# Synthesis Action — Governance Guidelines

These guidelines govern the quality and rigor standards for the **synthesis** phase of a research mission. The deliverable is a decision log that draws conclusions, traces every conclusion to documented evidence, and explicitly identifies limitations and threats to validity.

---

## Distinguish Evidence from Interpretation

- Raw evidence rows live in `research/evidence-log.csv`. Synthesis is the act of **interpreting** that evidence — naming patterns, identifying themes, drawing conclusions.
- Keep the line between the two visible. A synthesis claim must be reframable as "the evidence shows X, and from X we conclude Y." If the evidence step is missing, the claim is unmoored.
- Cite **every** synthesis claim back to the evidence row(s) that support it. Conclusions without traceable evidence are opinions, not findings.

---

## Trace Conclusions to Evidence Rows

- Reference evidence by row ID (or stable identifier) when stating findings. Reviewers must be able to follow the trail without re-reading every source.
- When a conclusion rests on multiple evidence rows, list them all. When it rests on weak or low-confidence evidence, say so.
- A pattern that appears in only one source is a hypothesis, not a finding. Distinguish them in the synthesis prose.

---

## Identify Limitations and Threats to Validity

- Use a premortem mindset: "If this synthesis turns out to be wrong, what would the failure look like?" Then write the candidate failure modes down.
- Document **limitations** — what the methodology could not see, what the source set under-represents, what time period the evidence is bounded by.
- Document **threats to validity** — selection bias, publication bias, confounders, alternative explanations.
- Be explicit about **confidence**. A synthesis that asserts everything with equal weight has not done synthesis.

---

## Alternative Interpretations

- For each major finding, consider at least one alternative interpretation that is consistent with the evidence.
- If an alternative is ruled out, document why — what evidence rules it out.
- If alternatives cannot be ruled out, name them as open questions rather than burying the ambiguity.

---

## What This Phase Does NOT Cover

The synthesis action produces interpreted findings with traceable evidence. It does **not**:

- Re-open scoping or methodology decisions (those are locked).
- Add new sources to the register (that is the gathering action's job; if a critical gap surfaces, hand back to gathering).
- Format the publication-ready output (that is the output action's job).

If synthesis discovers that the evidence base is inadequate to answer the research question, surface that as a finding and hand back to gathering — do not paper over it with weakly-supported conclusions.

---

## Quality Gates

- Every conclusion cites at least one evidence row.
- Limitations and threats to validity are explicit, not implicit.
- At least one alternative interpretation is considered for each major finding.
- Confidence levels propagate from evidence to conclusion (low-confidence evidence cannot ground a high-confidence finding).
