What the sources contribute to the shared architecture

The question/design foundation connects two source questions. Frascati supplies a cross-sector comparison for research membership; UNESCO’s participation account prevents an affiliation gate. RMP.1 applies its adapted conditions to the whole inquiry’s knowledge contribution. The National Academies’ new-data replication distinction prevents a ready protocol from excluding a useful examination of disputed knowledge. Ordinary quality control still returns its case verdict under an accepted rule. Historical and citizen inquiries need not promise universal generalization or a repeatable event. The Frascati comparison states the adaptations and their limits; none supplies truth or study authority.

For the design question, MRC/NIHR connects programme theory, context and key uncertainties with choosing and refining an inquiry. Cochrane’s conceptual models connect intended effects to assumptions and useful comparisons within intervention reviews. RMP.2 adapts these constructive contributions and applies C.39’s general recovery and backward/forward construction to a research evidence relation. SRQR and AHA preserve situated and historical criticism; the National Academies keeps reproduction and replication distinct. The RMP.2 account states the comparison and limits. None of these sources supplies the case’s domain truth or selects the receiving action.

This is a methodological synthesis for the pre-study use. It is not evidence that one source supplied the question/design architecture or empirically validated its results. In particular, the PostSelectionNeed counterfactual is the repertoire’s explicit rule for completing selection: it makes the consequence of an unknown value inspectable. The worked holds and selections explain that rule; the cited reporting standards do not certify it.

For operationalization and trace, the selected best-known line is question-relative specification with an inspectable account of actual change and use. Flake/Fried and Lakens make consequential measurement and information choices explicit; SPIRIT supplies bounded specification distinctions and TOP separates timed commitments. Haven and the RTARG critique preserve an approach’s justified evolution while challenging generic checklist use. RMP.3 adapts those contributions to operational choices and precise returns, not to one mandatory protocol.

RMP.4 adapts source-critical, search and run-provenance distinctions to actual material. CARE/FAIR and responsible-AI guidance make data authority, permitted access and substantial human or tool contributions consequential to that account. The applicable owners’ rules determine what can be retained and disclosed; the trace states which examination remains possible. The alternative of preserving and publishing everything can add burden and harm while still omitting a decisive choice. The alternative of keeping only a final methods narrative loses timing and selection. The chosen arrangement accepts selective recording work to preserve those particular distinctions; a competent existing protocol and trace remain the cheaper sufficient route.

For analysis and credibility, SCORE’s distinct examinations make analytical choices, obtainable computation and the comparison criterion consequential. RTARG and AHA preserve unlike interpretive and source-critical warrant. RMP.5/RMP.6 use those contributions to connect a bounded claim, its remaining threat and the test’s possible result; existing adequate analysis and a qualified no-new-test answer can complete the present use.

For corpus synthesis, Cochrane makes dependence, a justified quantitative model, explicit alternatives and missing contributions consequential. Its qualitative guidance and JBI preserve a choice between same-question integration and separately synthesized aspects; CERQual supplies a bounded finding-level confidence approach. AHA source criticism keeps historical dependence and chronology distinct from narrative count. RMP.7 adapts those contributions to the actual research question. RMP.8 combines bounded interpretation with FPF episteme and affected-use relations so that the result changes the exact account and reaches its actual receiver.

For Method improvement, the established statistical simulation-design line and newer transparency and failure-handling work make the selected comparison’s target, performance and limits inspectable. RTARG and AHA preserve interpretation and source-use criteria that a generic benchmark would miss. RMP.9 connects those contributions to a research-specific Method decision, with supported retention, bounded correction and a justified acquisition choice kept distinct. Its Method Engineering source account retains ME.14’s distinction between an adequate current choice and further inquiry selected for its useful obtainable contribution.

The resulting cross-family arrangement is a reasoned synthesis, not an empirically validated universal procedure. A stronger comparison, a changed research use or an observed failure can reopen the affected Method; adding sources without changing an answer is not an improvement by itself.

The retained source dates and scopes matter. Frascati 2015 is a statistical-methodology comparator; the National Academies report supplies particular distinctions; reporting guidance supplies transparency obligations within its field. None is presented as a timeless complete research method. The source-currentness statement above remains the qualification for the claims inherited by this version. A stronger current answer or an observed misrouting reopens the affected claim and its consuming comparison, as described there.