Building an evidence map before consequential commitment

List what would change your mind before you grant the right to act. Then go and find it, including the contrary results.

1 August 2026 · 8 min read

An evidence map is not a folder of PDFs. It is a list of claims that would have to be true, the artefact that would support each claim, the date it was last true, the owner of that artefact, and the contrary result you would expect to see if the claim were failing.

A working minimum

For each consequential system, map at least: the objective in operational language; the population and environment the evidence came from; performance on the tasks that matter, including failures; the authority boundary and how it is enforced; the named owner; dependencies and vendors that can change the system without a meeting; and the triggers that reopen the conclusion.

From the sources

Source finding

The 2026 AI Index's jagged-frontier findings are a warning against a single green number. McKinsey's reconstructability requirement is a warning against informal evidence. Together they argue for a map, not a metric.

Solarascope analysis

If a claim has no artefact, it is a hope. If an artefact has no date, it is a relic. If contrary results are missing, the pack is a brochure. Build the map before commitment. Then let Decision Coverage watch it.

Sources

Stanford HAI. AI Index Report 2026: Technical performance (April 2026)
McKinsey. Trust in the age of agents (2026)