> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.cortex.aic.io/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.cortex.aic.io/lifecycle/analyse.md).

# Analyse

Analyse is where you examine evidence against a Direction question. Record what supports a view, what challenges it, and what you still do not know. Keep source reliability, information credibility, likelihood, and analytical confidence separate.

## Before you start

{% stepper %}
{% step %}

### Select the workspace and review the Direction requirement

Read the current question, decision, information gaps, and handling.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Verify the material

Make sure you can read the material that you plan to use. New citations need a material record with a retained extraction that is **Ready** under the current scan and access rules.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Confirm Analyse access

If the selected workspace or node does not provide it, ask the appropriate Manager or administrator to check the feature and grant.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Prepare for restricted analysis

Be ready to select an approved processing activity with the correct purpose and scope. The form will name this prerequisite.
{% endstep %}
{% endstepper %}

## Find existing analysis

{% stepper %}
{% step %}

### Open Analyse

In the menu, select **Intelligence cycle → Analyse**. The page title is **Analytical workspaces**.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Search for the workspace

Use **Search titles and analytical questions** and **Review state** if needed. Select **Find workspaces** to apply the filters.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Review the current content

Open the relevant workspace. Read its **Retained content revision** and state before you amend it. A saved older revision is useful for history, but it is not the current draft.
{% endstep %}
{% endstepper %}

{% hint style="info" %}
The result list contains only analysis you can see under your current workspace, grants, and handling. An empty page is not evidence that no other analysis exists.
{% endhint %}

## Create an analytical workspace

{% stepper %}
{% step %}

### Create the workspace

Select **Create workspace** on **Analytical workspaces**. This creates an analytical workspace inside the selected CORTEX workspace.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Complete the form

Follow the five form steps: **Basics**, **Evidence**, **Explanations**, **Judgements**, and **Review**.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Set the linked requirement

In **Basics**, use **Find visible requirements** and **Find requirements** if the right question is not listed. Set **Linked requirement**.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Define the assessment

Enter:

* **Workspace title** (3–200 characters)
* **Analytical question** (10–4,000)
* **Context and scope** (10–8,000)

State the boundary of the assessment. Say what you are assessing and what you are not claiming.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Review handling and processing activity

Review the handling shown by the form. If the analysis is restricted, the **Evidence** step requires an approved processing activity. Select one that covers the exact question and intended material.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Save an initial draft if needed

If you need to save the basic analysis before you have evidence, select **Create draft with basics** when available. This saves a retained draft. You can later open **Analysis tasks → Amend content** to add evidence and judgements.
{% endstep %}
{% endstepper %}

{% hint style="info" %}
The Evidence, Explanations, and Judgements steps can be optional for an initial draft. If you add an item, complete its required fields before you save. **Back** and **Cancel** do not save an unfinished browser draft.
{% endhint %}

## Add exact evidence

{% stepper %}
{% step %}

### Choose material and extraction

In the **Evidence** step, open the evidence picker. Choose processed material and its retained extraction version.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Select the exact evidence

Select the exact extraction segment and quotation range. If you use a reviewed interpretation, select the appropriate interpretation reference.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Preview the quotation

Select **Preview quotation**. Read the quotation, source, extraction version, and locator.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Add the citation

Select **Add this evidence citation** only when the preview matches what you intend to cite.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Assess the evidence

On the **Evidence board**:

* Set **Evidence role**
* Assess **Information credibility** where appropriate
* Enter **Relevance and limitations**

Explain what the quotation does and does not show.
{% endstep %}
{% endstepper %}

{% hint style="warning" %}
Use the material page to check extraction limitations, original provenance, quality assessments, and interpretation review. A parser suggestion is not accepted evidence simply because it appears in an extraction. Do not use a quote from a held or non-Ready original to work around the scan or access state.
{% endhint %}

## Test explanations

{% stepper %}
{% step %}

### Add hypotheses

In **Explanations**, select **Add hypothesis** for each material explanation you need to compare.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Define the explanation

Enter a **Hypothesis statement** and **Assumptions (one per line)**.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Record an alternative

Enter a **Competing explanation**. Do not write the same view in different words.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Identify distinguishing checks

Enter **Checks that could distinguish the explanations**. Name information that could support or weaken each view.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Link relevant evidence

In **Evidence considered**, select the evidence keys that are relevant to the hypothesis. Explain limitations in the evidence entries.
{% endstep %}
{% endstepper %}

{% hint style="info" %}
This step keeps alternatives visible. It does not calculate which explanation is true.
{% endhint %}

## Record judgements and uncertainty

{% stepper %}
{% step %}

### Add a judgement

In **Judgements**, select **Add judgement**.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### State the proposition

Enter **Judgement statement**. Write the assessed proposition clearly.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Assess likelihood

Select the **Probability edition** and **Likelihood (PHIA)** term that you can support. The terms are a vocabulary for an assessment; their approximate ranges are not an automatic score.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Record confidence and uncertainty

Select **Analytical confidence** separately. Enter **Rationale and uncertainty**.

Explain the information and source base, methods and challenge, and any complexity or volatility that limits confidence.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Link evidence and gaps

In **Evidence considered**, select the exact evidence keys that support or qualify this judgement. Record remaining **Information gaps (one per line)**.
{% endstep %}
{% endstepper %}

{% hint style="warning" %}
Do not use a strong likelihood term to hide low confidence. A source can be reliable while a particular report remains uncertain, and a well-supported judgement can still have an important gap.
{% endhint %}

## Save, review, and amend

{% stepper %}
{% step %}

### Review and save the draft

In **Review**, inspect the requirement, handling, evidence, explanations, judgements, and gaps. For an amendment, enter **Reason for this revision** (10–500 characters).

Select **Save analytical draft**. The new content revision is retained. An amendment returns the analytical workspace to Draft for a new review.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Perform additional checks if needed

Open the saved analysis. Use **Analysis tasks → Techniques and challenge** or **Analytical assurance dossier** when those checks are needed.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Submit for peer review

When the current content is ready, open its **Review** section. Enter **Reason for submission** and select **Submit for peer review**.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Record peer review

An eligible independent reviewer selects **Review outcome**, writes **Peer-review comments**, and selects **Record peer review**.

The available outcomes include **Request changes** and **Peer reviewed**. Contributors cannot review their own content.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Amend and resubmit if required

If changes are requested, use **Analysis tasks → Amend content**, save a new revision, and submit that revision again.
{% endstep %}
{% endstepper %}

Check **Evidence corrections affecting revision** when a cited quality or interpretation record later changes. Open **Inspect the retained annotation history**, explain the effect and next action, then select **Retain correction response** if you are authorised. The response does not silently change the earlier quotation, conclusion, or released product.

## If you cannot continue

<details>

<summary>A requirement is missing</summary>

Refine **Find visible requirements**, check Direction access, and confirm the selected workspace.

</details>

<details>

<summary>No Ready evidence appears</summary>

Inspect **Sources & evidence → Evidence memory**. Check processing, scan status, extraction version, and your source and handling access.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Processing activity is required</summary>

Select a current approved activity with the assessed purpose and exact scope. A general note is not a substitute.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Peer review is unavailable</summary>

Check the current content revision, review state, and independent reviewer authority.

</details>

<details>

<summary>A save conflicts</summary>

Select **Refresh workspace**, compare the retained version, and deliberately apply your change to the new current state.

</details>

Continue with [Products](broken://pages/262a7998f4bd8e3a741063bf243590ce8bf23fc9) when you are ready to communicate the assessment in an internal draft.