effect", "correlation is not causation", "health research", "interpretation section", "meaning of findings", "social research", "system evaluation", "technical design", "treatment effect" ], "skill_areas": [ "claim_control", "scientific_framing" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "If {identifying_assumption} holds, {estimate} estimates the effect of {cause} on {outcome}.", "title": "Quasi-experimental causal estimate", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": true, "claim_strength": "causal", "description": "Express strengthened causal credibility from independent designs or evidence streams.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "convergent", "function": "causal_claim", "id": "RLX-CAU-003", "keywords": [ "causal convergence", "triangulation", "alternative explanation", "credible" ], "notes": "Explain how the evidence streams carry different biases and address the named alternative.", "placeholders": [ "evidence", "cause", "outcome", "alternative" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "high", "search_aliases": [ "association versus causation", "causal inference", "causal overclaim", "cause and effect", "correlation is not causation", "interpretation section", "meaning of findings", "treatment effect" ], "skill_areas": [ "claim_control", "scientific_framing" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "Across {evidence}, the causal interpretation that {cause} affects {outcome} is more credible than {alternative}.", "title": "Convergent causal inference", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": true, "claim_strength": "causal", "description": "Connect an intervention, a measured mechanism, and an outcome under a causal design.", "disciplines": [ "sciences", "engineering", "health_sciences" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "engineering_computing", "experimental_science" ], "evidence_requirement": "direct", "function": "causal_claim", "id": "RLX-CAU-004", "keywords": [ "causal mechanism", "intervention", "mediation", "resulting change" ], "notes": "A mechanism measurement alone does not establish mediation; report the identifying design.", "placeholders": [ "mechanism", "evidence", "outcome" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "high", "search_aliases": [ "association versus causation", "biomedical writing", "causal inference", "causal overclaim", "cause and effect", "correlation is not causation", "experimental research", "health research", "interpretation section", "meaning of findings", "natural science", "system evaluation", "technical design", "treatment effect" ], "skill_areas": [ "claim_control", "scientific_framing" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "The intervention altered {mechanism}, and {evidence} supports a resulting change in {outcome}.", "title": "Mechanism-linked causal claim", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "Compare a shared direction while preserving a meaningful magnitude difference.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "compare_findings", "id": "RLX-CMP-001", "keywords": [ "compare findings", "similarity", "magnitude", "like" ], "notes": "Ensure both results use compatible outcomes, scales, and comparison groups.", "placeholders": [ "source", "finding", "similarity", "difference" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "agreement with prior work", "compare studies", "interpretation section", "meaning of findings", "similar results" ], "skill_areas": [ "literature_writing", "results" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "Like {source}, {finding} shows {similarity}, although the magnitude differs by {difference}.", "title": "Compare direction and magnitude", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Identify a specific dimension on which patterns from two contexts align.", "disciplines": [ "humanities", "social_sciences" ], "domains": [ "humanities_interpretive", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "compare_findings", "id": "RLX-CMP-002", "keywords": [ "parallel", "cross-context", "comparison", "dimension" ], "notes": "Do not imply broader equivalence beyond the named dimension.", "placeholders": [ "context_a", "finding", "context_b", "dimension" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "agreement with prior work", "background literature", "behavioral research", "compare studies", "interpretive scholarship", "related work", "similar results", "social research", "textual analysis" ], "skill_areas": [ "literature_writing", "results" ], "stage": "literature_review", "template": "The pattern in {context_a} parallels {finding} in {context_b} with respect to {dimension}.", "title": "Compare across contexts", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "Highlight outcome agreement across a specified methodological difference.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "convergent", "function": "compare_findings", "id": "RLX-CMP-003", "keywords": [ "method comparison", "agreement", "robustness", "both analyses" ], "notes": "Methodological diversity strengthens convergence only when biases are not shared.", "placeholders": [ "method_difference", "finding" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "agreement with prior work", "compare studies", "interpretation section", "meaning of findings", "similar results" ], "skill_areas": [ "literature_writing", "results" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "Despite using {method_difference}, both analyses produced {finding}.", "title": "Compare methods and outcomes", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Interpret an estimate against an explicit, relevant benchmark.", "disciplines": [ "engineering", "sciences", "health_sciences", "social_sciences" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "engineering_computing", "experimental_science", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "compare_findings", "id": "RLX-CMP-004", "keywords": [ "benchmark", "relative to", "comparison", "estimate" ], "notes": "Justify why the selected benchmark is an appropriate reference point.", "placeholders": [ "benchmark", "estimate", "comparison", "outcome" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "agreement with prior work", "analysis output", "behavioral research", "biomedical writing", "compare studies", "experimental research", "findings", "health research", "natural science", "similar results", "social research", "system evaluation", "technical design" ], "skill_areas": [ "literature_writing", "results" ], "stage": "results", "template": "Relative to {benchmark}, {estimate} represents {comparison} for {outcome}.", "title": "Compare with a benchmark", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "State a contrast while keeping source and present-study contexts visible.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "contrast_findings", "id": "RLX-CON-001", "keywords": [ "whereas", "contrast", "different finding", "scope" ], "notes": "Follow with design or context differences that could explain the contrast.", "placeholders": [ "source", "finding", "result", "scope" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "contrast studies", "different results", "disagree with literature", "interpretation section", "meaning of findings" ], "skill_areas": [ "argumentation", "literature_writing", "results" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "Whereas {source} reports {finding}, the present analysis finds {result} in {scope}.", "title": "Contrast by context", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Contrast how one observation relates to two specified theoretical predictions.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "contrast_findings", "id": "RLX-CON-002", "keywords": [ "theory contrast", "prediction", "aligns", "differs" ], "notes": "State each framework's prediction before judging alignment.", "placeholders": [ "pattern", "framework_a", "framework_b" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "contrast studies", "different results", "disagree with literature", "interpretation section", "meaning of findings" ], "skill_areas": [ "argumentation", "literature_writing", "results" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "{pattern} aligns with {framework_a} but differs from the prediction of {framework_b}.", "title": "Contrast predictions", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "Report a subgroup contrast without assuming the between-group difference is tested.", "disciplines": [ "health_sciences", "social_sciences", "sciences" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "experimental_science", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "direct", "function": "contrast_findings", "id": "RLX-CON-003", "keywords": [ "subgroup", "contrast estimates", "while", "heterogeneity" ], "notes": "Add a formal interaction or contrast test before claiming that effects differ.", "placeholders": [ "group_a", "estimate", "group_b", "pattern" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "analysis output", "behavioral research", "biomedical writing", "contrast studies", "different results", "disagree with literature", "experimental research", "findings", "health research", "natural science", "social research" ], "skill_areas": [ "argumentation", "literature_writing", "results" ], "stage": "results", "template": "The estimate for {group_a} was {estimate}, while the corresponding pattern for {group_b} was {pattern}.", "title": "Contrast subgroup estimates", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Resolve or refine an apparent disagreement by identifying a relevant distinction.", "disciplines": [ "humanities", "social_sciences", "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "contrast_findings", "id": "RLX-CON-004", "keywords": [ "apparent conflict", "distinction", "reconcile", "contradiction" ], "notes": "The distinction should change what each claim entails, not merely rename the disagreement.", "placeholders": [ "source", "finding", "distinction" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "background literature", "behavioral research", "contrast studies", "different results", "disagree with literature", "interpretive scholarship", "related work", "social research", "textual analysis" ], "skill_areas": [ "argumentation", "literature_writing", "results" ], "stage": "literature_review", "template": "The apparent conflict between {source} and {finding} narrows once {distinction} is made explicit.", "title": "Separate apparent contradiction", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "State a contribution through the specific gap, question, and scope it addresses.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "state_contribution", "id": "RLX-CTR-001", "keywords": [ "research contribution", "address gap", "study aim", "scope" ], "notes": "Avoid first or novel unless a transparent search supports the priority claim.", "placeholders": [ "gap", "question", "scope" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "browse manuscript moves", "chapter writing", "opening section", "paper section", "research contribution", "research framing", "thesis contribution", "what study adds" ], "skill_areas": [ "argumentation", "publication", "research_framing", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "introduction", "template": "This study addresses {gap} by examining {question} in {scope}.", "title": "Contribution to a bounded gap", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Describe a method, dataset, framework, or resource contribution without universal superiority claims.