RMP.8:4.2 - State the warranted retention or change
Separate the contribution from a stronger claim the receiver might infer.
| Warranted disposition | What to state |
|---|---|
| Retain | The existing assertion still has its stated support under the examined conditions; identify the relevant new examination and its limits. |
| Narrow | Restrict the population, context, time, relation or transfer to what the result supports, preserving the supported part. |
| Qualify | Keep the identified assertion with the uncertainty, alternative explanation or reliance condition the result makes consequential. |
| Reject | Remove a defeated claim or inference and explain what defeats it. Rejection of one account does not establish a particular rival by default. |
| Add | State the new contribution and its relation to the existing account, including whether it is supported information, an interpretation or a hypothesis for further inquiry. |
Several dispositions may be needed for different claims in one model. Keep their distinct reasons. An increase in confidence needs an actual supporting contribution; repetition, a newer document date and unavailable criticism supply none by themselves.
Retain method-specific uncertainty. A numerical interval depends on its quantity and assumptions. A qualitative confidence judgment has its own grounds. “Uncertain” is too vague when the recipient needs to know that the unsupported step is causal attribution, extrapolation, prevalence or another particular inference.
An inconclusive result can leave the proposed effect unresolved. It does not automatically establish no effect or equivalence. Similarly, lack of access can limit what was examined without supplying evidence against the underlying claim.