Classification framework for negative or inconclusive findings.
The following draft framework has been developed by our Scientific Advisory Team to support the classification of negative and inconclusive findings. We are now testing it against real Null Compass submissions to validate and refine the framework ahead of publication.
Class 1: "Definitive Evidence Benchmarks"
Studies with exemplary design and conclusive results, serving as reference points for scientific certainty.
1.A
Strongly Powered, Robust Methodology, Clinically & Statistically Significant Negative Finding
A paragon of statistical power and methodological excellence yielding a clear negative outcome.
1.B
Strongly Powered, Robust Methodology, Statistically Trivial Negative Finding
Exceptionally powered with robust execution, conclusively demonstrating a negligible effect.
1.C
Strongly Powered, Robust Methodology, Clinically Trivial Negative Finding
Exceptionally powered with robust execution, conclusively demonstrating a clinically trivial effect.
Class 2: "Emergent Insights with Refinement Potential"
Studies of high quality with nuanced or unresolved findings, poised for impactful follow-up investigation.
2.A
Good Methodology, Mildly Negative or Inconclusive Finding
Soundly designed with tentative results, warranting enhanced scale or synthesis.
2.B
Conflicting Signals, Good Methodology
Methodologically strong yet paradoxical, demanding deeper analysis to reconcile discrepancies.
2.C
Strong Methodology, Negative Finding Contradicted by Prior Evidence
Robustly executed with findings at odds with the literature, necessitating integrative review.
2.D
Strong Methodology, Negative Finding in Subgroup Only
Well-conducted with subgroup-specific negativity, meriting targeted exploration.
Class 3: "Conditionally Viable Contributions"
Studies with notable strengths overshadowed by specific limitations, requiring careful revision to unlock value.
3.A
Underpowered, Otherwise Sound Methodology
Methodologically credible but statistically underpowered, awaiting scale-up validation.
3.B
Adequate Power, Questionable Methodology, Strongly Negative Finding
Sufficiently powered yet methodologically suspect, needing refinement to confirm negativity.
3.C
Good Methodology, Inconclusive Due to External Factors
Solid design compromised by extrinsic variables, suitable for controlled replication.
3.D
Innovative Methodology, Inconclusive Due to Novelty
Pioneering yet unvalidated approaches, requiring methodological maturation.
Class 4: "Preliminary Efforts Requiring Reconstruction"
Studies with fundamental weaknesses, offering lessons but necessitating comprehensive redesign.
4.A
Methodologically Flawed, Negative or Inconclusive Outcome
Critically flawed in execution, demanding overhaul informed by identified deficiencies.
4.B
Exploratory Study, Inconclusive Finding
Hypothesis-generating but inconclusive, needing rigorous reformulation.
4.C
Underpowered, Flawed Methodology, Inconclusive Finding
Underpowered and methodologically deficient, requiring a full restart.