Scientific Method Selector

This is a mandatory routing gate before:

• running a literature search across scientific sources
• claiming that research supports or disproves something
• synthesizing multiple studies into one conclusion
• escalating from a simple paper search to a broader evidence review

Scope Boundaries

In scope:

• classify the research job
• choose the minimum useful route
• define the next evidence method or staged sequence
• explain why competing routes were not chosen

Out of scope by default:

• writing the final scientific conclusion itself
• treating preprints as equivalent to peer-reviewed evidence
• doing a full systematic review by default
• combining many research methods "just in case"

Problem Types

Classify the task into one primary type first:

• find_relevant_research
• check_claim_strength
• judge_study_quality
• synthesize_evidence
• identify_research_gap

Add a secondary type only if it materially changes routing.

Research Phase Types

Identify the current phase:

• discovery
• screening
• appraisal
• synthesis
• gap-analysis

If phase is unclear, default to discovery.

Core Routing Map

• find_relevant_research -> literature-search
• check_claim_strength -> literature-search -> study-quality-appraiser
• judge_study_quality -> study-quality-appraiser
• synthesize_evidence -> literature-search -> study-quality-appraiser -> evidence-synthesizer
• identify_research_gap -> literature-search -> evidence-synthesizer -> research-gap-detector

Routing Modes

Use one of:

• single
  • one primary method only
• staged
  • an ordered sequence across evidence phases
• hold
  • pause routing and return the task to clarification or narrowing

Decision rule:

• use single when one research job clearly dominates
• use staged when trustworthy output requires multiple evidence phases
• use hold when the research ask is too broad, vague, or premature to route responsibly

Staged Routing Rules

Use staged routing when:

• the user wants a conclusion stronger than a simple search can support
• claim checking depends on both finding studies and judging quality
• evidence synthesis requires screening and appraisal before summary
• research-gap analysis depends on a meaningful view of the current literature

Example routes:

• literature-search -> study-quality-appraiser
• literature-search -> study-quality-appraiser -> evidence-synthesizer
• literature-search -> evidence-synthesizer -> research-gap-detector

Hold Examples

Use hold for cases like:

• See what science says.
• Find all the research on this topic.
• Is this scientifically true?

In these cases the claim, domain, scope, or evidence standard is too weak to route responsibly.

Source Scope Heuristics

Prefer source scope by domain:

• PubMed / PMC for biomedical and health topics
• arXiv for computer science, math, physics, and early-stage technical research
• Semantic Scholar or OpenAlex for broader cross-domain discovery

If the user asks for "science" in a high-stakes domain, prefer higher-trust, domain-relevant sources before broad discovery layers.

Evidence Risk Notes

Always keep these distinctions visible:

• peer-reviewed vs preprint
• review article vs original study
• observational vs experimental evidence
• promising vs established
• direct evidence vs analogy

If the task depends heavily on strong claims in medicine, safety, or policy, say so explicitly and keep the route conservative.

Preprint-Aware Mode

When arXiv or similar preprint-heavy sources are likely to dominate:

• treat discovery value as high and certainty value as limited
• require explicit preprint flagging in downstream outputs
• prefer staged routing over single-step conclusions
• downgrade confidence if strong support depends mainly on non-peer-reviewed sources

Use this mode by default for fast-moving AI, ML, and technical topics unless stronger reviewed evidence is also available.

Fallback Rules

• If the ideal child skill does not exist yet, return the route anyway and mark the missing skill explicitly.
• If the claim is vague, route to hold or intent-clarifier before scientific work.
• If the task is really about general web research, say that a scientific route is not the best first step.
• If the strongest available evidence is mostly preprints, flag that as a limitation rather than hiding it.

Hold Conditions

Return hold instead of forcing a route when:

• the claim or research question is still vague
• the requested scope is unrealistically broad
• the user is asking for a final conclusion without enough evidence definition
• source scope is unclear in a way that would distort the search
• the task is mainly implementation, planning, or opinion rather than scientific evidence work

Output Contract

Always return:

1. research_job
2. problem_type
3. secondary_type (none if absent)
4. current_phase
5. routing_mode (single, staged, hold)
6. selected_methods
7. source_scope
8. missing_skills (none if absent)
9. why_this_route
10. why_not_others
11. evidence_risk_notes
12. next_action

Guardrails

• Do not treat a literature search as proof by itself.
• Do not mix preprints and peer-reviewed studies without flagging the distinction.
• Do not synthesize evidence before a meaningful appraisal step when quality matters.
• Do not force a broad scientific route when the task really needs clarification first.
• Prefer the narrowest trustworthy route that answers the user's real question.
• Keep evidence confidence separate from rhetorical confidence.
• If the evidence base is preprint-heavy, say so early instead of letting the limitation appear only at the end.

Anti-Patterns

Watch for these failure modes:

• paper dumping
• claiming consensus from a few search hits
• treating preprints as settled science
• doing synthesis before relevance and quality screening
• using scientific language to hide uncertainty
• forcing a scientific workflow onto a non-scientific task

Example

User request:

Can you check whether there is good research behind cold exposure improving mental health?

Expected shape of response:

1. research_job: determine how strong the scientific support is for cold exposure improving mental health outcomes
2. problem_type: check_claim_strength
3. secondary_type: none
4. current_phase: discovery
5. routing_mode: staged
6. selected_methods: literature-search -> study-quality-appraiser
7. source_scope: PubMed, PMC, broader scholarly discovery only if needed
8. missing_skills: none
9. why_this_route: the task requires both finding relevant studies and judging their quality before any conclusion is trustworthy
10. why_not_others: direct synthesis is premature before study quality is screened; research-gap analysis is not the user's main need
11. evidence_risk_notes: likely mixture of small studies, heterogeneous interventions, and possible preprint or low-power evidence
12. next_action: run literature-search with a narrow claim and explicit outcome terms