ABOLTUSA Brighter Tomorrow, Together.
← All research notes

Projects from documents

Writing an acceptance criterion for a source-grounded report

Accept a report claim only when its source supports the claim’s scope and conditions, not merely its topic.

A citation is only a starting point

“Every factual sentence has a source” is a weak acceptance criterion. A link identifies a source; it does not establish that the source supports the statement. Accept a claim only when its wording preserves what the evidence actually establishes, including relevant limits. These examples are illustrative, not reported test results.

Try a concrete counterexample

Suppose a test note says, “Selected files exported after a manual retry.” A report states, “File exports are automatic and reliable,” and cites that note. The citation is traceable, but the conclusion overreaches. A manual retry does not establish automatic operation, and selected files do not establish general reliability. Selection calls for a selectivity check: which cases were included, and which remain untested? A supported rewrite is, “The selected files exported after a manual retry.”

Make acceptance repeatable

Use this criterion: “For each factual claim, identify a source passage that supports its subject, action, scope, and conditions. Retain material qualifications, and label and justify any inference.” Split compound sentences into separate claims. Underline the supporting words in the source, then circle words in the report that add certainty, coverage, or causation. Ask what a reader could conclude that the passage does not establish. If a material addition lacks support, narrow or remove the claim before acceptance. A citation count cannot replace this comparison.

Hypothetical boundary: a new version

Imagine a note supports automatic export for one software version, but the report covers an updated version with no corresponding evidence. The old note may be accurate while its applicability remains unresolved. Decision rule: accept the statement only if it is explicitly limited to the tested version; otherwise mark current behavior unverified and withhold the broader claim. Request evidence for the update before extending the conclusion. Missing evidence does not establish failure; it limits what the report can assert.

Make the research practical.

Tell us which documents you work with and the decisions you need to make.

Share your use case ↗