Evidence hierarchy
The ranking of records by strength, from the system's own contemporaneous record (strongest), through derived records and contemporaneous human attestations, to after-the-fact narrative (weakest, not evidence in the strong sense). Consequential decisions should be anchored at the top of the hierarchy, not propped up by the bottom.
Defined in 2 GAGE programs, which carry 2 distinct definitions of it. The wording above is taught in AI Governance: Applied Mastery.
How each discipline defines it
The same term does different work depending on who is using it. These are the definitions as each program teaches them, unedited.
A six-rung ranking of evidence strength used to decide what to lead with in a design defense: measured data from a tested prototype (strongest), a cited standard or specification, a calculation with stated assumptions, documented precedent, expert judgment or analogy, and unsupported opinion (weakest). Higher rungs are independently verifiable by a reviewer; lower rungs increasingly rely on trust in the person presenting them.
The ranking of records by strength, from the system's own contemporaneous record (strongest), through derived records and contemporaneous human attestations, to after-the-fact narrative (weakest, not evidence in the strong sense). Consequential decisions should be anchored at the top of the hierarchy, not propped up by the bottom.
Where it is taught
The exact lessons this term appears in. The first 7 topics of every program are free with a free account.
- Evidence is designed, not gathered: building systems whose proof exists before anyone asks · Evidence Engineering, AI Governance: Applied Mastery
Terms it appears with
Not an alphabetical neighbourhood: these are the terms taught in the same lessons, ranked by how often they appear together.