[{"id":"structural-pass","layer":"Structural QC","kind":"Runtime status","signal":"pass","runtime_source":"StudyQCReport.status","meaning":"None of the implemented structural-QC conditions was detected in the canonical representation.","denominator":"Report the inspected canonical representation and relevant row / participant × trial counts.","can_say":"Structural preflight detected none of the implemented structural conditions.","cannot_say":"The dataset is validated, high quality, calibrated accurately, or scientifically valid.","methods_template":"Structural preflight evaluated non-finite coordinates and timestamps, missing canonical identifiers, duplicate participant × trial timestamps, and decreasing within-unit time.","results_template":"Structural preflight returned pass; none of the implemented structural conditions was detected in the canonical representation.","limitation_template":"Structural pass status does not establish calibration, detector, AOI, missingness, measurement-model, or inferential validity.","guide_url":"/docs/guides/structural-qc-triage/","example_url":"/docs/examples/study-preflight/","api_anchor":"api-audit-study-qc"},{"id":"structural-review","layer":"Structural QC","kind":"Runtime status","signal":"review","runtime_source":"StudyQCReport.status","meaning":"At least one implemented structural condition was detected and requires contextual inspection.","denominator":"Preserve affected row counts and group counts separately; do not collapse them into one bad-data count.","can_say":"Structural preflight detected specified issue families that were inspected against source and preprocessing provenance.","cannot_say":"Every flagged row, trial, or participant is invalid or should be excluded.","methods_template":"Structural preflight was followed by row/group diagnostic review against source and preprocessing provenance; repair, retention, and exclusion decisions were recorded explicitly.","results_template":"Structural preflight returned review because [issue families] were observed across [row/group denominator]; the affected observations or units were inspected before any decision was applied.","limitation_template":"A review state identifies representation-level conditions, not their cause or an automatic scientific exclusion rule.","guide_url":"/docs/guides/structural-qc-triage/","example_url":"/docs/examples/all-structural-qc-issues/","api_anchor":"api-study-qc-diagnostics"},{"id":"readiness-unassessed","layer":"Readiness","kind":"Runtime status","signal":"unassessed","runtime_source":"AnalysisReadinessReport.status","meaning":"No active ReadinessThresholds rule participated in the declared policy.","denominator":"Report that no active readiness criterion was evaluated; do not imply a retained cohort decision.","can_say":"No active readiness rule was declared for this policy.","cannot_say":"All observations, trials, or participants passed readiness.","methods_template":"No structural-readiness threshold was active in the declared policy, so readiness was not assessed.","results_template":"The readiness report returned unassessed because the policy contained no active criteria.","limitation_template":"Unassessed readiness provides no evidence that structural thresholds would be satisfied under another declared policy.","guide_url":"/docs/guides/readiness-policy-design/","example_url":"/docs/examples/readiness-policy-design/","api_anchor":"api-evaluate-analysis-readiness"},{"id":"readiness-ready","layer":"Readiness","kind":"Runtime status","signal":"ready_under_policy","runtime_source":"AnalysisReadinessReport.status","meaning":"All evaluated trial and participant units satisfy the active researcher-declared readiness rules.","denominator":"Report the policy name, active rules, filter scope under consideration, and row/trial/participant cohort impact.","can_say":"The canonical study satisfies the declared active structural policy.","cannot_say":"The data are universally high quality, scientifically valid, or safe to publish.","methods_template":"Analysis readiness was evaluated under the declared [policy name] policy after structural-QC review; cohort impact was previewed before any filtering step.","results_template":"Readiness status was ready_under_policy under [policy name]; [row/trial/participant retention] was observed for the declared preview/application scope.","limitation_template":"Readiness is policy-relative and does not establish calibration, detector, AOI, missingness, or inferential validity.","guide_url":"/docs/guides/readiness-policy-design/","example_url":"/docs/examples/readiness-policy-design/","api_anchor":"api-evaluate-analysis-readiness"},{"id":"readiness-review","layer":"Readiness","kind":"Runtime status","signal":"review_under_policy","runtime_source":"AnalysisReadinessReport.status","meaning":"At least one evaluated trial or participant unit fails one or more active researcher-declared readiness rules.","denominator":"Preserve trial-scope and participant-scope cohort consequences separately.","can_say":"Some units did not satisfy the declared policy and the counterfactual cohort impact was quantified.","cannot_say":"Failing units must be excluded or that another threshold would be less scientifically valid.","methods_template":"The declared readiness policy was evaluated at trial and participant level, and cohort consequences were inspected before the predeclared application scope was applied.","results_template":"Readiness status was review_under_policy under [policy name]; trial-scope preview retained [denominator], whereas participant-scope preview retained [denominator].","limitation_template":"Policy failure is not an automatic exclusion and remains conditional on the declared criteria and scope.","guide_url":"/docs/guides/readiness-policy-design/","example_url":"/docs/examples/readiness-policy-design/","api_anchor":"api-cohort-impact-preview"},{"id":"robustness-complete-stable","layer":"Robustness","kind":"Interpretation pattern","signal":"complete space; direction and magnitude relatively stable","runtime_source":"complete branch ledger + effect_stability() summaries","meaning":"All declared valid branches are accounted for and the realised estimates vary little in both direction and substantive magnitude within the declared space.","denominator":"Report declared, valid, and successful counts before the estimate distribution.","can_say":"The observed endpoint changed little across the declared specification space, within the uncertainty dimensions actually represented.","cannot_say":"Every reasonable analysis would agree, sampling uncertainty is small, or the result is universally robust.","methods_template":"The complete declared specification space was executed against one common endpoint and summarised descriptively across all valid represented branches.","results_template":"Across [N] valid represented specifications, estimates remained [direction] and ranged from [min] to [max], with [median/quantiles] indicating limited variation within the declared space.","limitation_template":"This robustness description is conditional on the declared decision space and does not cover untested analytical, measurement, or sampling uncertainty.","guide_url":"/docs/guides/reporting-robustness/","example_url":"/docs/examples/result-patterns/","api_anchor":"api-effect-stability"},{"id":"robustness-magnitude-sensitive","layer":"Robustness","kind":"Interpretation pattern","signal":"direction stable; magnitude materially variable","runtime_source":"effect_stability() + study-specific substantive scale","meaning":"Estimates retain one direction but vary enough in magnitude to change quantitative or substantive interpretation.","denominator":"Report all valid represented branches and the full estimate range, not only the sign fraction.","can_say":"Direction was less sensitive than magnitude within the declared specification space.","cannot_say":"The effect size is robust merely because the sign is stable.","methods_template":"Direction and magnitude stability were evaluated separately across the complete declared specification set.","results_template":"All represented estimates were [direction], but magnitude ranged from [min] to [max], indicating that quantitative interpretation was specification-sensitive.","limitation_template":"Materiality of the magnitude spread requires a study-specific substantive scale fixed independently of the observed robustness pattern.","guide_url":"/docs/guides/interpret-audit-result/","example_url":"/docs/examples/result-patterns/","api_anchor":"api-effect-stability"},{"id":"robustness-sign-sensitive","layer":"Robustness","kind":"Interpretation pattern","signal":"estimates cross the scientific null","runtime_source":"branch estimates + effect_stability() sign fractions","meaning":"Positive and negative (or exact-null) estimates occur across defensible represented specifications.","denominator":"Report the complete represented specification set and positive / negative / exact-null counts or fractions.","can_say":"The directional conclusion depends on analytical choices represented in the declared audit.","cannot_say":"The most favourable branch is the correct result, or sign fractions are posterior probabilities.","methods_template":"Direction stability was assessed across the complete declared specification space rather than by selecting one preferred branch.","results_template":"Estimates crossed the scientific null across [N] represented specifications, with [counts/fractions] positive, negative, and exact-null.","limitation_template":"Sign fractions are descriptive properties of the declared specification set, not probabilities about the true effect direction.","guide_url":"/docs/guides/reporting-robustness/","example_url":"/docs/examples/decision-to-report/","api_anchor":"api-effect-stability"},{"id":"robustness-incomplete","layer":"Robustness","kind":"Interpretation pattern","signal":"declared valid branches are missing, failed, or not run","runtime_source":"declared / valid / successful execution ledger","meaning":"The original audit denominator is not fully represented by successful endpoint estimates.","denominator":"Report declared, valid, successful, technical-failure, invalid-before-execution, and not-run counts distinctly.","can_say":"Available executed branches show [observed pattern], but the audit remains incomplete relative to the declared valid denominator.","cannot_say":"The missing branches can be removed from the denominator or treated as null/zero estimates.","methods_template":"Every declared branch was retained in the execution ledger, including predeclared-invalid combinations, technical failures, and branches not run.","results_template":"[successful] of [valid] valid specifications produced endpoint estimates; [failure/not-run accounting]. The available estimates showed [pattern], but the declared audit remained incomplete.","limitation_template":"Unobserved branch estimates are unknown; robustness cannot be generalised to branches that did not successfully yield the common endpoint.","guide_url":"/docs/guides/interpret-audit-result/","example_url":"/docs/examples/failed-audit-recovery/","api_anchor":"api-run-specs"},{"id":"sensitivity-descriptive","layer":"Sensitivity","kind":"Interpretation pattern","signal":"factor-level or pairwise sensitivity diagnostic","runtime_source":"marginal_sensitivity() / pairwise_interaction_sensitivity()","meaning":"Endpoint variation aligns descriptively with declared factor levels or factor combinations in the realised specification set.","denominator":"Report the specification set used to calculate the sensitivity summary and any imbalance or incompleteness.","can_say":"A declared factor or pair showed the largest descriptive alignment with observed specification-level variation.","cannot_say":"The factor caused a percentage of uncertainty or the pairwise diagnostic is an inferential interaction effect.","methods_template":"Marginal and pairwise sensitivity diagnostics were used descriptively to localise variation within the declared specification set.","results_template":"The largest descriptive marginal sensitivity involved [factor], and the strongest non-additive pairwise pattern involved [factor A × factor B].","limitation_template":"These diagnostics are descriptive, can overlap, need not sum to one, and do not provide causal variance decomposition or inferential interaction tests.","guide_url":"/docs/guides/reporting-robustness/","example_url":"/docs/examples/decision-to-report/","api_anchor":""},{"id":"frozen-validation-labels","layer":"Frozen evidence","kind":"Protocol-bound evidence label","signal":"incomplete / robust_negative / materially_fragile","runtime_source":"frozen validation protocols and validation matrix","meaning":"These labels are canonical outcomes of specific frozen GazeAudit validation programmes.","denominator":"Use only the exact protocol/source/execution record for the corresponding frozen case.","can_say":"The named frozen case had its documented canonical outcome under its fixed protocol.","cannot_say":"The label applies to a new dataset, synthetic example, different endpoint, or altered protocol.","methods_template":"Validation evidence was interpreted only within the frozen case-specific protocol and source identity.","results_template":"Under the frozen [case] protocol, the canonical outcome was [label]; this statement is restricted to that validation record.","limitation_template":"Frozen labels are not generic runtime statuses, quality grades, or transferable classifications for new studies.","guide_url":"/docs/VALIDATION_MATRIX.html","example_url":"/docs/case-studies/","api_anchor":""}]