{
  "schema": "vedokrok.public-item.v1",
  "release_id": "MHC-RPUB-20260920-75ad787a",
  "url": "/knowledge/run-a-test-that-could-prove-you-wrong",
  "id": "MHC-U-9C0A00000004",
  "version": "0.2.0",
  "title": "Run a test that could prove you wrong",
  "summary": "A test that only your favourite explanation can celebrate is usually not much of a test.",
  "kind": "heuristic",
  "body": "Put the leading explanation next to a plausible rival, then look for an observation on which they make different predictions. The aim is not to be contrarian. It is to collect information that can actually move the decision.",
  "limits": [
    "Do not invent a weak alternative just to create symmetry. Stop when extra testing costs more than the decision warrants, and keep uncertainty visible.",
    "This general reasoning aid does not replace professional advice in high-stakes decisions."
  ],
  "topics": [
    "decision-making",
    "structured-comparison",
    "workplace-decisions"
  ],
  "intents": [
    "review-a-decision"
  ],
  "source_ids": [
    "MHC-S-9C0A00000001"
  ],
  "evidence": [
    {
      "claim": "Confirmation bias includes seeking or interpreting evidence in ways that favor an existing belief or hypothesis.",
      "source_id": "MHC-S-9C0A00000001",
      "role": "supports",
      "note": "Supports only the scoped description; does not test the corpus procedure.",
      "locator": "Publisher abstract and review description"
    }
  ],
  "use_when": [
    "You have a preferred explanation and can still inspect evidence before committing."
  ],
  "avoid_when": [
    "Do not invent a weak alternative just to create symmetry. Stop when extra testing costs more than the decision warrants, and keep uncertainty visible."
  ],
  "steps": [
    "Write the explanation you currently prefer and the decision it would support.",
    "Add one plausible alternative. For each, write what you would expect to observe if it were true.",
    "Choose the cheapest useful check where the predictions differ.",
    "Record what happened, then keep, narrow, or change the conclusion. If the result fits both explanations, call it inconclusive."
  ],
  "example": "An import failure could come from the network or a malformed file. Repeating the same failing import proves little. Holding the connection constant while comparing a known-good file with the suspect file tells you more.",
  "check": "Can you name two explanations, the observation that separates them, and how each possible result would change your conclusion?",
  "sources": [
    {
      "id": "MHC-S-9C0A00000001",
      "title": "Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises",
      "url": "https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175",
      "authors": [
        "Raymond S. Nickerson"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "relations": [
    {
      "from": "MHC-U-9C0A00000004",
      "to": "MHC-U-9C0A00000001",
      "type": "useful_with",
      "url": "/knowledge/confirmation-bias"
    },
    {
      "from": "MHC-U-9C0A00000004",
      "to": "MHC-U-9C0A00000005",
      "type": "useful_with",
      "url": "/knowledge/estimate-before-the-number-arrives"
    }
  ],
  "collections": [
    {
      "id": "MHC-B-9C0A00000001",
      "title": "Check a decision before you commit",
      "url": "/collections/check-a-decision-before-you-commit"
    }
  ]
}