Browse
Claims
Search the graph by meaning. Each result carries its current verdict; open one to see its decomposition, provenance, and the reasoning behind the assessment.
ShowingImportancePrizesTopicConfirmation bias
The tendency to seek, weigh, or interpret evidence so as to support a conclusion already held, especially in structured assessments, audits, evaluations, and assurance arguments where a favored verdict may drive the evidence-gathering.
Safety case reviewers are commonly commissioned by the developer, creating incentives toward confirmatory sign-off
SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Safety assuranceIndependent adversarial reviewimportance · minorImportance 0.35, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Defeater analysis and independent adversarial review can substantially mitigate confirmation bias in safety cases
SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Independent adversarial reviewSafety assuranceimportance · notableImportance 0.45, from 0 to 1 · notable: a contested point in a live debate (also the default before judging). Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Safety cases are prone to confirmation bias toward a predetermined conclusion of safety
SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Safety assuranceimportance · notableImportance 0.45, from 0 to 1 · notable: a contested point in a live debate (also the default before judging). Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Instructions to consider the opposite reduce biased assimilation of evidence in experiments
UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Consider-the-opposite debiasingCognitive Psychologyimportance · minorImportance 0.25, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
People seeking evidence for a fixed conclusion tend to select confirming and overlook disconfirming evidence
UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →importance · minorImportance 0.30, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Defeater identification in assurance cases is itself prone to bias and incompleteness
UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Safety assuranceIndependent adversarial reviewimportance · minorImportance 0.30, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Deliberately considering reasons a favored conclusion could be wrong reduces confirmation bias and overconfidence
SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Consider-the-opposite debiasingimportance · minorImportance 0.35, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Listing reasons contradicting one's chosen answer improves the calibration of confidence judgments
UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Consider-the-opposite debiasingCognitive Psychologyimportance · minorImportance 0.25, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Contribute
If a claim here is wrong, or missing evidence, open it: every claim page carries its own entry for challenges, evidence, and corrections. If the graph is missing a claim entirely, propose it below. A proposal is reviewed on its merits; accepted claims are matched against the graph and enter it with their reasoning on record.