Preparing Your Submission
What a well-scoped submission looks like
A well-scoped submission gives the analytical process enough to work with and enough to test. This page is not a requirement — you are welcome to submit at any time — but the guidance below may help you prepare your material, or help you determine whether your project is ready for review.
The questions that follow are the kinds of questions the process asks. They are not a checklist for approval. They are offered as a way to think about your own work before someone else does.
What a Well-Scoped Submission Includes
A Clearly Stated Central Claim
What specifically are you asking the review to examine? A hypothesis, a research question, an argument, a proposal, or a position — stated plainly enough that someone outside your field can identify what is being claimed.
The Relevant Evidence or Source Material
What you are relying on — not just what supports your position. The process examines the relationship between evidence and claims, so the material that grounds your work is more useful than a polished summary of your conclusions.
An Honest Characterization of What You Know
What you have established, what you suspect, and what you are assuming. The distinction matters. A review that cannot tell where your evidence ends and your inference begins has less to work with.
Enough Context to Understand the Stakes
What problem are you trying to solve, and why does it matter? The process is more effective when it understands what you are trying to achieve — and what would count as a meaningful answer.
A Sense of Where You Are Uncertain
If you already know where the weak points may be, that can help focus the review. If you do not, the analysis will examine the work independently rather than assume where those weaknesses lie.
Questions Worth Asking Yourself
These are not the questions the process will ask you. They are the questions the process will ask about your work — and that you may find useful to ask first.
- 01
What evidence would disprove your central claim?
- 02
Which of your assumptions are inherited from your field or framework, and which have you actually demonstrated?
- 03
Where does your evidence end and your inference begin?
- 04
What competing explanations have you considered and set aside — and why?
- 05
What would it look like for your claim to make contact with external reality — an observation, an experiment, a prediction, or a body of evidence that could confirm or disconfirm it?
- 06
If someone else had constructed this argument, where would you look first for problems?
- 07
What is the strongest version of the case against your position?
Beyond Academic Research
The analytical process was developed through research review, but the structure of the inquiry is not specific to any one domain. Projects that depend on the relationship between evidence and claims can often be examined using the same underlying approach.
A business proposal, a technical argument, a funding case, or a strategic plan — each involves assumptions, evidence, competing considerations, and conclusions that may or may not survive scrutiny. The questions above apply regardless of the domain.
If you are uncertain whether your project fits, the simplest way to find out is to describe it in your submission — or feel free to email your questions to kgadigital@gmail.com.
Ready to Submit?
If your project is ready for review, you can submit it at any time.
Submit a Project →