Research question
Can claim-level mapping connect risk, control, and evidence without silently transferring authority from an external framework?
Study design
The pilot crosses twelve claim archetypes, three authority relations, and three evidence states. Every mapping is double-coded.
Unit of analysis
One versioned mapping connecting a canonical claim, external risk, internal control, admissible evidence, and their authority status.
Comparison dimensions
- authority-preservation · Preservation of the distinct jurisdiction of the canonical source, external framework, and internal control.
- scope-transformation · Traceability of restrictions, expansions, incompatibilities, and non-matches introduced by the projection.
- evidence-adequacy · Fit between the declared evidence class and the supported control or conclusion level.
Unit plan
Synthetic claim, risk, and control set covering direct, partial, conflicting, and absent mappings, frozen before review.
claim-archetype
Twelve claim archetypes covering identity, scope, prohibition, condition, temporality, and evidence state.
authority-relation
Three authority relations: informative, compatible constraint, or jurisdiction conflict.
evidence-state
Three evidence states: adequate, insufficient, or absent under frozen requirements.
Stopping rule
No discretionary stopping. Assess all 216 units unless manifest integrity fails or more than 5% are unavailable; publish every halt and denominator.
Disagreement resolution
Two judges independently classify authority relation, scope transformation, and evidence adequacy. A third judge adjudicates disagreements.
Insufficient-agreement rule
If Cohen's kappa is below 0.80, publish no aggregate metric; publish the failure and version the rubric before rerunning.
Execution sequence
- freeze-authority-sources · Freeze every canonical claim, external excerpt, control, evidence item, and authority status with their digests.
- produce-independent-crosswalks · Independently code mappings, restrictions, conflicts, and absences without presuming equivalence.
- adjudicate-scope-and-evidence · Adjudicate disagreements while keeping authority, risk, control, decision, and evidence separate.
- publish-crosswalk-matrix · Publish the complete matrix, non-matches, and conflicts without an automatic compliance verdict.
Freeze requirements
unit-manifestfactor-manifestreference-snapshot-manifestreview-rubric-versionreview-panel-and-agreement-rulereview-windowsource-access-policyexpected-state-manifestcanonical-claim-snapshotsexternal-framework-snapshotsevidence-class-registryexclusion-policy-version
Preregistered metrics
authority-preservation-rate
Share of mappings explicitly preserving the jurisdiction and status of every source used.
scope-expansion-rate
Share of mappings silently expanding a claim, risk, or control beyond its scope.
evidence-link-completeness-rate
Share of required links present among claim, risk, control, evidence, decision, and temporal status.
non-equivalence-detection-rate
Share of partial, conflicting, or absent cases correctly marked as non-equivalent.
Decision rules
- mapping-is-not-equivalence · A descriptive mapping never becomes normative equivalence without explicit authority and evidence.
- external-framework-does-not-redefine-canon · An external framework may qualify risk but cannot redefine canonical identity, scope, or prohibitions.
- conflict-remains-explicit · Every jurisdiction or scope incompatibility remains explicit and cannot be resolved through lexical proximity.
- no-compliance-verdict · The pilot matrix produces no compliance verdict, certification, or operational authorization.
Validity threats
framework-selection-bias
Selecting frameworks and controls may favor particular risk families or institutional formulations.
Mitigation. Publish selection criteria, exclusions, and omitted frameworks before mapping.
lexical-equivalence-bias
Similar terms may be classified as equivalent despite different jurisdictions, scopes, or requirements.
Mitigation. Require claim-level justification and publish non-matches and conflicts.
evidence-class-ambiguity
A vague evidence class may make a documented control appear executed or effective.
Mitigation. Freeze classes, separate design, execution, and observation, then measure reviewer agreement.
Minimum publication package
protocol-versionunit-manifestfactor-manifestreference-snapshotssource-access-logexpected-state-manifestreview-rubric-and-disagreementscanonical-claim-snapshotsexternal-framework-snapshotsmapping-rationalescomplete-denominatorsexclusions-and-haltslimitationsnull-and-nonidentifiable-outcomes
Boundaries and non-claims
- A published mapping does not constitute normative or legal equivalence.
- An external framework does not become the source of internal identity or canon.
- The presence of a documented control proves neither execution nor effectiveness.
- No certification, compliance, product readiness, or operational authorization is claimed.
What preregistration proves
Preregistration establishes that a method was fixed before execution. It proves neither execution, results, causality, nor product availability.
Parent program: Risk, control, and evidence alignment
https://gautierdorval.com/en/doctrine/external-framework-does-not-govern-canon/