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "state_contribution", "id": "RLX-CTR-002", "keywords": [ "methodological contribution", "research resource", "analytic framework", "study value" ], "notes": "State availability, validation, and scope separately when relevant.", "placeholders": [ "resource", "question", "condition" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "browse manuscript moves", "chapter writing", "closing section", "paper section", "research contribution", "takeaway", "thesis contribution", "what study adds" ], "skill_areas": [ "argumentation", "publication", "research_framing", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "conclusion", "template": "The study contributes {resource} for examining {question} under {condition}.", "title": "Methodological contribution", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "State an empirical contribution based on convergent evidence and a named scope.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "convergent", "function": "state_contribution", "id": "RLX-CTR-003", "keywords": [ "empirical contribution", "convergent evidence", "supports claim", "conclusion" ], "notes": "Explain independence and relevance of the evidence streams before invoking convergence.", "placeholders": [ "evidence", "claim", "scope" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "browse manuscript moves", "chapter writing", "closing section", "paper section", "research contribution", "takeaway", "thesis contribution", "what study adds" ], "skill_areas": [ "argumentation", "publication", "research_framing", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "conclusion", "template": "By combining {evidence}, the study provides support for {claim} across {scope}.", "title": "Empirical contribution from convergence", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "State a conceptual contribution as a precise distinction rather than an unsupported novelty claim.", "disciplines": [ "humanities", "law", "social_sciences" ], "domains": [ "humanities_interpretive", "legal_policy", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "state_contribution", "id": "RLX-CTR-004", "keywords": [ "conceptual contribution", "refine concept", "theoretical distinction", "argument" ], "notes": "Show how the distinction changes analysis or interpretation, and cite prior formulations.", "placeholders": [ "concept", "dimension_a", "dimension_b" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "behavioral research", "browse manuscript moves", "chapter writing", "closing section", "doctrinal analysis", "interpretive scholarship", "legal scholarship", "paper section", "research contribution", "social research", "takeaway", "textual analysis", "thesis contribution", "what study adds" ], "skill_areas": [ "argumentation", "publication", "research_framing", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "conclusion", "template": "The analysis refines {concept} by distinguishing {dimension_a} from {dimension_b}.", "title": "Conceptual contribution", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Open a paper by locating a consequential problem inside an explicit setting or population.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "establish_context", "id": "RLX-CTX-001", "keywords": [ "background", "problem statement", "research context", "significance" ], "notes": "Support consequential claims nearby and avoid implying universal importance.", "placeholders": [ "scope", "problem", "stakeholder" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "browse manuscript moves", "chapter writing", "motivate study", "opening section", "paper section", "problem statement", "research background", "research framing" ], "skill_areas": [ "research_framing", "scientific_framing", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "introduction", "template": "Within {scope}, {problem} remains consequential for {stakeholder}.", "title": "Problem within a bounded setting", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Describe a bounded change in the emphasis of a literature without claiming complete consensus.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "establish_context", "id": "RLX-CTX-002", "keywords": [ "literature trend", "scholarly attention", "background", "research landscape" ], "notes": "Define the reviewed literature and time boundary that support the stated shift.", "placeholders": [ "topic", "earlier_focus", "current_focus" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "background literature", "browse manuscript moves", "chapter writing", "motivate study", "paper section", "problem statement", "related work", "research background" ], "skill_areas": [ "research_framing", "scientific_framing", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "literature_review", "template": "Recent work on {topic} has shifted attention from {earlier_focus} toward {current_focus}.", "title": "Shift in scholarly attention", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Introduce an interpretive dispute through the conceptual distinction organizing it.", "disciplines": [ "humanities", "law" ], "domains": [ "humanities_interpretive", "legal_policy" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "establish_context", "id": "RLX-CTX-003", "keywords": [ "conceptual debate", "interpretation", "distinction", "argument framing" ], "notes": "In part prevents the distinction from being presented as the debate's sole dimension.", "placeholders": [ "concept", "distinction" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "browse manuscript moves", "chapter writing", "doctrinal analysis", "interpretive scholarship", "legal scholarship", "motivate study", "opening section", "paper section", "problem statement", "research background", "research framing", "textual analysis" ], "skill_areas": [ "research_framing", "scientific_framing", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "introduction", "template": "Debate about {concept} turns in part on how {distinction} is drawn.", "title": "Frame an interpretive debate", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Frame an engineering or design problem as an explicit trade-off under a real constraint.", "disciplines": [ "engineering", "computer_science" ], "domains": [ "engineering_computing" ], "evidence_requirement": "none", "function": "establish_context", "id": "RLX-CTX-004", "keywords": [ "engineering tradeoff", "design problem", "objectives", "constraint" ], "notes": "Verify that the objectives genuinely conflict in the defined operating context.", "placeholders": [ "system", "objective_a", "objective_b", "constraint" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "algorithm evaluation", "browse manuscript moves", "chapter writing", "machine learning paper", "motivate study", "opening section", "paper section", "problem statement", "research background", "research framing", "system evaluation", "technical design" ], "skill_areas": [ "research_framing", "scientific_framing", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "introduction", "template": "For {system}, the practical challenge is to balance {objective_a} against {objective_b} under {constraint}.", "title": "Frame an engineering trade-off", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Prevent a temporal sequence from being upgraded automatically to a causal relation.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "distinguish_causation", "id": "RLX-DCA-001", "keywords": [ "temporal order", "causal inference", "sequence", "not causation" ], "notes": "State confounding, selection, reverse pathways, or design assumptions relevant to identification.", "placeholders": [ "finding", "cause", "outcome" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "association not causation", "association versus causation", "avoid causal language", "causal caution", "causal overclaim", "correlation is not causation", "interpretation section", "meaning of findings" ], "skill_areas": [ "claim_control" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "Although {finding} establishes temporal order, it does not by itself identify {cause} as a cause of {outcome}.", "title": "Temporal order is not causation", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Tie an observational interpretation to a specific unresolved source of confounding.", "disciplines": [ "clinical_research", "social_sciences", "quantitative_research" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "quantitative_empirical", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "distinguish_causation", "id": "RLX-DCA-002", "keywords": [ "residual confounding", "observational study", "associational estimate", "causal caution" ], "notes": "Do not imply that measured adjustment eliminates unmeasured or poorly measured confounding.", "placeholders": [ "unmeasured_factor", "finding", "estimate" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "association not causation", "association versus causation", "avoid causal language", "behavioral research", "causal caution", "causal overclaim", "clinical study", "correlation is not causation", "empirical quantitative", "interpretation section", "meaning of findings", "social research", "statistical analysis", "trial reporting" ], "skill_areas": [ "claim_control" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "Because {unmeasured_factor} may account for part of {finding}, {estimate} should be interpreted as associational.", "title": "Bound residual confounding", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Separate predictive usefulness from a counterfactual intervention claim.", "disciplines": [ "computer_science", "health_sciences", "quantitative_research" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "engineering_computing", "quantitative_empirical" ], "evidence_requirement": "direct", "function": "distinguish_causation", "id": "RLX-DCA-003", "keywords": [ "prediction versus causation", "intervention effect", "counterfactual", "predictive model" ], "notes": "A causal claim needs an identified intervention, comparator, estimand, and assumptions.", "placeholders": [ "result", "outcome", "predictor" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "algorithm evaluation", "association not causation", "association versus causation", "avoid causal language", "biomedical writing", "causal caution", "causal overclaim", "correlation is not causation", "empirical quantitative", "health research", "interpretation section", "machine learning paper", "meaning of findings", "statistical analysis" ], "skill_areas": [ "claim_control" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "Although {result} improves prediction of {outcome}, it does not show that changing {predictor} would change that outcome.", "title": "Prediction does not imply intervention effect", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Describe mechanism-compatible evidence without declaring a mediated causal pathway.", "disciplines": [ "sciences", "clinical_research", "social_sciences" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "experimental_science", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "distinguish_causation", "id": "RLX-DCA-004", "keywords": [ "mediation caution", "mechanism evidence", "causal pathway", "alternative explanation" ], "notes": "Mechanism measurement and temporal order alone do not identify mediation.", "placeholders": [ "mechanism", "evidence", "alternative" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "high", "search_aliases": [ "association not causation", "association versus causation", "avoid causal language", "behavioral research", "causal caution", "causal overclaim", "clinical study", "correlation is not causation", "experimental research", "interpretation section", "meaning of findings", "natural science", "social research", "trial reporting" ], "skill_areas": [ "claim_control" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "The observed change in {mechanism} is compatible with mediation, but {evidence} does not isolate that pathway from {alternative}.", "title": "Mediation remains unestablished", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "Introduce a quantitative or qualitative result with outcome and scope attached.