Evidence Gap
An Evidence Gap is the difference between the support warranted by the role a material claim plays in the reasoning and the support currently available for it. It marks a place where a claim carries more weight in the reasoning than its present evidence can account for. It is not a finding that the claim is false, weak, or unusable — only that its support and its role are, for now, mismatched. Whether the gap can be reduced, and whether it is large enough to matter, remain open questions.
Why it matters
A claim can feel settled while carrying more of a decision than its available support justifies. When that difference remains unexamined, the reasoning may depend on a foundation whose strength has been assumed rather than established.
An Evidence Gap concerns a material claim — one the decision genuinely relies upon, not every unsupported remark. It makes explicit the difference between how much such a claim is being relied upon and how much it has actually been shown, so a person can see where their reasoning relies more heavily on a claim than its present support warrants.
Naming a gap is not an accusation. A claim with an Evidence Gap may well turn out to be true; the point is only that, right now, its support has not caught up to its importance — and that is exactly the kind of thing worth knowing while the decision can still be changed.
What it is not
An Evidence Gap is not a verdict that a claim is false, weak, or unusable, and it is not the same as a claim being unimportant. Nor does it mean the reasoning has failed. It is a statement about the relationship between a claim's support and its role — a signal that the two are currently out of balance — not a judgement about the claim's ultimate truth or the decision's merit.
In practice
A plan may rest on the statement that a key supplier can double its output within six months. If that figure comes from an assumption rather than from the supplier's own commitment or capacity data, there is an Evidence Gap: the claim is load-bearing, but the support behind it has not been supplied. The gap does not establish that the supplier cannot do it — only that the reasoning currently relies on the claim more heavily than the available support permits.
Related concepts
- Reasoning Ledgera structured record in which a material claim and the present state of its support can be made visible
- Confidence Calibrationthe alignment between the confidence placed in a claim and the support currently available for it
- Decision Readinessthe degree to which the reasoning has been examined sufficiently for the user to decide under the present conditions; open Evidence Gaps are one relevant consideration
Questions
Does an Evidence Gap mean a claim is false?
No. An Evidence Gap describes a shortfall in support relative to the weight a claim carries, not the truth of the claim. A claim with an Evidence Gap may later prove correct; the gap only records that, at present, its evidence has not caught up to its importance.
Is every Evidence Gap a problem?
No. Some gaps are small, or concern claims the decision does not really depend on. An Evidence Gap flags where support and reliance are mismatched; whether a particular gap matters enough to act on is a separate judgement, and it belongs to the person making the decision.
How is an Evidence Gap different from uncertainty?
Uncertainty describes what is not known or cannot presently be determined. An Evidence Gap is more specific: it exists when a material claim is carrying more weight in the reasoning than its available support can presently justify. The two can occur together, but they are not the same. A person may be uncertain about something the decision does not rely upon, and a claim may contain an Evidence Gap even when the person feels highly certain about it.
Can an Evidence Gap be closed?
Sometimes. Supplying the missing support — or reducing how much the reasoning depends on the claim — can close a gap. But not every gap can be closed before a decision must be made, and recognising which gaps will remain open is itself part of examining a decision honestly.