{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "date": "2026-10-08",
  "cohort": "first_ten_claim_adjudication_pilot",
  "scope": "Ten directive claims chosen to test independent source-to-claim appraisal and the research publication gate; not a preregistered systematic review.",
  "decision_rule": "Qualified research context may be published with attributed sources and limitations; comprehensive scientific clearance requires methods, population, effect heterogeneity, contrary evidence, and source-to-claim validation at full depth.",
  "records": [
    {
      "id": "042",
      "decision": "qualified_support",
      "claim": "Feedback frequency alone is not a sufficient proxy for performance improvement.",
      "design": "Two meta-analyses: performance-feedback interventions and appraisal reactions.",
      "population": "607 feedback-intervention effects/23,663 observations in Kluger & DeNisi; appraisal studies sampled by Pichler et al.",
      "supports": [
        "kluger-denisi-1996",
        "pichler-beenen-wood-2020"
      ],
      "counter": [],
      "evidence": "Kluger & DeNisi found average performance benefits (d≈0.41) but more than one-third of effects were negative. Pichler et al. found conditional relationships between feedback frequency and appraisal reactions.",
      "scope": "Appraisal reactions are not subsequent job performance; the studies do not randomize frequent versus infrequent feedback as a universal policy.",
      "text": "More frequent feedback is not inherently more effective. A meta-analysis of feedback interventions found both positive and negative performance effects, while a separate meta-analysis found that the association of feedback frequency with appraisal reactions varies with rating favorability and knowledge of standards.",
      "limitations": "The cited outcomes, interventions and populations differ. No universal causal effect of increasing workplace feedback cadence is established.",
      "access": "publisher abstracts and detailed summary; not complete study-level risk of bias review",
      "review_date": "2026-10-08",
      "review_depth": "primary_publisher_and_open_text_claim_appraisal_not_exhaustive",
      "full_scientific_clearance": false,
      "reviewed_source_count": 2,
      "approved_for_publication_as_qualified_context": true,
      "publication_gate": "conditional_qualified_only",
      "follow_up": "Recheck full texts, risk of bias, publication bias, and contrary evidence across current research before any comprehensive scientific clearance.",
      "claim_id": "MZ-042-P1",
      "source_claim_link_file": "/research/corpus/pilot-evidence-edges.json"
    },
    {
      "id": "058",
      "decision": "qualified_support",
      "claim": "Psychological safety is a perceived team climate associated with team learning; declaring it does not establish it.",
      "design": "Original team field study and meta-analysis of antecedents/outcomes.",
      "population": "Edmondson team sample; Frazier et al. 136 samples, over 22,000 people and nearly 5,000 groups.",
      "supports": [
        "edmondson-1999",
        "frazier-et-al-2017"
      ],
      "counter": [],
      "evidence": "Edmondson linked measured team psychological safety to learning behavior. Frazier et al. pooled 136 samples and found associations with performance and other work outcomes.",
      "scope": "A manager's statement that a team is safe is not a measured team belief; most synthesized associations do not isolate the causal effect of statements.",
      "text": "Psychological safety concerns a shared perception that interpersonal risks are manageable. Field research and meta-analysis associate it with team learning and work outcomes; announcing safety does not establish that employees experience it.",
      "limitations": "Studies vary in design and measurement, and correlations cannot establish the effect of any particular managerial declaration.",
      "access": "publisher abstract and accessible conceptual study summary; no comprehensive intervention review",
      "review_date": "2026-10-08",
      "review_depth": "primary_publisher_and_open_text_claim_appraisal_not_exhaustive",
      "full_scientific_clearance": false,
      "reviewed_source_count": 2,
      "approved_for_publication_as_qualified_context": true,
      "publication_gate": "conditional_qualified_only",
      "follow_up": "Recheck full texts, risk of bias, publication bias, and contrary evidence across current research before any comprehensive scientific clearance.",
      "claim_id": "MZ-058-P1",
      "source_claim_link_file": "/research/corpus/pilot-evidence-edges.json"
    },
    {
      "id": "062",
      "decision": "qualified_support",
      "claim": "Sales-based promotion decisions sometimes favor present performance over predictors of managerial value.",
      "design": "Observational panel microdata with manager-value-added estimation.",
      "population": "38,843 sales workers and 1,553 promotions across 131 U.S. firms, 2005–2011.",
      "supports": [
        "benson-li-shue-2019"
      ],
      "counter": [],
      "evidence": "Prepromotion sales performance predicted promotion but was negatively correlated with subsequent manager value added, conditional on the data design. The authors discuss incentive benefits as an alternative rationale for apparent mismatch.",