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "direct", "function": "introduce_evidence", "id": "RLX-EVI-001", "keywords": [ "report result", "measurement", "outcome", "analysis" ], "notes": "Include units, uncertainty, and comparison basis where relevant.", "placeholders": [ "result", "outcome", "scope" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "analysis output", "browse manuscript moves", "calibrate evidence verb", "chapter writing", "evidential verb strength", "findings", "introduce a result", "paper section", "present evidence", "report data", "suggests indicates supports demonstrates confirms" ], "skill_areas": [ "evidential_verbs", "results", "scientific_framing" ], "stage": "results", "template": "The analysis yielded {result} for {outcome} in {scope}.", "title": "Report a measured result", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Attribute evidence and its intended proposition without adopting the source's conclusion automatically.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "introduce_evidence", "id": "RLX-EVI-002", "keywords": [ "source attribution", "evidence", "literature", "proposition" ], "notes": "Use a precise source locator in the citation system required by the venue.", "placeholders": [ "source", "evidence", "proposition" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "background literature", "browse manuscript moves", "calibrate evidence verb", "chapter writing", "evidential verb strength", "introduce a result", "paper section", "present evidence", "related work", "report data", "suggests indicates supports demonstrates confirms" ], "skill_areas": [ "evidential_verbs", "results", "scientific_framing" ], "stage": "literature_review", "template": "In {source}, {evidence} is presented as evidence for {proposition}.", "title": "Attribute source evidence", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "Report a recurring empirical pattern while keeping its domain explicit.", "disciplines": [ "sciences", "social_sciences", "health_sciences" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "experimental_science", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "introduce_evidence", "id": "RLX-EVI-003", "keywords": [ "observed pattern", "across cases", "empirical", "results" ], "notes": "Describe exceptions or heterogeneity immediately after the broad pattern when material.", "placeholders": [ "scope", "pattern" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "analysis output", "behavioral research", "biomedical writing", "browse manuscript moves", "calibrate evidence verb", "chapter writing", "evidential verb strength", "experimental research", "findings", "health research", "introduce a result", "natural science", "paper section", "present evidence", "report data", "social research", "suggests indicates supports demonstrates confirms" ], "skill_areas": [ "evidential_verbs", "results", "scientific_framing" ], "stage": "results", "template": "Across {scope}, the observed pattern was {pattern}.", "title": "Present an observed pattern", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "Report a point estimate together with its stated uncertainty interval.", "disciplines": [ "sciences", "engineering", "health_sciences", "social_sciences" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "engineering_computing", "experimental_science", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "direct", "function": "introduce_evidence", "id": "RLX-EVI-004", "keywords": [ "estimate", "confidence interval", "uncertainty", "precision" ], "notes": "Name the interval type and level in nearby text or notation.", "placeholders": [ "estimate", "interval" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "analysis output", "behavioral research", "biomedical writing", "browse manuscript moves", "calibrate evidence verb", "chapter writing", "evidential verb strength", "experimental research", "findings", "health research", "introduce a result", "natural science", "paper section", "present evidence", "report data", "social research", "suggests indicates supports demonstrates confirms", "system evaluation", "technical design" ], "skill_areas": [ "evidential_verbs", "results", "scientific_framing" ], "stage": "results", "template": "The estimate was {estimate}, with an uncertainty interval of {interval}.", "title": "Introduce an uncertainty interval", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Identify a specific evidence gap without claiming that no work exists.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "identify_gap", "id": "RLX-GAP-001", "keywords": [ "research gap", "limited evidence", "unresolved question", "scope" ], "notes": "Support the gap with a transparent search or review boundary.", "placeholders": [ "evidence", "question", "scope" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "knowledge deficit", "opening section", "research framing", "research gap", "unanswered question" ], "skill_areas": [ "literature_writing", "research_framing" ], "stage": "introduction", "template": "The available {evidence} remains limited for {question} in {scope}.", "title": "Bounded empirical gap", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Separate evidence for an observed pattern from uncertainty about its mechanism.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "identify_gap", "id": "RLX-GAP-002", "keywords": [ "mechanism gap", "remains unresolved", "prior findings", "outcome" ], "notes": "Do not imply that a mechanism is absent merely because it has not been established.", "placeholders": [ "pattern", "outcome" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "knowledge deficit", "opening section", "research framing", "research gap", "unanswered question" ], "skill_areas": [ "literature_writing", "research_framing" ], "stage": "introduction", "template": "Prior findings describe {pattern}, but the mechanism linking it to {outcome} remains unresolved.", "title": "Unresolved mechanism gap", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Identify a construct or measurement dimension that current instruments underrepresent.", "disciplines": [ "social_sciences", "health_sciences", "engineering" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "engineering_computing", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "identify_gap", "id": "RLX-GAP-003", "keywords": [ "measurement gap", "construct validity", "limited evidence", "dimension" ], "notes": "Ground the distinction between dimensions in theory or validation evidence.", "placeholders": [ "covered_dimension", "missing_dimension" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "background literature", "behavioral research", "biomedical writing", "health research", "knowledge deficit", "related work", "research gap", "social research", "system evaluation", "technical design", "unanswered question" ], "skill_areas": [ "literature_writing", "research_framing" ], "stage": "literature_review", "template": "Existing measures capture {covered_dimension}, yet provide limited evidence about {missing_dimension}.", "title": "Measurement gap", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Frame an open generalizability question as a change in a named condition.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "identify_gap", "id": "RLX-GAP-004", "keywords": [ "boundary condition", "not yet clear", "generalizability", "open question" ], "notes": "Choose a condition with a reasoned basis for effect modification.", "placeholders": [ "finding", "condition" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "knowledge deficit", "opening section", "research framing", "research gap", "unanswered question" ], "skill_areas": [ "literature_writing", "research_framing" ], "stage": "introduction", "template": "It is not yet clear whether {finding} holds when {condition} changes.", "title": "Boundary-condition gap", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "Interpret a finding as support for a claim inside a named boundary.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "direct", "function": "interpret_evidence", "id": "RLX-INT-001", "keywords": [ "interpret finding", "indicates", "scope", "discussion" ], "notes": "Use indicates only when the design directly bears on the claim; otherwise select a tentative template.", "placeholders": [ "scope", "finding", "claim" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "browse manuscript moves", "calibrate evidence verb", "chapter writing", "evidential verb strength", "explain a finding", "interpret data", "interpretation section", "meaning of findings", "meaning of results", "paper section", "suggests indicates supports demonstrates confirms" ], "skill_areas": [ "argumentation", "discussion", "evidential_verbs" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "Within {scope}, {finding} indicates that {claim}.", "title": "Bounded evidence interpretation", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Offer a tentative mechanism that could account for an observed finding.