Introduction

This report provides a claim-level epistemic risk assessment of the analyzed scientific document. Each claim extracted from the document has been evaluated against the evidence presented to identify potential instances of overreach—where claims may exceed what the evidence actually supports.

The assessment focuses on three primary failure modes: causal claims from correlational evidence, overgeneralization beyond sample scope, and underpowered claims from small samples.

Executive Summary

Total Claims

Flagged Claims

Evidence Found

Other Findings

Risk Distribution

● High: 2 ● Medium: 0 ● Low: 1

All Claims

#	Claim	Risk Level	Score	Failure Modes
1	Participants showed strong risk-averse behavior across all trial types (N=25, p<0.01).	low	25%	None
2	These findings demonstrate that humans universally exhibit risk aversion when making financial decisions.	high	78%	Overgeneralization
3	The strong preference for certainty observed in our sample reflects an innate human tendency to avoid risk.	high	72%	Overgeneralization

Flagged Claims Details

1. These findings demonstrate that humans universally exhibit risk aversion when making financial decisions.

Risk Score: 78%

Failure Modes: Overgeneralization

Evidence:

Participants were 25 undergraduate psychology students (18 females, 7 males, mean age 19.2 years) enrolled in Introduction to Psychology at State University.
N=25

Evidence:

On average, participants chose the certain option in 73% of trials (SD=12%). The effect size was large (Cohen's d=1.2).

Explanation:

This claim generalizes from 25 undergraduate psychology students at a single US university to "humans universally." The sample is not representative of global human population - it excludes different cultures, age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds, and education levels. Risk preferences are known to vary significantly across cultures and contexts.

2. The strong preference for certainty observed in our sample reflects an innate human tendency to avoid risk.

Risk Score: 72%

Failure Modes: Overgeneralization

Evidence:

Participants were 25 undergraduate psychology students (18 females, 7 males, mean age 19.2 years) enrolled in Introduction to Psychology at State University.
N=25

Explanation:

Claiming an "innate human tendency" based on a small, homogeneous sample of undergraduate students is a significant overgeneralization. The study cannot distinguish learned behavior from innate tendencies, and the sample lacks the diversity needed to support universal claims.

Evidence Extracted

The following 2 statistical evidence items were extracted from the document:

Participants were 25 undergraduate psychology students (18 females, 7 males, mean age 19.2 years) enrolled in Introduction to Psychology at State University.

N=25

On average, participants chose the certain option in 73% of trials (SD=12%). The effect size was large (Cohen's d=1.2).

Appendix: Methodology

How This Report Was Generated

Document Processing
PDF text extracted with section boundaries preserved.

Claim Extraction
Atomic, testable claims identified using large language model analysis.

Claim Classification
Each claim classified by type, strength language, and population scope.

Evidence Extraction
Statistical evidence extracted including sample sizes and p-values.

Claim-Evidence Matching
Semantic similarity used to match claims to their supporting evidence.

Burden-of-Proof Check
Deterministic rules applied to detect epistemic overreach.

Risk Scoring
Epistemic risk score computed based on failure modes.

Failure Mode Definitions

Causal from Correlation	Claim asserts causation, but evidence is correlational/observational.
Overgeneralization	Claim makes broad assertions from a narrow or small sample.
Underpowered	Claim makes strong assertions with inadequate sample size.
Insufficient Evidence	No matching evidence found to evaluate this claim.