      "scope": "Promoting a good producer is not necessarily wrong; manager value-added estimation and organizational-specific incentives have limits.",
      "text": "In data from 131 U.S. firms, high sales performance was strongly related to promotion, but it was not necessarily a good predictor of subsequent managerial contribution. The pattern is consistent with a Peter Principle trade-off rather than proof that high performers make poor managers.",
      "limitations": "Observational sales-sector data, selection effects, model-dependent value-added estimates, and incentive benefits limit generalization.",
      "access": "publisher full article text including study setting and empirical strategy",
      "review_date": "2026-10-08",
      "review_depth": "primary_publisher_and_open_text_claim_appraisal_not_exhaustive",
      "full_scientific_clearance": false,
      "reviewed_source_count": 1,
      "approved_for_publication_as_qualified_context": true,
      "publication_gate": "conditional_qualified_only",
      "follow_up": "Recheck full texts, risk of bias, publication bias, and contrary evidence across current research before any comprehensive scientific clearance.",
      "claim_id": "MZ-062-P1",
      "source_claim_link_file": "/research/corpus/pilot-evidence-edges.json"
    },
    {
      "id": "065",
      "decision": "qualified_support",
      "claim": "Office openness may trade perceived ease of interaction for reduced acoustic and visual privacy.",
      "design": "Post-occupancy comparative surveys; separate two-firm pre/post observational field studies.",
      "population": "Occupants sampled across office configurations; separate field transitions in two corporate headquarters.",
      "supports": [
        "kim-de-dear-2013",
        "bernstein-turban-2018"
      ],
      "counter": [],
      "evidence": "Kim & de Dear report dissatisfaction with privacy and noise in more open offices. Bernstein & Turban observed declines in face-to-face interaction after two open-office transitions, with increased electronic contact.",
      "scope": "Workspace satisfaction, communication volume and productive collaboration are different outcomes; two transitions cannot establish universal effects of open-plan layouts.",
      "text": "Office-layout studies identify trade-offs. Occupant surveys associate open-plan configurations with reduced acoustic and visual privacy, while two office-transition studies observed less face-to-face interaction after opening workspaces.",
      "limitations": "Survey selection and pre/post workplace confounding prevent a universal causal conclusion about productivity, collaboration or all open offices.",
      "access": "publisher abstracts and open full text for Bernstein & Turban",
      "review_date": "2026-10-08",
      "review_depth": "primary_publisher_and_open_text_claim_appraisal_not_exhaustive",
      "full_scientific_clearance": false,
      "reviewed_source_count": 2,
      "approved_for_publication_as_qualified_context": true,
      "publication_gate": "conditional_qualified_only",
      "follow_up": "Recheck full texts, risk of bias, publication bias, and contrary evidence across current research before any comprehensive scientific clearance.",
      "claim_id": "MZ-065-P1",
      "source_claim_link_file": "/research/corpus/pilot-evidence-edges.json"
    },
    {
      "id": "071",
      "decision": "conditional_mixed",
      "claim": "Forced rating distributions can increase short-run task output and also induce sabotage when sabotage is possible.",
      "design": "Real-effort controlled experiment comparing distribution-restricted and unrestricted supervisory ratings.",
      "population": "Experimental supervisors/workers doing assigned tasks, not a representative working population.",
      "supports": [
        "berger-harbring-sliwka-2013"
      ],
      "counter": [],
      "evidence": "Productivity gains around 6–12% in main comparisons; effects weaker with prior baseline experience; forced distribution became detrimental when sabotage was feasible.",
      "scope": "A controlled laboratory treatment does not imply effects of forced ranking in deployed evaluation systems.",
      "text": "In a real-effort experiment, forced-distribution ratings raised productivity by approximately 6–12% in certain comparisons but became detrimental when workers could sabotage others. Both responses are part of the evidence.",
      "limitations": "Artificial task design, rating incentives and sabotage options constrain workplace generalizability; no categorical good/bad verdict is justified.",
      "access": "publisher abstract and publicly described experimental conditions",
      "review_date": "2026-10-08",
      "review_depth": "primary_publisher_and_open_text_claim_appraisal_not_exhaustive",
      "full_scientific_clearance": false,
      "reviewed_source_count": 1,
      "approved_for_publication_as_qualified_context": true,
      "publication_gate": "conditional_qualified_only",
      "follow_up": "Recheck full texts, risk of bias, publication bias, and contrary evidence across current research before any comprehensive scientific clearance.",
      "claim_id": "MZ-071-P1",
      "source_claim_link_file": "/research/corpus/pilot-evidence-edges.json"
    },
    {
      "id": "085",
      "decision": "qualified_support_with_prior_error_corrected",