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "interpret_evidence", "id": "RLX-INT-002", "keywords": [ "mechanism", "one interpretation", "may shape", "finding" ], "notes": "Present competing mechanisms when the evidence cannot discriminate among them.", "placeholders": [ "finding", "mechanism", "outcome" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "browse manuscript moves", "calibrate evidence verb", "chapter writing", "evidential verb strength", "explain a finding", "interpret data", "interpretation section", "meaning of findings", "meaning of results", "paper section", "suggests indicates supports demonstrates confirms" ], "skill_areas": [ "argumentation", "discussion", "evidential_verbs" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "One interpretation of {finding} is that {mechanism} may shape {outcome}.", "title": "Mechanism-compatible interpretation", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Translate an estimate into a decision-relevant magnitude for a named stakeholder.", "disciplines": [ "engineering", "health_sciences", "social_sciences" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "engineering_computing", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "interpret_evidence", "id": "RLX-INT-003", "keywords": [ "practical significance", "magnitude", "stakeholder", "estimate" ], "notes": "Keep the translation numerically traceable and separate it from value judgments.", "placeholders": [ "estimate", "real_world_meaning", "stakeholder" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "behavioral research", "biomedical writing", "browse manuscript moves", "calibrate evidence verb", "chapter writing", "evidential verb strength", "explain a finding", "health research", "interpret data", "interpretation section", "meaning of findings", "meaning of results", "paper section", "social research", "suggests indicates supports demonstrates confirms", "system evaluation", "technical design" ], "skill_areas": [ "argumentation", "discussion", "evidential_verbs" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "In practical terms, {estimate} corresponds to {real_world_meaning} for {stakeholder}.", "title": "Practical magnitude interpretation", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Interpret an inconclusive result without equating non-significance with equivalence.", "disciplines": [ "sciences", "health_sciences", "social_sciences" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "experimental_science", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "direct", "function": "interpret_evidence", "id": "RLX-INT-004", "keywords": [ "inconclusive", "imprecision", "null result", "does not distinguish" ], "notes": "State the precision criterion or interval that leaves both possibilities open.", "placeholders": [ "result", "possibility_a", "possibility_b" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "behavioral research", "biomedical writing", "browse manuscript moves", "calibrate evidence verb", "chapter writing", "evidential verb strength", "experimental research", "explain a finding", "health research", "interpret data", "interpretation section", "meaning of findings", "meaning of results", "natural science", "paper section", "social research", "suggests indicates supports demonstrates confirms" ], "skill_areas": [ "argumentation", "discussion", "evidential_verbs" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "Because {result} remains imprecise, the evidence does not distinguish between {possibility_a} and {possibility_b}.", "title": "Null-compatible interpretation", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Justify a method through its fit with the research question and unit of analysis.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "justify_method", "id": "RLX-JUS-001", "keywords": [ "method rationale", "research question", "unit of analysis", "methodological fit" ], "notes": "Directly addresses means fit to the question, not proof that the method is uniquely best.", "placeholders": [ "method", "question", "unit" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "design choice", "materials and methods", "method rationale", "methodology", "why this method" ], "skill_areas": [ "methods", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "methods", "template": "We chose {method} because it directly addresses {question} at the level of {unit}.", "title": "Align method with question", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Explain the complementary contribution of two methods without assuming convergence in advance.", "disciplines": [ "qualitative_research", "social_sciences", "health_sciences" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "qualitative_inquiry", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "justify_method", "id": "RLX-JUS-002", "keywords": [ "mixed methods", "triangulation", "complementary methods", "design rationale" ], "notes": "Do not claim validation merely because two methods were used.", "placeholders": [ "method_a", "method_b", "aspect_a", "aspect_b" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "behavioral research", "biomedical writing", "design choice", "health research", "interviews", "materials and methods", "method rationale", "methodology", "social research", "thematic analysis", "why this method" ], "skill_areas": [ "methods", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "methods", "template": "Combining {method_a} with {method_b} allows {aspect_a} and {aspect_b} to be examined separately.", "title": "Justify triangulation", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Connect a sensitivity analysis to the assumption or analytic choice it probes.", "disciplines": [ "quantitative_research", "sciences", "clinical_research" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "experimental_science", "quantitative_empirical" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "justify_method", "id": "RLX-JUS-003", "keywords": [ "sensitivity analysis", "robustness check", "assumption", "analytic choice" ], "notes": "Specify the plausible range and why it addresses the relevant uncertainty.", "placeholders": [ "assumption", "claim", "uncertain_choice" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "clinical study", "design choice", "empirical quantitative", "experimental research", "materials and methods", "method rationale", "methodology", "natural science", "statistical analysis", "trial reporting", "why this method" ], "skill_areas": [ "methods", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "methods", "template": "We varied {assumption} to assess whether {claim} depended on {uncertain_choice}.", "title": "Justify sensitivity analysis", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Explain how a corpus boundary enables a valid or interpretable comparison.", "disciplines": [ "humanities", "law", "qualitative_research" ], "domains": [ "humanities_interpretive", "legal_policy", "qualitative_inquiry" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "justify_method", "id": "RLX-JUS-004", "keywords": [ "corpus selection", "inclusion rationale", "comparability", "source boundaries" ], "notes": "Also disclose what the boundary excludes and how that limits interpretation.", "placeholders": [ "scope", "feature", "shared_condition" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "design choice", "doctrinal analysis", "interpretive scholarship", "interviews", "legal scholarship", "materials and methods", "method rationale", "methodology", "textual analysis", "thematic analysis", "why this method" ], "skill_areas": [ "methods", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "methods", "template": "The corpus was limited to {scope} so that {feature} could be compared under {shared_condition}.", "title": "Justify corpus boundaries", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Connect a sampling boundary directly to the supported target population.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "state_limitation", "id": "RLX-LIM-001", "keywords": [ "sampling limitation", "generalize", "excluded group", "scope" ], "notes": "Avoid implying how the result would change in the excluded group without evidence.", "placeholders": [ "excluded_group", "finding", "scope" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "boundary of inference", "caveat", "interpretation section", "meaning of findings", "study weakness" ], "skill_areas": [ "claim_control", "discussion", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "Because the sample excludes {excluded_group}, {finding} should be generalized only to {scope}.", "title": "Sampling limitation", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Specify which construct dimension a measure captures and what it may miss.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "state_limitation", "id": "RLX-LIM-002", "keywords": [ "measurement limitation", "indicator", "construct", "omit" ], "notes": "Describe likely direction of bias only when supported.", "placeholders": [ "construct", "indicator", "uncaptured_dimension" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "boundary of inference", "caveat", "interpretation section", "meaning of findings", "study weakness" ], "skill_areas": [ "claim_control", "discussion", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "The measure captures {construct} through {indicator}, which may omit {uncaptured_dimension}.", "title": "Measurement limitation", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Explain why a design cannot support causal interpretation of a finding.", "disciplines": [ "sciences", "health_sciences", "social_sciences" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "experimental_science", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "state_limitation", "id": "RLX-LIM-003", "keywords": [ "causal limitation", "confounding", "design", "not causal" ], "notes": "Name the specific alternative causal pathway or bias left open.", "placeholders": [ "design_feature", "alternative", "finding" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "behavioral research", "biomedical writing", "boundary of inference", "caveat", "experimental research", "health research", "interpretation section", "meaning of findings", "natural science", "social research", "study weakness" ], "skill_areas": [ "claim_control", "discussion", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "Since {design_feature} does not rule out {alternative}, {finding} should not be read as causal evidence.", "title": "Design limitation on causality", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Tie limited precision to the range of interpretations still supported.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "direct", "function": "state_limitation", "id": "RLX-LIM-004", "keywords": [ "precision limitation", "wide uncertainty", "compatible", "estimate" ], "notes": "Report the interval or sensitivity range that motivates the statement.", "placeholders": [ "estimate", "interpretation_a", "interpretation_b", "result" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "boundary of inference", "caveat", "interpretation section", "meaning of findings", "study weakness" ], "skill_areas": [ "claim_control", "discussion", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "The wide uncertainty around {estimate} leaves both {interpretation_a} and {interpretation_b} compatible with {result}.", "title": "Precision limitation", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Report the target group, sampling approach, and collection period without implying representativeness.", "disciplines": [ "quantitative_research", "clinical_research", "social_sciences" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "quantitative_empirical", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "none", "function": "describe_method", "id": "RLX-MET-001", "keywords": [ "sampling", "participants", "recruitment", "study population" ], "notes": "Describe eligibility, exclusions, recruitment, and response where relevant.", "placeholders": [ "population", "sampling_method", "period" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "behavioral research", "browse manuscript moves", "chapter writing", "clinical study", "describe analysis", "empirical quantitative", "materials and methods", "methodology", "methodology wording", "paper section", "report procedure", "social research", "statistical analysis", "trial reporting" ], "skill_areas": [ "methods", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "methods", "template": "We