RMP.5:4.3 - Criticize the consequential inference

Begin with the threat that can change the present answer, then include the other threats on which the declared claim depends. For each consequential examination, establish:

1. which claim or inference could fail;
2. what material, alternative analysis or source comparison can expose that failure;
3. what was actually examined and what was found;
4. how that finding changes the answer, its scope or its uncertainty.

Use real rival explanations and defensible alternative choices. Retain contrary material, meaningful exclusions and the consequences of missing evidence. An unexamined threat is a remaining question, not an established defect. Failure to access the material is not a negative result about the claim.

When an analysis chosen after seeing results reveals an interesting relation, preserve it as such. Explain its relation to the original question and what support it has now. Reclassifying it as a planned test would remove information a critic needs; forbidding all discovery would remove legitimate inquiry.

A sensitivity exercise must identify the relevant choices examined and their effects. Selecting only favorable variants does not establish robustness over the unexamined choices. If a variant changes the target quantity or question, compare the resulting different claims explicitly rather than calling them interchangeable estimates.