Audit Dovetail Research Evidence Quality
Check whether the evidence is accurate, relevant and independent enough for the decision at hand. This is a manual review checklist; a large repository or fluent summary does not certify a strong finding.
Before you start: Have the original sources, candidate finding and the decision’s consequence. Use an authorized reviewer who can challenge the interpretation.
Worked example: A priority proposal relies on several copied summaries from one customer call. The apparent number of sources overstates independence and may not justify a broad roadmap conclusion.
Step-by-step guide
Validate provenance
Trace the material claim to original data. Mark secondhand summaries and sources that cannot be inspected.
Check source integrity
Verify consequential transcript wording and speaker attribution. Record uncertainty where audio or document context is incomplete.
Assess audience fit
Compare the studied people and situations with the decision’s target population. Explain missing roles or contexts.
Check independence
Identify excerpts or summaries derived from the same source. Keep repeated evidence from inflating confidence.
Review counterevidence
Look for observations that challenge the claim. Ask whether a different interpretation fits the available material.
Write the quality note
State what is trustworthy, limited or unresolved. Choose a proportionate decision or a targeted evidence gap to address.
Common mistakes
Many excerpts equal many sources
Trace independence.
Summary treated as original
Inspect consequential passages.
Quality score hides uncertainty
Explain the specific limitation.
Tips
Preserve a source map.
Ask a second reviewer to challenge the strongest claim.
Tie confidence to a specific decision.
Sources and verification
Based on product documentation checked on 2026-10-24. This is a documentation-based guide, not a hands-on benchmark. Features and availability can change.