selected {population} using {sampling_method} during {period}.", "title": "Describe sample selection", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "State a quantitative model, outcome, and predictor set while marking prespecification accurately.", "disciplines": [ "quantitative_research", "sciences", "health_sciences" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "experimental_science", "quantitative_empirical" ], "evidence_requirement": "none", "function": "describe_method", "id": "RLX-MET-002", "keywords": [ "statistical model", "outcome variable", "predictors", "analysis plan" ], "notes": "Remove prespecified unless the predictor set was fixed before the relevant analysis.", "placeholders": [ "model", "outcome", "predictors" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "biomedical writing", "browse manuscript moves", "chapter writing", "describe analysis", "empirical quantitative", "experimental research", "health research", "materials and methods", "methodology", "methodology wording", "natural science", "paper section", "report procedure", "statistical analysis" ], "skill_areas": [ "methods", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "methods", "template": "We estimated {model} with {outcome} as the outcome and {predictors} as prespecified predictors.", "title": "Describe a quantitative model", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Report qualitative material, analytic approach, and the iterative development of interpretation.", "disciplines": [ "qualitative_research", "humanities", "social_sciences" ], "domains": [ "humanities_interpretive", "qualitative_inquiry", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "none", "function": "describe_method", "id": "RLX-MET-003", "keywords": [ "qualitative analysis", "coding", "thematic analysis", "interpretive method" ], "notes": "Describe researcher roles, reflexivity, disagreement handling, and software where relevant.", "placeholders": [ "material", "analytic_approach", "coding_framework" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "behavioral research", "browse manuscript moves", "chapter writing", "describe analysis", "interpretive scholarship", "interviews", "materials and methods", "methodology", "methodology wording", "paper section", "report procedure", "social research", "textual analysis", "thematic analysis" ], "skill_areas": [ "methods", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "methods", "template": "We analyzed {material} using {analytic_approach}, iteratively refining {coding_framework}.", "title": "Describe qualitative analysis", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Report the evaluated system, comparison benchmark, metric, and operating condition.", "disciplines": [ "engineering", "computer_science" ], "domains": [ "engineering_computing" ], "evidence_requirement": "none", "function": "describe_method", "id": "RLX-MET-004", "keywords": [ "system evaluation", "benchmark", "performance metric", "experimental setup" ], "notes": "State dataset partitions, repetitions, hardware, and uncertainty when they affect comparability.", "placeholders": [ "system", "benchmark", "metric", "condition" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "algorithm evaluation", "browse manuscript moves", "chapter writing", "describe analysis", "machine learning paper", "materials and methods", "methodology", "methodology wording", "paper section", "report procedure", "system evaluation", "technical design" ], "skill_areas": [ "methods", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "methods", "template": "We evaluated {system} against {benchmark} using {metric} under {condition}.", "title": "Describe system evaluation", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Report a threshold-based null result while retaining what the uncertainty interval permits.", "disciplines": [ "quantitative_research", "clinical_research", "sciences" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "experimental_science", "quantitative_empirical" ], "evidence_requirement": "direct", "function": "report_null_result", "id": "RLX-NUL-001", "keywords": [ "non-significant result", "null finding", "confidence interval", "absence of evidence" ], "notes": "Give the estimate, interval, threshold, and analysis context; do not conclude no effect.", "placeholders": [ "outcome", "result", "decision_threshold", "possibility" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "absence of evidence", "analysis output", "clinical study", "empirical quantitative", "equivalence", "evidence of absence", "experimental research", "findings", "inconclusive result", "natural science", "no detected difference", "non significance", "non significant finding", "statistical analysis", "trial reporting" ], "skill_areas": [ "claim_control", "results", "scientific_framing" ], "stage": "results", "template": "For {outcome}, {result} did not meet {decision_threshold}; the interval remained compatible with {possibility}.", "title": "Report threshold and interval", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "State an equivalence conclusion only from an analysis and margin designed for that purpose.", "disciplines": [ "clinical_research", "quantitative_research", "engineering" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "engineering_computing", "quantitative_empirical" ], "evidence_requirement": "direct", "function": "report_null_result", "id": "RLX-NUL-002", "keywords": [ "equivalence test", "non-inferiority", "equivalence margin", "evidence of absence" ], "notes": "Use only when the margin was justified and the analysis satisfies its assumptions.", "placeholders": [ "result", "margin" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "high", "search_aliases": [ "absence of evidence", "analysis output", "clinical study", "empirical quantitative", "equivalence", "evidence of absence", "findings", "inconclusive result", "no detected difference", "non significance", "non significant finding", "statistical analysis", "system evaluation", "technical design", "trial reporting" ], "skill_areas": [ "claim_control", "results", "scientific_framing" ], "stage": "results", "template": "The equivalence analysis yielded {result}, supporting equivalence within the prespecified margin of {margin}.", "title": "Report equivalence result", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Explain that an estimate leaves a substantive question unresolved because precision is limited.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "direct", "function": "report_null_result", "id": "RLX-NUL-003", "keywords": [ "imprecise estimate", "inconclusive result", "uncertainty", "null interpretation" ], "notes": "State the interval or sensitivity range showing why the question remains unresolved.", "placeholders": [ "scope", "estimate", "claim" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "absence of evidence", "equivalence", "evidence of absence", "inconclusive result", "interpretation section", "meaning of findings", "no detected difference", "non significance", "non significant finding" ], "skill_areas": [ "claim_control", "results", "scientific_framing" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "Across {scope}, {estimate} was too imprecise to resolve whether {claim}.", "title": "Report unresolved imprecision", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Report that an event was not observed while preventing an unsupported universal absence claim.", "disciplines": [ "qualitative_research", "sciences", "humanities" ], "domains": [ "experimental_science", "humanities_interpretive", "qualitative_inquiry" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "report_null_result", "id": "RLX-NUL-004", "keywords": [ "no observed cases", "absence claim", "bounded observation", "negative evidence" ], "notes": "Consider detection limits, sample size, search strategy, and opportunities for observation.", "placeholders": [ "phenomenon", "scope", "result" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "absence of evidence", "analysis output", "equivalence", "evidence of absence", "experimental research", "findings", "inconclusive result", "interpretive scholarship", "interviews", "natural science", "no detected difference", "non significance", "non significant finding", "textual analysis", "thematic analysis" ], "skill_areas": [ "claim_control", "results", "scientific_framing" ], "stage": "results", "template": "No instances of {phenomenon} were observed in {scope}; this {result} does not establish absence beyond that scope.", "title": "Bound an absence observation", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Signal that a source proposition is being paraphrased and connected to the current argument.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "paraphrase_with_attribution", "id": "RLX-PAR-001", "keywords": [ "responsible paraphrase", "source proposition", "attribution", "citation duty" ], "notes": "Draft independently from semantic notes, preserve the citation, and avoid close structural imitation.", "placeholders": [ "source", "claim", "current_focus" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "avoid patchwriting", "background literature", "ethical paraphrase", "meaning preserving rewrite", "plagiarism safe", "preserve citation", "related work", "rewrite source with citation", "structural paraphrase" ], "skill_areas": [ "paraphrasing" ], "stage": "literature_review", "template": "{source} argues that {claim}; here, that position is restated in relation to {current_focus}.", "title": "Restate a source proposition", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Retain attribution when a current argument adopts or develops a source's conceptual distinction.", "disciplines": [ "humanities", "law", "social_sciences" ], "domains": [ "humanities_interpretive", "legal_policy", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "paraphrase_with_attribution", "id": "RLX-PAR-002", "keywords": [ "conceptual paraphrase", "building on", "source distinction", "academic integrity" ], "notes": "Clarify which part comes from the source and which part is the current writer's development.", "placeholders": [ "source", "concept_a", "concept_b" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "avoid patchwriting", "background literature", "behavioral research", "doctrinal analysis", "ethical paraphrase", "interpretive scholarship", "legal scholarship", "meaning preserving rewrite", "plagiarism safe", "preserve citation", "related work", "rewrite source with citation", "social research", "structural paraphrase", "textual analysis" ], "skill_areas": [ "paraphrasing" ], "stage": "literature_review", "template": "Building on {source}, the present account distinguishes {concept_a} from {concept_b}.", "title": "Build on an attributed distinction", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Provide an attributed summary of a source's mechanism without adopting it as established fact.