# Policy evidence and calibration protocol

Updated 2026-09-19.

## Purpose

What level of policy claim can the available evidence actually support?

## Who uses this

Policy researcher and qualified subject-matter reviewer

## Records to gather

Current authority; operational records; exposed population; defined baseline/outcome data; comparison evidence.

## Steps

1. Trace Authority, Implementation, Exposure, Practice response, and Outcome in order.
2. Apply the Non-averaged calibration gates and stop at the first unsupported link.
3. Choose a defensible Comparison design and Claim level; translate only supported findings to a specific owner decision.

## Key terms

- **Exposure**: Which defined people, practices, plans, products, or periods were affected.
- **Counterfactual**: Defensible account of what would have occurred without the policy.
- **Claim ceiling**: Strongest conclusion the actual evidence and study design can support.

## Fictional example

Fictional example: A new fee schedule is published, but practice payment data are absent; report publication as implementation evidence without claiming higher collections.

## Next action

Collect the missing link before making a stronger policy-outcome claim.

## Limits

The protocol is an evaluation method, not a predictive policy simulator or a causal conclusion.

## AI coaching

Help me complete this DenQAI file using the context below. Explain the supplied fictional example first, then ask one question at a time about my permitted fictional or aggregate, non-identifying inputs. Treat missing values as unknown, not zero. Keep example values separate from my case. Do not invent records, source verification, contract terms or professional conclusions. Identify the missing evidence and responsible reviewer before the next action.

File: Policy evidence and calibration protocol (Markdown).

Question: What level of policy claim can the available evidence actually support?

Records to gather: Current authority; operational records; exposed population; defined baseline/outcome data; comparison evidence.

Fields or sheets: DenQAI policy-evidence and calibration protocol; Purpose; Required evidence chain; Non-averaged calibration gates; Claim levels; Comparison design; Owner translation; Data and privacy boundary; Core sources.

Key terms:
Exposure: Which defined people, practices, plans, products, or periods were affected.
Counterfactual: Defensible account of what would have occurred without the policy.
Claim ceiling: Strongest conclusion the actual evidence and study design can support.

Steps:
1. Trace Authority, Implementation, Exposure, Practice response, and Outcome in order.
2. Apply the Non-averaged calibration gates and stop at the first unsupported link.
3. Choose a defensible Comparison design and Claim level; translate only supported findings to a specific owner decision.

Fictional example:
Fictional example: A new fee schedule is published, but practice payment data are absent; report publication as implementation evidence without claiming higher collections.

Limits:
The protocol is an evaluation method, not a predictive policy simulator or a causal conclusion.

Next action: Collect the missing link before making a stronger policy-outcome claim.

## AI review

Review my permitted fictional or aggregate, non-identifying draft against the DenQAI file context below. Check the actual fields, units, periods, evidence and unresolved contradictions. Use arithmetic only where the stated model supports it; a CSV has no embedded formulas. Keep missing values unknown and separate facts, assumptions and the fictional example. Return specific corrections, questions for the responsible reviewer and the next action; do not invent professional approval.

File: Policy evidence and calibration protocol (Markdown).

Question: What level of policy claim can the available evidence actually support?

Records to gather: Current authority; operational records; exposed population; defined baseline/outcome data; comparison evidence.

Fields or sheets: DenQAI policy-evidence and calibration protocol; Purpose; Required evidence chain; Non-averaged calibration gates; Claim levels; Comparison design; Owner translation; Data and privacy boundary; Core sources.

Key terms:
Exposure: Which defined people, practices, plans, products, or periods were affected.
Counterfactual: Defensible account of what would have occurred without the policy.
Claim ceiling: Strongest conclusion the actual evidence and study design can support.

Steps:
1. Trace Authority, Implementation, Exposure, Practice response, and Outcome in order.
2. Apply the Non-averaged calibration gates and stop at the first unsupported link.
3. Choose a defensible Comparison design and Claim level; translate only supported findings to a specific owner decision.

Fictional example:
Fictional example: A new fee schedule is published, but practice payment data are absent; report publication as implementation evidence without claiming higher collections.

Limits:
The protocol is an evaluation method, not a predictive policy simulator or a causal conclusion.

Next action: Collect the missing link before making a stronger policy-outcome claim.

## Related guide

[Open the related guide](https://denqai.com/policy)