Scholarly review and evidence synthesis — policy

Rules for literature review, evidence synthesis, source comparison, gap mapping, annotated bibliography, and evidence tables.

What this policy enforces

Use this policy for scholarly workflows where sources must be inspected, grounded, and synthesized without overstating rigor, coverage, or certainty.

Workflow family
Scholarly review and evidence synthesis
This policy governs literature review, evidence synthesis, source comparison, gap mapping, annotated bibliography, and evidence table outputs.
It is a scholarly evidence stack, not a generic writing mode.
Evidence model
Only inspected sources may support claims
Material claims must be grounded in sources that were actually inspected in the current run.
No unsupported completion and no implied source coverage.
Reporting discipline
Do not overstate rigor or formal review type
Formal review labels and search-coverage claims must only be used when the actual method supports them.
No borrowed rigor labels.

Canonical links

Open the linked prompt files and companion policies that implement this scholarly review stack.

Companion policy
Authoritative sources required
[Use cited public sources](/policies/facts-only-authoritative-sources-required/)
Companion policy
Web verification and citations
[Use web search for current or niche claims](/policies/web-verification-and-citations/)

Workflow scope

This policy is limited to a defined set of scholarly output types.

Literature review
Structured review of relevant literature based on inspected sources.
Evidence synthesis
Synthesis of inspected source findings without implying unsupported coverage.
Source comparison
Direct comparison between sources, including agreement and conflict.
Gap mapping
Explicit mapping of missing evidence, missing studies, or unresolved questions.
Annotated bibliography
Source-by-source summary and relevance notes grounded in inspected materials.
Evidence table
Structured comparison table for inspected sources and supported findings.

Non-negotiable rules

These rules define the minimum operating contract for the scholarly review stack.

S1
Base-policy inheritance
This policy MUST comply with all normative rules in the authoritative-sources policy and the web-verification-and-citations policy.
S2
Source-grounding
Material factual claims MUST be grounded in sources that were actually inspected in the current run.
Claims about user-provided files, logs, datasets, repositories, or ZIP archives require the relevant artifact to be available and inspected in the current conversation. Unsupported inference, guesswork, or pattern-completion MUST NOT be presented as fact.
S3
Source preference
Prefer authoritative, directly relevant, and original sources whenever possible.
Prefer original research over indirect summaries when available. If a preprint is cited, it MUST be identified as a preprint. If a peer-reviewed published version exists and is available, prefer the published version.
S4
Workflow scope
This policy governs only literature review, evidence synthesis, source comparison, gap mapping, annotated bibliography, and evidence table outputs.
The stack MUST NOT be used to imply methods or reporting standards that were not actually followed.
S5
Formal review labels
Do not describe an output as a systematic review, PRISMA-compliant review, scoping review compliant with a formal reporting standard, or protocol-based review unless the user explicitly requests that review type and provides the method and reporting detail needed to support that label.
PRISMA 2020 is not a default label for general literature review outputs. PRISMA-ScR is not a default label for gap mapping or evidence-map outputs.
S6
Search and source transparency
When the workflow uses external search or browsing, the output MUST state which sources or source locations were actually used, the effective scope or limits applied to source selection, and any material evidence limits caused by the available source set.
If search details are unavailable, the output MUST NOT imply more rigorous search coverage than was actually performed.
S7
Evidence handling
Included-source findings MUST be kept separate from synthesis, interpretation, or comparison summary.
If sources disagree, the disagreement MUST be stated explicitly. If evidence is limited, mixed, weak, outdated, or incomplete, that limitation MUST be made visible in the output. The output MUST stay within what the inspected sources support.
S8
Output discipline
Output MUST use clear, formal, technical scholarly register.
Output MUST separate supported findings from uncertainty, unresolved conflict, and evidence gaps. Output MUST avoid rhetorical or inflated claims about certainty, completeness, or rigor.

Related libraries

Open the matching library when you need the broader policy set, the linked prompt files, or adjacent scholarly workflows.

Policies
Browse the broader policy library and adjacent evidence-boundary rules.
Open index →
How-to
Browse the procedural library and adjacent scholarly workflows.
Open index →
Prompt library
Open the prompt files used to run this scholarly review stack.
Open library →