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "paraphrase_with_attribution", "id": "RLX-PAR-003", "keywords": [ "source summary", "mechanism paraphrase", "citation", "meaning preservation" ], "notes": "Preserve qualifications and causal status; quote instead if distinctive wording is indispensable.", "placeholders": [ "source", "summary" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "avoid patchwriting", "background literature", "ethical paraphrase", "meaning preserving rewrite", "plagiarism safe", "preserve citation", "related work", "rewrite source with citation", "structural paraphrase" ], "skill_areas": [ "paraphrasing" ], "stage": "literature_review", "template": "The mechanism proposed in {source} can be summarized as {summary}.", "title": "Summarize a proposed mechanism", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Make explicit that expression changes while the attributed proposition remains source-dependent.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "paraphrase_with_attribution", "id": "RLX-PAR-004", "keywords": [ "structural paraphrase", "not synonym spinning", "proposition preservation", "attribution" ], "notes": "This pattern does not remove citation duties and should not be used to disguise copied expression.", "placeholders": [ "source", "claim" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "avoid patchwriting", "background literature", "ethical paraphrase", "meaning preserving rewrite", "plagiarism safe", "preserve citation", "related work", "rewrite source with citation", "structural paraphrase" ], "skill_areas": [ "paraphrasing" ], "stage": "literature_review", "template": "Without reproducing {source}'s wording, this account retains its proposition that {claim}.", "title": "Mark proposition preservation", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "State the central position while naming the boundary within which it applies.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "position_claim", "id": "RLX-POS-001", "keywords": [ "argument", "central claim", "thesis", "scope" ], "notes": "Replace scope with a population, setting, corpus, period, or analytic boundary.", "placeholders": [ "claim", "scope" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "main argument", "opening section", "research framing", "take a position", "thesis statement" ], "skill_areas": [ "argumentation", "research_framing" ], "stage": "introduction", "template": "This study argues that {claim} within {scope}.", "title": "Direct scoped position", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "Choose a bounded position after presenting a relevant empirical finding.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "position_claim", "id": "RLX-POS-002", "keywords": [ "defensible interpretation", "position", "finding", "argument" ], "notes": "The claim must remain within what the stated finding can distinguish.", "placeholders": [ "finding", "claim" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "interpretation section", "main argument", "meaning of findings", "take a position", "thesis statement" ], "skill_areas": [ "argumentation", "research_framing" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "Given {finding}, the more defensible interpretation is that {claim}.", "title": "Position from observed result", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Locate a proposition inside a named theoretical or conceptual framework.", "disciplines": [ "humanities", "social_sciences" ], "domains": [ "humanities_interpretive", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "position_claim", "id": "RLX-POS-003", "keywords": [ "framework", "analytic lens", "proposition", "theory" ], "notes": "Clarify whether the framework guides interpretation or is itself being tested.", "placeholders": [ "framework", "claim" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "background literature", "behavioral research", "interpretive scholarship", "main argument", "related work", "social research", "take a position", "textual analysis", "thesis statement" ], "skill_areas": [ "argumentation", "research_framing" ], "stage": "literature_review", "template": "Using {framework} as the analytic lens, we propose that {claim}.", "title": "Theory-guided proposition", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "State a position supported by multiple independent and mutually relevant lines of evidence.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "convergent", "function": "position_claim", "id": "RLX-POS-004", "keywords": [ "taken together", "convergent evidence", "position", "conclusion" ], "notes": "Name the independent lines of evidence instead of using convergence as decoration.", "placeholders": [ "evidence", "claim" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "closing section", "main argument", "take a position", "takeaway", "thesis statement" ], "skill_areas": [ "argumentation", "research_framing" ], "stage": "conclusion", "template": "Taken together, {evidence} supports the position that {claim}.", "title": "Convergent position", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "Report a recurring pattern across qualitative materials while retaining its evidential source.", "disciplines": [ "qualitative_research", "social_sciences", "health_sciences" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "qualitative_inquiry", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "interpret_qualitative_evidence", "id": "RLX-QLT-001", "keywords": [ "qualitative theme", "recurring pattern", "participant accounts", "findings" ], "notes": "Describe variation and show how the pattern was developed from the material.", "placeholders": [ "source", "pattern", "experience" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "analysis output", "behavioral research", "biomedical writing", "deviant case", "findings", "health research", "interpret interview theme", "interviews", "qualitative finding", "social research", "thematic analysis" ], "skill_areas": [ "discussion" ], "stage": "results", "template": "Across {source}, {pattern} recurred in accounts of {experience}.", "title": "Interpret a recurring qualitative pattern", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Interpret a common qualitative finding while preserving a counterexample or deviant case.", "disciplines": [ "qualitative_research", "humanities", "social_sciences" ], "domains": [ "humanities_interpretive", "qualitative_inquiry", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "interpret_qualitative_evidence", "id": "RLX-QLT-002", "keywords": [ "deviant case", "qualitative variation", "counterexample", "non-uniform pattern" ], "notes": "Do not reduce frequency to prevalence unless the design supports quantitative inference.", "placeholders": [ "finding", "counterexample", "scope" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "analysis output", "behavioral research", "deviant case", "findings", "interpret interview theme", "interpretive scholarship", "interviews", "qualitative finding", "social research", "textual analysis", "thematic analysis" ], "skill_areas": [ "discussion" ], "stage": "results", "template": "{finding} was common, but {counterexample} shows that it was not uniform across {scope}.", "title": "Retain a deviant case", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Offer an interpretation grounded in qualitative evidence while keeping an alternative account live.", "disciplines": [ "qualitative_research", "humanities", "social_sciences" ], "domains": [ "humanities_interpretive", "qualitative_inquiry", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "interpret_qualitative_evidence", "id": "RLX-QLT-003", "keywords": [ "qualitative interpretation", "alternative account", "suggests", "interpretive caution" ], "notes": "Make the link between evidence and interpretation explicit rather than relying on suggests alone.", "placeholders": [ "evidence", "claim", "alternative" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "behavioral research", "deviant case", "interpret interview theme", "interpretation section", "interpretive scholarship", "interviews", "meaning of findings", "qualitative finding", "social research", "textual analysis", "thematic analysis" ], "skill_areas": [ "discussion" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "{evidence} suggests {claim}, although {alternative} remains plausible.", "title": "Offer a bounded qualitative interpretation", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Connect researcher position or access to a bounded interpretation of qualitative material.", "disciplines": [ "qualitative_research", "humanities", "social_sciences" ], "domains": [ "humanities_interpretive", "qualitative_inquiry", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "interpret_qualitative_evidence", "id": "RLX-QLT-004", "keywords": [ "reflexivity", "researcher position", "qualitative scope", "interpretation" ], "notes": "Be specific about access, relationship, or analytic standpoint; avoid generic reflexivity claims.", "placeholders": [ "researcher_position", "material", "finding", "scope" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "behavioral research", "deviant case", "interpret interview theme", "interpretation section", "interpretive scholarship", "interviews", "meaning of findings", "qualitative finding", "social research", "textual analysis", "thematic analysis" ], "skill_areas": [ "discussion" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "Because {researcher_position} shaped access to {material}, {finding} is interpreted within {scope}.", "title": "Locate interpretation reflexively", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Mark an interpretation as plausible while explicitly withholding certainty.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "qualify_claim", "id": "RLX-QUA-001", "keywords": [ "qualify", "suggests", "uncertainty", "does not establish" ], "notes": "Keep evidence wording concrete nearby; this sentence is not a substitute for describing it.", "placeholders": [ "evidence", "claim" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "absence of evidence", "add caution", "association versus causation", "calibrate evidence verb", "causal overclaim", "correlation is not causation", "equivalence", "evidence of absence", "evidential verb strength", "hedge a claim", "interpretation section", "limit certainty", "meaning of findings", "non significance", "suggests indicates supports demonstrates confirms" ], "skill_areas": [ "argumentation", "claim_control", "discussion", "publication" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "The available evidence, {evidence}, suggests but does not establish that {claim}.", "title": "Confidence qualifier", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Prevent overgeneralization by naming both the supported scope and an excluded context.