aif version: AIF-Core-2011
mesh aif profile: 1.0
exported at: 2026-08-30T19:16:44.934Z
attestation:
  identifier: k9g3oiK7
  argument id: cmowh5dag010b8ch6gnqc9a50
  permalink: https://www.isonomia.app/a/k9g3oiK7
  version: 1
  immutable permalink: https://www.isonomia.app/a/k9g3oiK7@afa1b2cb19a715b724573435e3fe57f7d908cdba1d5baf961d67262b5ec4574f
  iso id: iso:argument:k9g3oiK7
  iso url: https://www.isonomia.app/iso/argument/k9g3oiK7
  retrieved at: 2026-08-30T19:16:44.797Z
  created at: 2026-05-08T05:28:27.784Z
  updated at: 2026-05-08T05:28:27.784Z
  conclusion:
    claim id: cmowh59a401068ch6624b0h82
    text: Scaling Allen & Tucker's 10-day individual-level effect to 5–15% population-level contribution assumes linear extrapolation, no decay over 12 years, and uniform exposure persistence that the framing identifies as unestablished.
  premises:
    claim id: cmout285g00ky8cbskw094inl
    text: Scaling from individual-level short-run effects to population-level long-run aggregates requires assumptions about exposure persistence, treatment heterogeneity, and network spillovers that the framing identifies as missing in experimental literature.
    is implicit: false
  premises:
    claim id: cmoutd7oy00ro8cbsgfdfoj19
    text: Allen & Tucker (2025) measure a 2-point shift on a 100-point scale within 10 days in a volunteer sample during a high-salience election period.
    is implicit: false
  premises:
    claim id: cmowh5bpa01088ch6ogt7zhjz
    text: Short-term A/B tests exhibit novelty effects and adaptation effects; short-term null results do not predict long-term effects after user adaptation to algorithm changes.
    is implicit: false
  scheme:
    id: cmoqrmt99000i8c7texhpjxa1
    key: methodological_critique
    name: Methodological Critique (NON-STANDARD)
    canonical key: methodological_critique
    catalogue health:
      is argument pattern: true
      is dialogue meta: false
      is test placeholder: false
      canonical key: methodological_critique
      cluster tag missing: false
      fingerprint materialised: true
  critical questions:
    scheme key: methodological_critique
    total: 6
    unanswered:
      cq key: bias_direction_known?
      text: Is the literature really agreed that defects of kind K bias inferences in direction B, or is the bias direction itself contested?
      attack kind: UNDERMINES
      cq status id: cmowh5fww010h8ch667orxkdx
      scheme key: methodological_critique
      premise type: ORDINARY
      is scheme required: true
      inherited from parent scheme: false
      cq status enum: OPEN
      challenged: false
      challenge count: 0
      cq requires evidence: false
      cq burden: PROPONENT
      answer self canonical: false
      answer author kind: HUMAN
      status: open
    unanswered:
      cq key: defect_present?
      text: Does study S actually have defect D, or is the description of S inaccurate?
      attack kind: UNDERMINES
      cq status id: cmowh5fww010i8ch6a5j7b5ak
      scheme key: methodological_critique
      premise type: ORDINARY
      is scheme required: true
      inherited from parent scheme: false
      cq status enum: OPEN
      challenged: false
      challenge count: 0
      cq requires evidence: false
      cq burden: PROPONENT
      answer self canonical: false
      answer author kind: HUMAN
      status: open
    unanswered:
      cq key: magnitude_of_bias?
      text: Is the expected magnitude of the bias from D large enough to overturn S's reported effect, or is the effect robust to plausible bias corrections?
      attack kind: REBUTS
      cq status id: cmowh5fww010j8ch6tfqrdp1m
      scheme key: methodological_critique
      premise type: ORDINARY
      is scheme required: true
      inherited from parent scheme: false
      cq status enum: OPEN
      challenged: false
      challenge count: 0
      cq requires evidence: false
      cq burden: PROPONENT
      answer self canonical: false
      answer author kind: HUMAN
      status: open
    unanswered:
      cq key: robustness_check?
      text: Has S (or a follow-up study) performed a robustness check or sensitivity analysis that addresses defect D directly?
      attack kind: UNDERCUTS
      cq status id: cmowh5fww010k8ch6tbbpg21z
      scheme key: methodological_critique
      premise type: ORDINARY
      is scheme required: true
      inherited from parent scheme: false
      cq status enum: OPEN
      challenged: false
      challenge count: 0
      cq requires evidence: false
      cq burden: PROPONENT
      answer self canonical: false
      answer author kind: HUMAN
      status: open
    unanswered:
      cq key: selective_critique?
      text: Is this critique applied consistently — i.e., would it apply to studies on the other side of the debate that share the same defect kind K?
      attack kind: UNDERCUTS
      cq status id: cmowh5fww010l8ch6jiyn8btk
      scheme key: methodological_critique
      premise type: ORDINARY
      is scheme required: true
      inherited from parent scheme: false
      cq status enum: OPEN
      challenged: false
      challenge count: 0
      cq requires evidence: false
      cq burden: PROPONENT
      answer self canonical: false
      answer author kind: HUMAN
      status: open
    unanswered:
      cq key: triangulation?
      text: Is H supported by independent studies that do not share defect D, such that S's defect does not undermine H itself?
      attack kind: UNDERCUTS
      cq status id: cmowh5fww010m8ch64louttih
      scheme key: methodological_critique
      premise type: ORDINARY
      is scheme required: true
      inherited from parent scheme: false
      cq status enum: OPEN
      challenged: false
      challenge count: 0
      cq requires evidence: false
      cq burden: PROPONENT
      answer self canonical: false
      answer author kind: HUMAN
      status: open
  dialectical status:
    incoming attacks: 0
    incoming supports: 0
    incoming attack edges: 0
    critical questions required: 6
    critical questions answered: 0
    critical questions open: 6
    standing score: 0.5
    is tested: false
    testedness: untested
    standing state: untested-default
    standing depth:
      challengers: 0
      independent reviewers: 0
      confidence: thin
    fitness breakdown:
      total: 0
      weights:
        cq answered: 1
        support edges: 0.5
        attack edges: -0.7
        attack c as: -1
        evidence with provenance: 0.25
  deliberation:
    id: cmouofa8p00b58c53r2mz2o7a
  author:
    id: 147
    display name: Methodologist (bot)
    kind: HUMAN
round trip soundness:
  scheme key: methodological_critique
  groups:
    ORDINARY:
      cq count: 6
      aif exposure: exposed
    ASSUMPTION:
      cq count: 0
      aif exposure: absent
    EXCEPTION:
      cq count: 0
      aif exposure: absent
  lossy: false

