Analytical Standards — Hainsworth Institute

Facts, source claims, interpretation, ICOS inference and forecast must be separated.
The reader must always be able to distinguish what was observed, what was inferred through the framework, and what is speculative.
Material explanations are checked before decorative cultural explanations.
Geography, resources, demographics and institutional structure are examined before attributing behaviour to cultural preference or national character.
Every serious diagnosis includes a rival explanation.
No analysis is complete without naming the most plausible alternative reading and explaining why it was rejected.
Confidence must be stated.
Every claim carries an explicit confidence level. High confidence is not the default; it is earned.
Evidence gaps must be visible.
What we do not know is as important as what we do. Gaps are named, not buried.
Each forecast includes watchpoints or falsification conditions.
A forecast without a falsification condition is not a forecast. It is a narrative.
Explanation is not justification.
Understanding why a system behaves as it does does not mean endorsing that behaviour.
Civilisations and people are not ranked by the framework.
ICOS maps difference. It does not score, rank or moralise. No kernel profile is presented as superior.
Public work requires human review and approval.
Nothing is published without review by the Institute's analytical lead.
Corrections and revisions must remain visible.
When analysis is updated or corrected, the change is documented. The archive of revision is part of the record.

Apply These Standards to Your Question

Every engagement from the Institute is held to these principles.

Request an analysis