      "claim": "Videoconference camera-on conditions can increase fatigue under specific experimental conditions, alongside survey-measured general videoconference fatigue.",
      "design": "Scale-development/validation surveys plus 4-week within-person field experiment manipulating camera on/off.",
      "population": "Fauville: 395-item-reduction respondents then 2,724 validation survey respondents; Shockley: 103 workers, 1,408 daily observations.",
      "supports": [
        "fauville-et-al-2021",
        "shockley-et-al-2021-camera"
      ],
      "counter": [],
      "evidence": "The survey found frequency/duration/burstiness related to fatigue, not camera causation. The later field experiment manipulated camera use and reported greater daily fatigue under camera-on conditions.",
      "scope": "Earlier panel wrongly implied no camera-use experiment existed. The field design tests a more directly relevant manipulation but does not prove universal or permanent effects.",
      "text": "Videoconference fatigue has measurable general, social, emotional, visual and motivational dimensions. Beyond observational survey associations, a four-week field experiment comparing camera-on and camera-off meetings found greater fatigue in camera-on conditions.",
      "limitations": "The field experiment involved 103 employees during a specific period; self-reported fatigue, context and possible subgroup differences limit universal policy claims.",
      "access": "open-access full article for Fauville; PubMed experimental abstract for Shockley",
      "review_date": "2026-10-08",
      "review_depth": "primary_publisher_and_open_text_claim_appraisal_not_exhaustive",
      "full_scientific_clearance": false,
      "reviewed_source_count": 2,
      "approved_for_publication_as_qualified_context": true,
      "publication_gate": "conditional_qualified_only",
      "follow_up": "Recheck full texts, risk of bias, publication bias, and contrary evidence across current research before any comprehensive scientific clearance.",
      "claim_id": "MZ-085-P1",
      "source_claim_link_file": "/research/corpus/pilot-evidence-edges.json"
    },
    {
      "id": "101",
      "decision": "qualified_support",
      "claim": "Electronic performance monitoring shows no pooled performance improvement in a major meta-analysis while associating with higher worker stress.",
      "design": "Meta-analysis of 94 independent worker samples, supplemented by another monitoring synthesis.",
      "population": "23,461 workers across contexts in Ravid et al.",
      "supports": [
        "ravid-et-al-2023",
        "siegel-konig-lazar-2022"
      ],
      "counter": [],
      "evidence": "Ravid et al. report no pooled evidence of performance improvement and increased stress associations regardless of monitoring features. Transparency and lower invasiveness relate to more favorable attitudes.",
      "scope": "Absence of average benefit is not proof all forms of monitoring harm performance; monitoring characteristics vary.",
      "text": "A meta-analysis of 94 samples involving 23,461 workers found no overall performance improvement associated with electronic monitoring and an association with higher stress. More transparent, less invasive monitoring was associated with more favorable worker attitudes.",
      "limitations": "Study design and operational differences matter; meta-analytic absence of average performance gain does not prove no benefit in every setting.",
      "access": "publisher full article and abstract, meta-analytic summary",
      "review_date": "2026-10-08",
      "review_depth": "primary_publisher_and_open_text_claim_appraisal_not_exhaustive",
      "full_scientific_clearance": false,
      "reviewed_source_count": 2,
      "approved_for_publication_as_qualified_context": true,
      "publication_gate": "conditional_qualified_only",
      "follow_up": "Recheck full texts, risk of bias, publication bias, and contrary evidence across current research before any comprehensive scientific clearance.",
      "claim_id": "MZ-101-P1",
      "source_claim_link_file": "/research/corpus/pilot-evidence-edges.json"
    },
    {
      "id": "102",
      "decision": "contested_evidence_qualified",
      "claim": "Extrinsic rewards can affect intrinsic motivation, but net effects differ by reward design and meta-analytic choices.",
      "design": "Contrasting meta-analyses of experimental reward studies plus subsequent performance-focused synthesis.",
      "population": "Deci:128 experimental studies; Cameron/Pierce:96 between-group studies; Cerasoli:183 studies/212,468 participants across school, work and physical domains.",
      "supports": [
        "deci-koestner-ryan-1999"
      ],
      "counter": [
        "cameron-pierce-1994",
        "cerasoli-nicklin-ford-2014"
      ],
      "evidence": "Deci et al. found negative free-choice intrinsic-motivation effects for specified expected tangible contingencies; Cameron & Pierce concluded detrimental effects were limited. Cerasoli et al. found intrinsic motivation and incentives can jointly predict performance, with incentives more predictive of quantity.",
      "scope": "The meta-analyses use differing inclusion/analysis choices and endpoints. Free-choice motivation is not workplace output. No blanket negative effect of 'incentivizing' is established.",
