Research
Claim Decomposition Map
Break a broad answer into atomic factual, comparative, causal, predictive, and normative claims so each can receive the evidence and review it needs.
- Format
- Template
- Level
- Intermediate
- Audience
- Learner, Practitioner, Developer, Educator
- Owner
- Project42 Editorial
- Review cadence
- Every 90 days
- Prerequisites
- A draft answer, recommendation, or research question
Separate claims before checking them
Split compound sentences until each row can be true or false on its own. Label observable facts, definitions, comparisons, causal explanations, forecasts, recommendations, and value judgments. A source that proves one row does not automatically prove the rows beside it.
Expose hidden qualifiers: who, what, when, where, version, population, baseline, and confidence. Mark calculations and inferences separately from quoted facts. If a conclusion depends on several premises, record the dependency so a failed premise invalidates the correct downstream claims.
Build the map
Use safe identifiers for restricted evidence. Do not include private personal data, credentials, or confidential excerpts in a general-purpose research prompt.
Claim ID: [C-001]
Atomic claim: [ONE CHECKABLE STATEMENT]
Type: [FACT | DEFINITION | COMPARISON | CAUSAL | PREDICTION | RECOMMENDATION | VALUE]
Scope: [WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, VERSION]
Materiality: [LOW | MEDIUM | HIGH]
Evidence needed: [OWNER DOC | DATA | EXPERIMENT | MULTIPLE SOURCES | EXPERT REVIEW]
Source or evidence ID: [URL OR SAFE ID]
Support: [DIRECT | INFERRED | CONTRADICTED | UNKNOWN]
Confidence and reason: [CALIBRATED STATEMENT]
Depends on: [OTHER CLAIM IDS]
Disposition: [KEEP | QUALIFY | REMOVE | ESCALATE]Expected evidence and verification
The expected evidence is a complete map from each material statement to its source, inference, calculation, test, or unresolved status. Unsupported claims are removed, qualified, or escalated instead of being hidden behind one citation at paragraph end.
Read the draft sentence by sentence, confirm every checkable assertion has a row, open its evidence, recompute derived values, and trace dependencies. Ask a reviewer to find one unsupported qualifier, one source that only partially supports its claim, and one plausible contradiction.