QAEDA-TST-001 · threshold

Name the harm precisely

What specific harm is the intervention meant to prevent, and what evidence establishes its severity, probability, and affected population?

Pass condition

What a defensible proposal should be able to show.

The proposal defines a concrete harm, identifies evidence and uncertainty, distinguishes severity from mere offensiveness or controversy, and states what would count as meaningful reduction of that harm.

Warning signs

Signals that the proposal is drifting.

  • The justification relies mainly on undefined risk language or emotionally salient examples.
  • Prevalence, probability, or causal mechanism is unspecified.
  • The stated harm shifts when narrower remedies are proposed.
  • Success is measured only by flags, removals, surveillance volume, or compliance activity.

Evidence to demand

What should exist before confidence rises.

  • Incident or prevalence data appropriate to the domain.
  • A causal or capability model connecting the intervention target to the harm.
  • Known uncertainty, false-positive cost, and affected-population estimates.
  • A predeclared outcome measure for actual harm reduction.
Failure mode

A vague threat definition can make almost any person, topic, or behavior appear relevant and therefore expand discretion without proving benefit.

Decision discipline

No single passing test licenses the intervention.

Apply the full sequence. A defined harm does not excuse a weak nexus; a narrow mechanism does not excuse secret secondary use; an appeal process does not prove efficacy.