{ "$schema": "https://inferenslab.org/research-protocol-schema.json", "schema_version": "1.1.0", "domain": "inferenslab.org", "id": "geo-causal-attribution-readiness", "order": 50, "version": "0.1.0", "program_id": "geo-causal-attribution", "protocol_status": "preregistered", "execution_status": "not-started", "results_status": "none-published", "registered_on": "2026-08-23", "updated": "2026-08-23", "behavioral_results_published": false, "routes": { "fr": "/fr/protocoles/attribution-causale-geo-v0-1/", "en": "/en/protocols/geo-causal-attribution-v0-1/" }, "artifact": "/protocols/geo-causal-attribution-readiness/0.1.0.json", "canonical_sources": { "fr": "https://gautierdorval.com/doctrine/attribution-causale-geo-contrefactuel/", "en": "https://gautierdorval.com/en/doctrine/causal-attribution-in-geo-requires-a-counterfactual/" }, "dependencies": [ "/research-programs.json", "/measurement-protocol.json", "/proximity-causality-protocol.json", "/model-panel-policy.json", "/publication-policy.json", "/source-precedence.json" ], "study_design": { "study_type": "synthetic-causal-readiness-dossier-assessment", "pilot_scope": "descriptive-pilot-no-population-inference", "design_family": "causal-readiness", "unit_of_analysis": { "fr": "Un verdict de préparation causale appliqué à un dossier synthétique versionné comprenant intervention, unité, résultat, contrefactuel et menaces déclarées.", "en": "One causal-readiness verdict applied to a versioned synthetic dossier containing an intervention, unit, outcome, counterfactual, and declared threats." }, "comparison_dimensions": [ { "id": "counterfactual-adequacy", "fr": "Capacité du dossier à définir une comparaison crédible distincte d’un simple avant-après.", "en": "Ability of the dossier to define a credible comparison distinct from a simple before-and-after." }, { "id": "denominator-and-panel-integrity", "fr": "Stabilité des unités, requêtes, modèles, modalités, dénominateurs et fenêtres nécessaires à l’estimation.", "en": "Stability of units, queries, models, modes, denominators, and windows required for estimation." }, { "id": "claim-strength", "fr": "Correspondance entre la force des preuves du dossier et le niveau de conclusion observationnelle, contributive ou causale.", "en": "Correspondence between dossier evidence strength and observational, contributive, or causal conclusion level." } ], "unit_plan": { "selection": { "fr": "Dossiers synthétiques couvrant plans adéquats, avant-après naïfs, contrôles contaminés, dérives de panel et résultats nuls, figés avant évaluation.", "en": "Synthetic dossiers covering adequate designs, naive before-and-after, contaminated controls, panel drift, and null outcomes, frozen before assessment." }, "factors": [ { "id": "design-archetype", "count": 6, "fr": "Six archétypes de dessin allant de l’avant-après non contrôlé à un contrefactuel préspécifié et vérifiable.", "en": "Six design archetypes ranging from uncontrolled before-and-after to a prespecified and verifiable counterfactual." }, { "id": "evidence-state", "count": 4, "fr": "Quatre états de preuve : complet, incomplet, contaminé ou non identifiable selon le manifeste.", "en": "Four evidence states: complete, incomplete, contaminated, or non-identifiable under the manifest." }, { "id": "candidate-claim", "count": 3, "fr": "Trois niveaux de revendication : observation, contribution plausible ou effet causal attribué.", "en": "Three claim levels: observation, plausible contribution, or attributed causal effect." } ], "repetitions_per_cell": 2, "planned_units": 144, "window_days": 7, "stopping_rule": { "fr": "Aucun arrêt discrétionnaire. Évaluer les 144 unités, sauf corruption du dossier ou indisponibilité supérieure à 5 % ; publier chaque arrêt, exclusion et dénominateur.", "en": "No discretionary stopping. Assess all 144 units unless a dossier is corrupted or more than 5% are unavailable; publish every halt, exclusion, and denominator." }, "reviewer_count": 2, "agreement_metric": "cohens-kappa", "agreement_threshold": 0.8, "disagreement_resolution": { "fr": "Deux juges évaluent indépendamment la préparation causale et la force admissible de la conclusion. Un troisième tranche les désaccords.", "en": "Two judges independently assess causal readiness and admissible claim strength. A third judge adjudicates disagreements." }, "agreement_failure_rule": { "fr": "Si le kappa de Cohen est inférieur