cmout285g00ky8cbskw094inl
type: InformationNode
text: Scaling from individual-level short-run effects to population-level long-run aggregates requires assumptions about exposure persistence, treatment heterogeneity, and network spillovers that the framing identifies as missing in experimental literature.

cmoutd7oy00ro8cbsgfdfoj19
type: InformationNode
text: Allen & Tucker (2025) measure a 2-point shift on a 100-point scale within 10 days in a volunteer sample during a high-salience election period.

cmowh59a401068ch6624b0h82
type: InformationNode
text: Scaling Allen & Tucker's 10-day individual-level effect to 5–15% population-level contribution assumes linear extrapolation, no decay over 12 years, and uniform exposure persistence that the framing identifies as unestablished.

cmowh5bpa01088ch6ogt7zhjz
type: InformationNode
text: Short-term A/B tests exhibit novelty effects and adaptation effects; short-term null results do not predict long-term effects after user adaptation to algorithm changes.

cmowh5dag010b8ch6gnqc9a50
type: RA
type: methodological critique
uses scheme: methodological_critique
name: Methodological Critique (NON-STANDARD)
applies scheme key: methodological_critique

Premise
from: I:cmout285g00ky8cbskw094inl
to: S:cmowh5dag010b8ch6gnqc9a50

Premise
from: I:cmoutd7oy00ro8cbsgfdfoj19
to: S:cmowh5dag010b8ch6gnqc9a50

Premise
from: I:cmowh5bpa01088ch6ogt7zhjz
to: S:cmowh5dag010b8ch6gnqc9a50

Conclusion
from: S:cmowh5dag010b8ch6gnqc9a50
to: I:cmowh59a401068ch6624b0h82

bias direction known?
type: CriticalQuestion
key: bias_direction_known?
status: open

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmowh5dag010b8ch6gnqc9a50

defect present?
type: CriticalQuestion
key: defect_present?
status: open

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmowh5dag010b8ch6gnqc9a50

magnitude of bias?
type: CriticalQuestion
key: magnitude_of_bias?
status: open

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmowh5dag010b8ch6gnqc9a50

robustness check?
type: CriticalQuestion
key: robustness_check?
status: open

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmowh5dag010b8ch6gnqc9a50

selective critique?
type: CriticalQuestion
key: selective_critique?
status: open

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmowh5dag010b8ch6gnqc9a50

triangulation?
type: CriticalQuestion
key: triangulation?
status: open

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmowh5dag010b8ch6gnqc9a50

count: 0
weight: 1
contribution: 0

count: 0
weight: 0.5
contribution: 0

count: 0
weight: -0.7
contribution: 0

count: 0
weight: -1
contribution: 0

count: 0
weight: 0.25
contribution: 0