R4
Findings Classification
The findings classification makes it possible to state precisely what an audit has established, what it has not established, and what response the grounds can bear.
Abstract
This document establishes seven finding categories for Reality Audit. They distinguish supported correspondence, qualified correspondence, unresolved uncertainty, insufficient grounds, error or contradiction, capture risk, and capture identified.
The classification is intended to prevent uncertainty from being presented as knowledge, error from being inflated into capture, or strong correction from being imposed without a correspondingly bounded and documented finding.
Purpose and scope
An audit must end in more than a general assessment. It must show which part of the matter the finding concerns, what the material supports, how strongly it supports it, and what remains unresolved.
The classification may be applied to individual claims, subquestions, models, documentation chains, procedures, or practices. The same matter may contain several different findings.
Classification principles
The category is selected according to the weakest decisive link in the part of the claim being classified. Strong data cannot repair an invalid inference, and a plausible interpretation cannot make absent sources traceable.
- Bound the finding to an identifiable question or claim element.
- Distinguish observation, source, interpretation, model, inference, and conclusion.
- Make counter-material and alternative explanations visible.
- State uncertainty, omissions, and conditions that could alter the finding.
- Do not use a finding category as a characterization of a person or group.
- Tie every correction to an explicit finding.
Finding categories F1–F7
The categories are not a simple scale from good to bad. They express different states in the relation between claim, grounds, frame, and actuality.
Supported correspondence
The claim is bounded, traceable, and sufficiently supported within the audited scope.
- Minimum basis
- Relevant sources and counter-material have been tested; decisive inferences are visible; no decisive contradiction remains unresolved.
- Consequence
- The claim may stand with explicit conditions, sources, and revision grounds.
Qualified or partial correspondence
Something holds, but the claim is too broad, too strong, imprecise, or dependent on conditions that have not been made visible.
- Minimum basis
- The core is supported, but scope, generalization, language, or inference requires qualification.
- Consequence
- Clarify, divide, or downgrade the claim before it stands.
Unresolved uncertainty
The available material does not justify a stronger determination in either direction.
- Minimum basis
- The material is ambiguous, incomplete, or balanced among plausible explanations.
- Consequence
- Keep the question open and state what additional material may resolve it.
Insufficient grounds
The claim exceeds what the sources, observations, or documentation can support.
- Minimum basis
- Decisive sources, references, data, or documentary links are missing or cannot be reviewed.
- Consequence
- Suspend, withdraw, or downgrade the claim until better grounds are available.
Error or contradiction
A decisive element does not correspond to documented material, rests on a false premise, or conflicts with necessary parts of the matter.
- Minimum basis
- The error or contradiction can be identified and traced to a concrete step.
- Consequence
- Correct, withdraw, or reconstruct the affected element and assess consequential error.
Capture risk
There are documented indications that a frame restricts what may count as grounds or correction, but the threshold for identifying capture has not been met.
- Minimum basis
- At least one governing risk indicator is documented, while substitution, resistance, or consequence remains unresolved.
- Consequence
- Open the frame, strengthen counter-testing, document the risk, and schedule renewed assessment.
Capture identified
A frame has demonstrably taken governing priority over what it was meant to serve, while relevant correction is rejected, transformed, or made inaccessible to protect the frame.
- Minimum basis
- The frame, substitution, governing mechanism, resistance to correction, and relevant consequence are all traceable.
- Consequence
- Suspend or bound the governing effect, restore access to the grounds, and require independent review.
Confidence and linguistic form
Finding category and confidence are separate questions. An audit may, for example, contain a high-confidence F5 finding about one bounded error while the overall matter remains F3.
| Degree | Conditions | Recommended wording |
|---|---|---|
| High | Multiple independent traces, strong counter-testing, little relevant residual uncertainty | “The audit establishes …” |
| Moderate | Sufficient grounds, but relevant limitations or alternatives remain | “The audit supports …” |
| Low | Preliminary pattern or limited material | “The material indicates …” |
| Unresolved | The grounds do not support a directional assessment | “The question remains unresolved …” |
Compound and divided findings
Complex matters must be divided where different elements have different status. A single overall label may otherwise conceal that the observation is strong, the model uncertain, and the conclusion false.
- Classify each decisive claim element separately.
- Show how the partial findings affect the overall conclusion.
- Do not allow one strong finding to transfer to untested parts.
- State explicitly what the audit did not determine.
Reasoning and finding record
Each principal finding must be intelligible without requiring the reader to reconstruct the entire audit. At the same time, the finding record must trace back to the sources and Workbench.
- Identifier and bounded question.
- Finding category and confidence.
- Concise conclusion without rhetorical inflation.
- Sources and decisive grounds.
- Counter-material and alternative explanations.
- Uncertainty, limitations, and what could alter the finding.
- Recommended or required correction.
- Responsibility for contradiction and review.
Contradiction and review
A party materially affected by a finding should be given an opportunity to identify errors, missing material, alternative explanations, and misunderstood context before the finding becomes final.
New information must not merely be appended; it must be assessed for whether it changes category, confidence, scope, or correction.
Relation to correction
The classification bounds what correction is responsible. F1 normally requires no intervention beyond documentation and revision conditions. F2 calls for qualification. F3 and F4 call for openness or additional grounds. F5 calls for correction. F6 calls for safeguards and renewed testing. F7 may require the governing effect to be suspended or reconstructed.
Grounds and references
- DET SOM ERFoundational work for actuality, correspondence, traceability, and correction.
- Reality Audit — Methodology Overview
- Reality Audit — Audit Standard
Revision history
- Document version
- 1.0
- First published
- 18 June 2026
First public edition.