à 0.80, ne pas agréger les verdicts ; publier l’échec et versionner une grille révisée avant reprise.", "en": "If Cohen's kappa is below 0.80, do not aggregate verdicts; publish the failure and version a revised rubric before rerunning." }, "reference_snapshots_required": true, "source_access_recorded": true }, "execution_sequence": [ { "id": "freeze-dossiers-and-rubric", "fr": "Figer les dossiers, variables, fenêtres, dénominateurs, contrefactuels, tests placebo et grille de conclusion.", "en": "Freeze dossiers, variables, windows, denominators, counterfactuals, placebo tests, and claim rubric." }, { "id": "blind-readiness-review", "fr": "Faire évaluer chaque dossier indépendamment sans révéler la conclusion candidate aux juges au premier passage.", "en": "Have each dossier independently assessed without revealing the candidate conclusion to judges on the first pass." }, { "id": "test-claim-admissibility", "fr": "Comparer ensuite le verdict de préparation à la conclusion candidate et classer tout dépassement de preuve.", "en": "Then compare the readiness verdict with the candidate conclusion and classify every evidentiary overreach." }, { "id": "publish-readiness-matrix", "fr": "Publier les verdicts par dessin, état de preuve et niveau de revendication, incluant résultats nuls et non identifiables.", "en": "Publish verdicts by design, evidence state, and claim level, including null and non-identifiable outcomes." } ] }, "freeze_requirements": [ "unit-manifest", "factor-manifest", "reference-snapshot-manifest", "review-rubric-version", "review-panel-and-agreement-rule", "review-window", "source-access-policy", "expected-state-manifest", "counterfactual-specification", "outcome-and-denominator-manifest", "falsification-test-plan", "exclusion-policy-version" ], "metrics": [ { "id": "counterfactual-adequacy-rate", "scale": "dossier-level-ratio", "direction": "higher-is-better", "fr": "Part des dossiers qui spécifient un contrefactuel préexistant, vérifiable et distinct d’un simple avant-après.", "en": "Share of dossiers specifying a pre-existing, verifiable counterfactual distinct from a simple before-and-after." }, { "id": "denominator-completeness-rate", "scale": "required-field-ratio", "direction": "higher-is-better", "fr": "Part des dénominateurs, unités, fenêtres, panels et exclusions requis qui sont explicitement figés.", "en": "Share of required denominators, units, windows, panels, and exclusions that are explicitly frozen." }, { "id": "falsification-coverage-rate", "scale": "planned-test-ratio", "direction": "higher-is-better", "fr": "Part des menaces déclarées couvertes par un test placebo, une sensibilité ou une règle d’invalidation préspécifiée.", "en": "Share of declared threats covered by a placebo test, sensitivity check, or prespecified invalidation rule." }, { "id": "unsupported-causal-claim-rate", "scale": "claim-level-ratio", "direction": "lower-is-better", "fr": "Part des conclusions causales attribuées alors que le dossier ne satisfait pas les conditions minimales préinscrites.", "en": "Share of attributed causal conclusions made when the dossier does not satisfy preregistered minimum conditions." } ], "decision_rules": [ { "id": "no-counterfactual-no-causality", "fr": "Sans contrefactuel préspécifié et vérifiable, la conclusion maximale admissible demeure observationnelle.", "en": "Without a prespecified and verifiable counterfactual, the strongest admissible conclusion remains observational." }, { "id": "panel-drift-invalidates-comparison", "fr": "Un changement non contrôlé d’unité, de requête, de modèle, de modalité ou de fenêtre invalide la comparaison correspondante.", "en": "An uncontrolled change in unit, query, model, mode, or window invalidates the corresponding comparison." }, { "id": "contribution-is-not-attribution", "fr": "Une contribution plausible ne peut être reformulée comme effet causal attribué sans satisfaire le plan d’identification.", "en": "A plausible contribution cannot be restated as an attributed causal effect without satisfying the identification plan." }, { "id": "null-and-nonidentifiable-publication", "fr": "Publier les effets nuls, contradictions et dossiers non identifiables avec les mêmes exigences que les résultats positifs.", "en": "Publish null effects, contradictions, and non-identifiable dossiers under the same requirements as positive outcomes." } ], "validity_threats": [ { "id": "synthetic-design-simplification", "fr": "Des dossiers synthétiques peuvent réduire la complexité des interventions, tendances, contaminations et dépendances observées sur le Web.", "en": "Synthetic dossiers may reduce the complexity of interventions, trends, contamination, and dependencies observed on the Web.", "mitigation": { "fr": "Publier les limites des archétypes et interdire toute extrapolation d’un verdict de préparation à un effet réel.", "en": "Publish archetype limits and prohibit extrapolating a readiness verdict to a real effect." } }, { "id": "design-heterogeneity", "fr": "Des plans causaux différents ne fournissent pas les mêmes garanties ni les mêmes estimands.", "en": "Different causal designs do not provide the same guarantees or estimands.", "mitigation": { "fr": "Stratifier les verdicts par dessin et ne produire aucun score agrégé de causalité.", "en": "Stratify verdicts by design and produce no aggregate causality score." } }, { "id": "outcome-flexibility", "fr": "La sélection d’un résultat ou d’une fenêtre après observation peut produire une attribution artificielle.", "en": "Selecting an outcome or window after observation may create an artificial attribution.", "mitigation": { "fr": "Figer résultats, fenêtres et règles d’exclusion avant évaluation, puis publier toutes les spécifications.", "en": "Freeze outcomes, windows, and exclusion rules before assessment, then publish every specification." } } ], "publication_requirements": [ "protocol-version", "unit-manifest", "factor-manifest", "reference-snapshots", "source-access-log", "expected-state-manifest", "review-rubric-and-disagreements", "counterfactual-specification", "outcome-and-denominator-manifest", "falsification-tests", "complete-denominators", "exclusions-and-halts", "limitations", "null-and-nonidentifiable-outcomes" ], "fr": { "title": "Attribution causale GEO : préparation pilote 0.1", "program_title": "Attribution causale des interventions GEO", "meta_description": "Protocole préinscrit évaluant contrefactuel, dénominateurs, falsification et force admissible des conclusions causales GEO.", "summary": "Préinscription d’une matrice de dossiers synthétiques destinée à distinguer observation, contribution plausible et attribution causale soutenue.", "research_question": "Quelles propriétés minimales un dossier doit-il satisfaire avant qu’une variation de visibilité ou de restitution puisse recevoir une interprétation causale ?", "design_summary": "Le pilote croise six dessins d’étude, quatre états de preuve et trois niveaux de revendication. Les juges évaluent préparation et dépassement de preuve.", "evidence_state": "Protocole 0.1 préinscrit ; dossiers d’exécution non publiés, évaluation non démarrée et aucune estimation d’effet disponible.", "boundaries": [ "Ce protocole évalue une préparation méthodologique, pas l’effet d’une intervention réelle.", "Un verdict de préparation ne garantit ni identifiabilité, ni puissance, ni validité externe.", "Un avant-après, une courbe ou un score de visibilité ne constitue pas seul un contrefactuel.", "Aucun résultat GEO, effet client ou attribution causale n’est publié." ] }, "en": { "title": "GEO causal attribution: pilot readiness 0.1", "program_title": "Causal attribution of GEO interventions", "meta_description": "Preregistered protocol assessing counterfactuals, denominators, falsification, and admissible strength of GEO causal claims.", "summary": "Preregistration of a synthetic dossier matrix designed to separate observation, plausible contribution, and supported causal attribution.", "research_question": "Which minimum properties must a dossier satisfy before a visibility or restitution change can receive a causal interpretation?", "design_summary": "The pilot crosses six study designs, four evidence states, and three claim levels. Judges assess readiness and evidentiary overreach.", "evidence_state": "Protocol 0.1 preregistered; execution dossiers not published, assessment not started, and no effect estimate available.", "boundaries": [ "This protocol assesses methodological readiness, not the effect of a real intervention.", "A readiness verdict guarantees neither identifiability, power, nor external validity.", "A before-and-after, chart, or visibility score alone does not constitute a counterfactual.", "No GEO result, client effect, or causal attribution is published." ] } }