      "text": "Research on external rewards is contested and conditional. One meta-analysis found reduced free-choice intrinsic motivation under several expected tangible-reward contingencies; another found harms more limited. A later performance synthesis found incentives and intrinsic motivation can jointly predict performance, depending on the task.",
      "limitations": "Meta-analytic disagreements, reward contingencies, age groups, and outcome definitions preclude a universal claim that incentives destroy intrinsic motivation or performance.",
      "access": "publisher/PubMed abstracts for all three opposing syntheses",
      "review_date": "2026-10-08",
      "review_depth": "primary_publisher_and_open_text_claim_appraisal_not_exhaustive",
      "full_scientific_clearance": false,
      "reviewed_source_count": 3,
      "approved_for_publication_as_qualified_context": true,
      "publication_gate": "conditional_qualified_only",
      "follow_up": "Recheck full texts, risk of bias, publication bias, and contrary evidence across current research before any comprehensive scientific clearance.",
      "claim_id": "MZ-102-P1",
      "source_claim_link_file": "/research/corpus/pilot-evidence-edges.json"
    },
    {
      "id": "108",
      "decision": "qualified_support_with_null_outcome",
      "claim": "Perceived psychological-contract breach relates to attitudes and intentions, but actual turnover was not significantly associated in the cited synthesis.",
      "design": "Meta-analysis of eight work outcomes and structural equation modeling of a theoretical mediation pathway.",
      "population": "Observational studies contributing to the Zhao et al. meta-analysis; heterogeneous work samples.",
      "supports": [
        "zhao-et-al-2007"
      ],
      "counter": [],
      "evidence": "Zhao et al. report associations for seven outcomes but not actual turnover. Modelled violation/mistrust mediators do not establish randomized causality.",
      "scope": "Perceived breach and objectively broken promises differ; actual turnover cannot be claimed as demonstrated by this source.",
      "text": "Perceived psychological-contract breach is associated with less favorable work attitudes, turnover intentions and several behavioral outcomes in a meta-analysis. Actual turnover was the exception: the association was not established in that synthesis.",
      "limitations": "The pooled literature predominantly measures perceptions; modeled mediation does not prove a causal pathway or actual employee departure.",
      "access": "publisher article abstract and published meta-analysis discussion",
      "review_date": "2026-10-08",
      "review_depth": "primary_publisher_and_open_text_claim_appraisal_not_exhaustive",
      "full_scientific_clearance": false,
      "reviewed_source_count": 1,
      "approved_for_publication_as_qualified_context": true,
      "publication_gate": "conditional_qualified_only",
      "follow_up": "Recheck full texts, risk of bias, publication bias, and contrary evidence across current research before any comprehensive scientific clearance.",
      "claim_id": "MZ-108-P1",
      "source_claim_link_file": "/research/corpus/pilot-evidence-edges.json"
    },
    {
      "id": "122",
      "decision": "qualified_support_with_population_limits",
      "claim": "In a controlled hypothetical reward scenario, explicit meritocracy framing increased gender-biased allocations among managerial-experienced participants.",
      "design": "Three vignette-based experiments with manipulated company meritocracy framing and employee gender.",
      "population": "445 participants with managerial experience.",
      "supports": [
        "castilla-benard-2010"
      ],
      "counter": [],
      "evidence": "Across three experiments, participants allocated larger rewards to equally performing male employees when organizational culture was framed as meritocratic.",
      "scope": "The experiment does not measure prevalence of real-world pay discrimination or prove that all meritocracy systems worsen gender inequality.",
      "text": "Across three experiments involving 445 participants with managerial experience, framing an organization as meritocratic was associated with higher monetary rewards for equally performing male profiles than female profiles. The result concerns the tested framing conditions.",
      "limitations": "Hypothetical managerial decisions and specific manipulations limit transfer to actual compensation systems and diverse cultural contexts.",
      "access": "publisher article abstract and methodology summary",
      "review_date": "2026-10-08",
      "review_depth": "primary_publisher_and_open_text_claim_appraisal_not_exhaustive",
      "full_scientific_clearance": false,
      "reviewed_source_count": 1,
      "approved_for_publication_as_qualified_context": true,
      "publication_gate": "conditional_qualified_only",
      "follow_up": "Recheck full texts, risk of bias, publication bias, and contrary evidence across current research before any comprehensive scientific clearance.",
      "claim_id": "MZ-122-P1",
      "source_claim_link_file": "/research/corpus/pilot-evidence-edges.json"
    }
  ],
  "counts": {
    "pilot_decisions": 10,
    "published_qualified_context": 10,
    "comprehensive_scientific_clearance": 0,
    "explicit_competing_synthesis": 1,
    "corrected_prior_evidence_misstatement": 1
  }
}