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "qualify_claim", "id": "RLX-QUA-002", "keywords": [ "boundary", "generalizability", "limited to", "scope" ], "notes": "Choose an excluded context that differs on a theoretically relevant dimension.", "placeholders": [ "scope", "excluded_context" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "absence of evidence", "add caution", "association versus causation", "calibrate evidence verb", "causal overclaim", "correlation is not causation", "equivalence", "evidence of absence", "evidential verb strength", "hedge a claim", "interpretation section", "limit certainty", "meaning of findings", "non significance", "suggests indicates supports demonstrates confirms" ], "skill_areas": [ "argumentation", "claim_control", "discussion", "publication" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "This claim is limited to {scope} and may not extend to {excluded_context}.", "title": "Boundary qualifier", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Make the premise needed for an empirical interpretation visible.", "disciplines": [ "sciences", "engineering", "social_sciences" ], "domains": [ "engineering_computing", "experimental_science", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "qualify_claim", "id": "RLX-QUA-003", "keywords": [ "conditional", "consistent with", "assumption", "interpretation" ], "notes": "State a checkable condition; avoid conditions that merely restate the claim.", "placeholders": [ "condition", "finding", "claim" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "absence of evidence", "add caution", "association versus causation", "behavioral research", "calibrate evidence verb", "causal overclaim", "correlation is not causation", "equivalence", "evidence of absence", "evidential verb strength", "experimental research", "hedge a claim", "interpretation section", "limit certainty", "meaning of findings", "natural science", "non significance", "social research", "suggests indicates supports demonstrates confirms", "system evaluation", "technical design" ], "skill_areas": [ "argumentation", "claim_control", "discussion", "publication" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "If {condition} holds, {finding} is consistent with {claim}.", "title": "Conditional interpretation", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Acknowledge a live alternative explanation when evidence is not uniquely diagnostic.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "qualify_claim", "id": "RLX-QUA-004", "keywords": [ "alternative explanation", "compatible", "qualifier", "non-unique" ], "notes": "Use only when the alternative could plausibly generate the stated finding.", "placeholders": [ "finding", "claim", "alternative" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "absence of evidence", "add caution", "association versus causation", "calibrate evidence verb", "causal overclaim", "correlation is not causation", "equivalence", "evidence of absence", "evidential verb strength", "hedge a claim", "interpretation section", "limit certainty", "meaning of findings", "non significance", "suggests indicates supports demonstrates confirms" ], "skill_areas": [ "argumentation", "claim_control", "discussion", "publication" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "Although {finding} supports {claim}, it remains compatible with {alternative}.", "title": "Alternative-compatible claim", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Turn a bounded research gap into a specific, testable next study.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "recommend_action", "id": "RLX-REC-001", "keywords": [ "future research", "recommendation", "test", "method" ], "notes": "Explain how the proposed method addresses the identified limitation or gap.", "placeholders": [ "question", "scope", "method" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "closing section", "future research", "next step", "practical implication", "takeaway" ], "skill_areas": [ "discussion", "publication" ], "stage": "conclusion", "template": "Future work should test {question} in {scope} using {method}.", "title": "Research recommendation from gap", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Offer a reversible, conditional practice option with an explicit monitoring target.", "disciplines": [ "engineering", "health_sciences", "social_sciences" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "engineering_computing", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "recommend_action", "id": "RLX-REC-002", "keywords": [ "practice recommendation", "could consider", "monitoring", "conditional" ], "notes": "Use could consider when benefits and harms remain uncertain; state trade-offs nearby.", "placeholders": [ "evidence", "condition", "stakeholder", "action", "outcome" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "high", "search_aliases": [ "behavioral research", "biomedical writing", "closing section", "future research", "health research", "next step", "practical implication", "social research", "system evaluation", "takeaway", "technical design" ], "skill_areas": [ "discussion", "publication" ], "stage": "conclusion", "template": "Given {evidence}, where {condition} applies, {stakeholder} could consider {action} while monitoring {outcome}.", "title": "Conditional practice recommendation", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "Recommend bounded implementation backed by direct evidence and a review point.", "disciplines": [ "engineering", "health_sciences" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "engineering_computing" ], "evidence_requirement": "direct", "function": "recommend_action", "id": "RLX-REC-003", "keywords": [ "implementation", "warranted", "review", "recommend action" ], "notes": "Assess feasibility, distributional effects, harms, and stakeholder values before use.", "placeholders": [ "evidence", "action", "scope", "timeframe" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "high", "search_aliases": [ "biomedical writing", "closing section", "future research", "health research", "next step", "practical implication", "system evaluation", "takeaway", "technical design" ], "skill_areas": [ "discussion", "publication" ], "stage": "conclusion", "template": "Given {evidence}, implementation of {action} is warranted for {scope}, with review after {timeframe}.", "title": "Evidence-backed implementation recommendation", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Recommend a limited next step that also reduces consequential uncertainty.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "recommend_action", "id": "RLX-REC-004", "keywords": [ "decision uncertainty", "proportionate step", "collect evidence", "recommendation" ], "notes": "Prefer reversible actions when downside risk or evidential uncertainty is high.", "placeholders": [ "uncertainty", "action", "evidence" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "high", "search_aliases": [ "closing section", "future research", "next step", "practical implication", "takeaway" ], "skill_areas": [ "discussion", "publication" ], "stage": "conclusion", "template": "Until {uncertainty} is resolved, a proportionate step is to {action} and collect {evidence}.", "title": "Decision under uncertainty", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Acknowledge a concrete review point and state the corresponding manuscript revision.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "none", "function": "respond_reviewer", "id": "RLX-REV-001", "keywords": [ "reviewer response", "revision made", "response letter", "manuscript change" ], "notes": "Describe the change precisely; do not claim resolution when the concern remains partly open.", "placeholders": [ "issue", "location", "revision" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "address reviewer comment", "answer peer review", "rebuttal letter", "reply to peer review", "response letter", "review response", "reviewer rebuttal", "revise manuscript" ], "skill_areas": [ "publication", "reviewer_response" ], "stage": "peer_review_response", "template": "We thank the reviewer for identifying {issue}; we revised {location} to {revision}.", "title": "Acknowledge and revise", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Explain a reasoned disagreement with a reviewer while adding a clarifying boundary.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "respond_reviewer", "id": "RLX-REV-002", "keywords": [ "disagree with reviewer", "retain decision", "clarification", "response letter" ], "notes": "Address the strongest version of the concern and keep tone factual rather than defensive.", "placeholders": [ "decision", "reason", "boundary" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "address reviewer comment", "answer peer review", "rebuttal letter", "reply to peer review", "response letter", "review response", "reviewer rebuttal", "revise manuscript" ], "skill_areas": [ "publication", "reviewer_response" ], "stage": "peer_review_response", "template": "We respectfully retain {decision} because {reason}; the manuscript now clarifies {boundary}.", "title": "Respectfully retain a decision", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "Connect a review comment to a new analysis, its result, and its manuscript location.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "direct", "function": "respond_reviewer", "id": "RLX-REV-003", "keywords": [ "additional analysis", "review response", "new result", "manuscript location" ], "notes": "Do not imply that the added analysis validates claims beyond its design and assumptions.", "placeholders": [ "comment", "analysis", "result", "location" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "address reviewer comment", "answer peer review", "rebuttal letter", "reply to peer review", "response letter", "review response", "reviewer rebuttal", "revise manuscript" ], "skill_areas": [ "publication", "reviewer_response" ], "stage": "peer_review_response", "template": "In response to {comment}, we added {analysis}; {result} is now reported in {location}.", "title": "Report added analysis", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Accept a valid limitation and show where its consequence for a claim is disclosed.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "respond_reviewer", "id": "RLX-REV-004", "keywords": [ "reviewer limitation", "acknowledge concern", "claim boundary", "revision" ], "notes": "The revised manuscript should state the inferential consequence, not merely name the limitation.", "placeholders": [ "limitation", "claim", "location" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "address reviewer comment", "answer peer review", "rebuttal letter", "reply to peer review", "response letter", "review response", "reviewer rebuttal", "revise manuscript" ], "skill_areas": [ "publication", "reviewer_response" ], "stage": "peer_review_response", "template": "We agree that {limitation} constrains {claim}; this is now stated in {location}.", "title": "Acknowledge a limitation", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Define the population, setting, and period covered by an analysis.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "none", "function": "define_scope", "id": "RLX-SCO-001", "keywords": [ "scope", "population", "setting", "period" ], "notes": "Use the same boundary terms consistently in methods, results, and conclusions.", "placeholders": [ "population", "setting", "period" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "define population", "delimit study", "delimit study population", "materials and methods", "methodology", "set boundaries" ], "skill_areas": [ "methods", "research_framing", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "methods", "template": "The analysis concerns {population} in {setting} during {period}.", "title": "Population and setting scope", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Define a term operationally and name a nearby meaning that is excluded.", "disciplines": [ "humanities", "social_sciences", "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "none", "function": "define_scope", "id": "RLX-SCO-002", "keywords": [ "define term", "conceptual scope", "excluding", "definition" ], "notes": "Do not present a stipulative definition as universal usage.", "placeholders": [ "term", "definition", "excluded_meaning" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "behavioral research", "define population", "delimit study", "delimit study population", "interpretive scholarship", "opening section", "research framing", "set boundaries", "social research", "textual analysis" ], "skill_areas": [ "methods", "research_framing", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "introduction", "template": "Here, {term} refers specifically to {definition}, excluding {excluded_meaning}.", "title": "Conceptual definition scope", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Set the unit of analysis and an explicit non-goal.