CB.10:4.5 - Decide what the evidence warrants

State the strongest claim supported at the relevant scope. A report establishes what a person says they experienced. A checked occurrence can establish the action and result observed there. A connected and corroborated account can show which resource a participant used and what the recipient could then do. If that account is used to explain why an outcome changed, examine its causal support.

Recover the causal question: the effect of an intervention, an explanation of an observed difference or a counterfactual. C.28 helps determine the supported statement, its limits and the next useful evidence question. RMP.1 first tests whether an adequate existing source answers that question and then whether the remaining inquiry warrants research. A persuasive story or a correlation between membership and performance does not provide missing identification.

Consider competing explanations that matter here. New participants, seasonal demand, another service, changed incentives or easier cases can alter the interpretation. Compare the conditions that could change the present explanation.

Keep the population claim within the evidence. A useful case can justify trying a repair without establishing how often the problem occurs. Several positive cases selected by an enthusiastic host still leave unsuccessful and nonresponding people outside the conclusion. Name a missing observation only when it affects reliance or the next decision.

Include burdens and distribution in the judgement. More answers can coexist with exhausted experts; a helpful resource can be inaccessible to newcomers. MA can supply a missing cost account, and HCD can supply a needed capability judgement. Do not collapse these unlike consequences into an overall “community health” number unless a warranted decision rule actually requires and supports that aggregation.