More flexible format. Good for observational studies and natural experiments.
Allows iterative updates with version history.
Less rigid section structure — can adapt to study design.
Supports pre-registration of observational/archival studies.
EGAP (Evidence in Governance and Politics):
Development economics and political science focused.
Additional governance and ethics questions required.
Emphasizes pre-specification of heterogeneous treatment effects.
Requires description of implementing partners and field conditions.
Observational Study PAP Adaptation
For observational, quasi-experimental, or natural experiment designs, adapt the PAP template:
Identification strategy replaces randomization — describe the source of exogenous variation
Comparison group replaces control group — define who is compared to whom and why
Identification assumption discussion — explicitly state and defend each assumption
Placebo and falsification tests — pre-specify what SHOULD NOT show effects
Robustness to specification choices — pre-commit to bandwidth, functional form, sample restrictions
Treatment of endogeneity concerns — document known threats and planned diagnostics
ASSUMED Placeholder Safety
CRITICAL: Flag every ASSUMED item clearly. The researcher must review and approve before registration.
When drafting a PAP from a topic (without a full research spec or interactive interview), many details will be assumed. For each assumed item:
Mark it with [ASSUMED] in bold
Explain what was assumed and why
Provide the most reasonable default but flag it for review
A registered PAP with unchecked assumptions is worse than no PAP. The final section of every PAP must include:
## Pre-Registration Checklist
**Review every [ASSUMED] item before registering this plan.**
- [ ] [ASSUMED] Item 1 — [what was assumed]
- [ ] [ASSUMED] Item 2 — [what was assumed]
**Do not register until all items are reviewed and confirmed or corrected.**
Optional strategist-critic Review
After PAP creation, optionally dispatch the strategist-critic to review:
Are identification assumptions clearly stated and defensible?
Is the estimator choice appropriate for the design?
Are power calculation assumptions reasonable? Show sensitivity.
Are pre-specified subgroups justified (not fishing)?
Are multiple testing corrections appropriate?
Are any [ASSUMED] items potentially problematic if left uncorrected?
Save review to quality_reports/pre_analysis_plan_[topic]_review.md
Save PAP to quality_reports/pre_analysis_plan_[topic].md