Statistical Validator
Detect statistical errors and methodological fallacies in research content.
Fallacy Types Detected
| Type | Description |
|---|---|
P_HACKING | Selective reporting, post-hoc hypothesis changes, stopped when p<0.05 |
CORRELATION_CAUSATION | Causal claims from correlational data |
SMALL_SAMPLE | Sample size insufficient for claimed effect size |
MULTIPLE_COMPARISONS | Multiple tests without Bonferroni/FDR correction |
OVERGENERALIZATION | Results from specific sample applied to broader population |
CIRCULAR_REASONING | Conclusion assumes what it claims to prove |
CHERRY_PICKING | Selective evidence presentation |
EFFECT_SIZE_MISSING | Statistical significance without practical effect size |
CONFOUND | Alternative explanations not controlled for |
Severity Levels
- HIGH — fatal flaw; invalidates the finding
- MEDIUM — significant concern; finding is weakened
- LOW — minor issue; addressable in discussion
Output Format
When issues are found:
markdown# 📐 Statistical Validation > Found **3 issue(s)** requiring attention. ## Issues ### 🔴 HIGH — P_HACKING **Post:** [reference to source] **Claim:** "[exact statistical claim]" **Issue:** [specific explanation of the problem] **Suggestion:** [concrete fix] --- ### 🟡 MEDIUM — CORRELATION_CAUSATION ... ## Summary [Overall assessment + priority order for fixes]
When no issues are found:
markdown# 📐 Statistical Validation > ✅ No statistical issues detected. ## Assessment [Explanation: e.g., "This content is theoretical/conceptual and contains no quantitative claims to validate."] ## Proactive Checklist When empirical data is added, watch for: - [ ] [Domain-specific statistical concern 1] - [ ] [Domain-specific statistical concern 2]
When content has no statistics
If the content is purely theoretical or conceptual, note this explicitly and provide a domain-appropriate proactive checklist. Do NOT generate phantom issues.


