aif version: AIF-Core-2011
mesh aif profile: 1.0
exported at: 2026-08-30T19:16:16.326Z
attestation:
  identifier: rPNTHCC5
  argument id: cmorpedfm006l8cjz7k80z3py
  permalink: https://www.isonomia.app/a/rPNTHCC5
  version: 1
  immutable permalink: https://www.isonomia.app/a/rPNTHCC5@7ca2e4cc1ab5c8610311887666e7febe6becea2d2d096f2c95b9cd92b0f954db
  iso id: iso:argument:rPNTHCC5
  iso url: https://www.isonomia.app/iso/argument/rPNTHCC5
  retrieved at: 2026-08-30T19:16:16.145Z
  created at: 2026-05-04T21:20:33.922Z
  updated at: 2026-05-04T21:20:33.922Z
  conclusion:
    claim id: cmorpe8ak006c8cjzstby35q0
    text: Individual-level randomization does not systematically underestimate population-level effects when treatment and control groups share network connections, as spillovers would contaminate the control group and bias results toward null.
  premises:
    claim id: cmorpe9j9006e8cjz6zg11a8g
    text: The Guess et al. (2023) experiment included users embedded in real social networks where treated users' changed exposure could influence untreated network contacts.
    is implicit: false
  premises:
    claim id: cmorpeaq5006g8cjzm9psa2fj
    text: If network spillovers were substantial, control group members would be partially treated through their connections to treated users, biasing the experiment toward finding null effects.
    is implicit: false
  premises:
    claim id: cmorpebx1006i8cjzl72zzkjn
    text: The null result therefore either reflects true absence of effect or underestimates the true null due to spillover contamination, not underestimation of a positive effect.
    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: cmorpefci006r8cjz2ciqco1q
      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: cmorpefcj006s8cjzw9cnclky
      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: cmorpefcj006t8cjzvowloxfx
      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: cmorpefcj006u8cjzgo3u4ytr
      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: cmorpefcj006v8cjz4gzcqonq
      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: cmorpefcj006w8cjzwkiznvyo
      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: cmoqp0jzk00iu8c01gmg7qa68
  author:
    id: 139
    display name: Advocate B (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

cmorpe8ak006c8cjzstby35q0
type: InformationNode
text: Individual-level randomization does not systematically underestimate population-level effects when treatment and control groups share network connections, as spillovers would contaminate the control group and bias results toward null.

cmorpe9j9006e8cjz6zg11a8g
type: InformationNode
text: The Guess et al. (2023) experiment included users embedded in real social networks where treated users' changed exposure could influence untreated network contacts.

cmorpeaq5006g8cjzm9psa2fj
type: InformationNode
text: If network spillovers were substantial, control group members would be partially treated through their connections to treated users, biasing the experiment toward finding null effects.

cmorpebx1006i8cjzl72zzkjn
type: InformationNode
text: The null result therefore either reflects true absence of effect or underestimates the true null due to spillover contamination, not underestimation of a positive effect.

cmorpedfm006l8cjz7k80z3py
type: RA
type: methodological critique
uses scheme: methodological_critique
name: Methodological Critique (NON-STANDARD)
applies scheme key: methodological_critique

Premise
from: I:cmorpe9j9006e8cjz6zg11a8g
to: S:cmorpedfm006l8cjz7k80z3py

Premise
from: I:cmorpeaq5006g8cjzm9psa2fj
to: S:cmorpedfm006l8cjz7k80z3py

Premise
from: I:cmorpebx1006i8cjzl72zzkjn
to: S:cmorpedfm006l8cjz7k80z3py

Conclusion
from: S:cmorpedfm006l8cjz7k80z3py
to: I:cmorpe8ak006c8cjzstby35q0

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

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmorpedfm006l8cjz7k80z3py

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

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmorpedfm006l8cjz7k80z3py

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

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmorpedfm006l8cjz7k80z3py

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

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmorpedfm006l8cjz7k80z3py

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

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmorpedfm006l8cjz7k80z3py

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

hasCriticalQuestion
from: S:cmorpedfm006l8cjz7k80z3py

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