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "none", "function": "define_scope", "id": "RLX-SCO-003", "keywords": [ "unit of analysis", "boundary", "does not address", "scope" ], "notes": "Check that later claims do not shift to a different unit without justification.", "placeholders": [ "outcome", "unit", "outside_scope" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "define population", "delimit study", "delimit study population", "materials and methods", "methodology", "set boundaries" ], "skill_areas": [ "methods", "research_framing", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "methods", "template": "This analysis evaluates {outcome} at the {unit} level and does not address {outside_scope}.", "title": "Analytic boundary", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "State the source type, inclusion criterion, and temporal cutoff of a review.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "define_scope", "id": "RLX-SCO-004", "keywords": [ "review scope", "inclusion criteria", "cutoff date", "sources" ], "notes": "Report databases, languages, screening process, and exclusions elsewhere in the method.", "placeholders": [ "source", "criterion", "date" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "define population", "delimit study", "delimit study population", "materials and methods", "methodology", "set boundaries" ], "skill_areas": [ "methods", "research_framing", "thesis_dissertation" ], "stage": "methods", "template": "The review includes {source} that meet {criterion} and were available by {date}.", "title": "Review inclusion boundary", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "Integrate multiple independent sources around a conditional shared proposition.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "convergent", "function": "synthesize_sources", "id": "RLX-SYN-001", "keywords": [ "synthesis", "converges", "shared proposition", "multiple sources" ], "notes": "Use plural source wording in the filled slot and identify meaningful disagreement separately.", "placeholders": [ "source", "evidence", "claim", "condition" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "background literature", "combine sources", "integrate studies", "literature synthesis", "related work" ], "skill_areas": [ "literature_writing" ], "stage": "literature_review", "template": "Across {source}, {evidence} converges on {claim}, particularly under {condition}.", "title": "Synthesize shared proposition", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Combine sources that illuminate different parts of the same problem.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "synthesize_sources", "id": "RLX-SYN-002", "keywords": [ "complementary sources", "together", "synthesis", "aspects" ], "notes": "Explain the link between the two aspects in the next sentence.", "placeholders": [ "source_a", "aspect_a", "source_b", "aspect_b" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "background literature", "combine sources", "integrate studies", "literature synthesis", "related work" ], "skill_areas": [ "literature_writing" ], "stage": "literature_review", "template": "Together, {source_a} explains {aspect_a}, while {source_b} clarifies {aspect_b}.", "title": "Synthesize complementary roles", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Synthesize disagreement by organizing sources around a clearly posed question.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "contextual", "function": "synthesize_sources", "id": "RLX-SYN-003", "keywords": [ "literature divide", "debate", "positions", "synthesis" ], "notes": "Represent each position charitably and include mixed or intermediate accounts when relevant.", "placeholders": [ "question", "source_a", "position_a", "source_b", "position_b" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "background literature", "combine sources", "integrate studies", "literature synthesis", "related work" ], "skill_areas": [ "literature_writing" ], "stage": "literature_review", "template": "The literature divides over {question}: {source_a} supports {position_a}, whereas {source_b} supports {position_b}.", "title": "Map a structured disagreement", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "Distinguish direct support from contextual material within a synthesis.", "disciplines": [ "general" ], "domains": [ "general_academic" ], "evidence_requirement": "convergent", "function": "synthesize_sources", "id": "RLX-SYN-004", "keywords": [ "evidence hierarchy", "strongest support", "context", "synthesis" ], "notes": "Explain the criteria used to rank evidential strength.", "placeholders": [ "claim", "evidence", "source" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "background literature", "combine sources", "integrate studies", "literature synthesis", "related work" ], "skill_areas": [ "literature_writing" ], "stage": "literature_review", "template": "The strongest support for {claim} comes from {evidence}, while {source} supplies contextual detail.", "title": "Synthesize evidence hierarchy", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "Report an estimate together with the endpoints of its stated uncertainty interval.", "disciplines": [ "quantitative_research", "clinical_research", "sciences" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "experimental_science", "quantitative_empirical" ], "evidence_requirement": "direct", "function": "report_uncertainty", "id": "RLX-UNC-001", "keywords": [ "uncertainty interval", "confidence interval", "estimate precision", "results reporting" ], "notes": "State interval type, level, scale, and units; preserve endpoint signs and precision.", "placeholders": [ "outcome", "estimate", "lower_bound", "upper_bound" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "low", "search_aliases": [ "absence of evidence", "analysis output", "clinical study", "confidence interval", "empirical quantitative", "equivalence", "evidence of absence", "experimental research", "findings", "natural science", "non significance", "precision wording", "sensitivity range", "statistical analysis", "trial reporting" ], "skill_areas": [ "evidential_verbs", "results", "scientific_framing" ], "stage": "results", "template": "For {outcome}, {estimate} was accompanied by an uncertainty interval from {lower_bound} to {upper_bound}.", "title": "Report estimate and interval", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "assertive", "description": "Summarize how an estimate varies across prespecified or justified sensitivity analyses.", "disciplines": [ "quantitative_research", "sciences", "health_sciences" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "experimental_science", "quantitative_empirical" ], "evidence_requirement": "convergent", "function": "report_uncertainty", "id": "RLX-UNC-002", "keywords": [ "sensitivity range", "robustness", "analysis uncertainty", "estimate variation" ], "notes": "Name the varied assumptions; a narrow range does not address biases shared by all analyses.", "placeholders": [ "estimate", "lower_result", "upper_result" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "absence of evidence", "analysis output", "biomedical writing", "confidence interval", "empirical quantitative", "equivalence", "evidence of absence", "experimental research", "findings", "health research", "natural science", "non significance", "precision wording", "sensitivity range", "statistical analysis" ], "skill_areas": [ "evidential_verbs", "results", "scientific_framing" ], "stage": "results", "template": "Across the sensitivity analyses, {estimate} ranged from {lower_result} to {upper_result}.", "title": "Report sensitivity range", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "tentative", "description": "Locate imprecision in a subgroup and state the substantive possibilities it leaves open.", "disciplines": [ "clinical_research", "social_sciences", "quantitative_research" ], "domains": [ "clinical_health", "quantitative_empirical", "social_behavioral" ], "evidence_requirement": "direct", "function": "report_uncertainty", "id": "RLX-UNC-003", "keywords": [ "subgroup uncertainty", "heterogeneity", "imprecision", "compatible values" ], "notes": "Avoid treating subgroup estimates as different without a relevant contrast or interaction test.", "placeholders": [ "subgroup", "result", "possibilities" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "absence of evidence", "analysis output", "behavioral research", "clinical study", "confidence interval", "empirical quantitative", "equivalence", "evidence of absence", "findings", "non significance", "precision wording", "sensitivity range", "social research", "statistical analysis", "trial reporting" ], "skill_areas": [ "evidential_verbs", "results", "scientific_framing" ], "stage": "results", "template": "Uncertainty was greatest for {subgroup}, where {result} remained compatible with {possibilities}.", "title": "Report heterogeneous uncertainty", "version": 1 }, { "causal_design_required": false, "claim_strength": "bounded", "description": "Connect a known measurement limitation to the boundary on an empirical estimate.", "disciplines": [ "engineering", "sciences", "qualitative_research" ], "domains": [ "engineering_computing", "experimental_science", "qualitative_inquiry" ], "evidence_requirement": "observational", "function": "report_uncertainty", "id": "RLX-UNC-004", "keywords": [ "measurement uncertainty", "error boundary", "estimate limitation", "precision" ], "notes": "State direction or magnitude of measurement error only when evidence supports it.", "placeholders": [ "measurement_issue", "estimate", "uncertainty_boundary" ], "provenance": { "author": "RhetoriLex contributors", "method": "original_editorial", "source_reuse": false }, "risk": "medium", "search_aliases": [ "absence of evidence", "confidence interval", "equivalence", "evidence of absence", "experimental research", "interpretation section", "interviews", "meaning of findings", "natural science", "non significance", "precision wording", "sensitivity range", "system evaluation", "technical design", "thematic analysis" ], "skill_areas": [ "evidential_verbs", "results", "scientific_framing" ], "stage": "discussion", "template": "Because {measurement_issue} affects {estimate}, the reported value should be read within {uncertainty_boundary}.", "title": "Bound measurement uncertainty", "version": 1 } ], "entry_count": 96, "format": "rhetorilex-catalog", "format_version": "2.0.0", "language": "en", "release_version": "0.2.0", "taxonomy_version": "1.1.0" }