> 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/workflow-guides/analyse/judgement-context.md).

# Judgement Context

**Open this area:** In the CORTEX menu, select **Intelligence cycle → Analyse**.

Retain the confidence basis, timeframe, linked assumptions and significant disagreement alongside each judgement.

**Who uses this:** Analyst, Reviewer.\
**Open in CORTEX:** `/analyse`.\
**In-app guide:** `/help?topic=judgement-context`.

**Expected result:** Reviewers and authorised customers can inspect why confidence was assessed, what would change it and how it differs from a previous published judgement.

## Before you start

* Use your current workspace with Analysis and Memory access. Writing and independent review require their own current permissions.
* Keep likelihood separate from confidence. Prepare information-base, analytical-rigour and complexity/volatility reasoning plus residual uncertainty and conditions for change.
* Selecting a published predecessor additionally requires current Product and Release read access and full handling. Older packages without structured judgement references and sanitised releases are not silently interpreted.

## What to do

{% stepper %}
{% step %}

## State the proposition and timeframe

In an analytical draft, record the judgement statement. Enable structured confidence reasoning and enter an ordered UTC assessment timeframe or explicitly explain a nonforecast context.

Adopted-profile and commissioned work requires this before submission.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Explain each confidence pillar

Record the following separately:

* Information coverage and limitations
* Analytical rigour and challenge
* Complexity and volatility

State residual uncertainty, its impact, and what would change the judgement or confidence.

The selected probability remains independent.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Link assumptions and consequences

Add shared assumptions with:

* Stable keys
* Statements
* Invalidation consequences
* Known challenge

Mark lynchpins and link each affected judgement.

Review shows the challenged assumption alongside affected judgements without automatically declaring them false.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Explain change from a publication

Open **Compare** with a previous published judgement, load a page of authorised released products, and choose the exact judgement.

Explain change, including changed confidence without changed likelihood.

The saved revision retains the earlier proposition, confidence, rationale and exact publication references.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Retain significant disagreement

On the analytical detail page, an independent reviewer can record:

* A judgement
* Represented organisation
* Dissent statement
* Provenance or authority to record its summary

Only that independent recorder can resolve it. Authors cannot delete it through content edits.

Recording or resolving dissent requests fresh peer review.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Review the product view

New linked product revisions retain analytical basis and dissent summaries.

Ordinary authored/generated PDF, Word and JSON exports include these limits. Oversized output is refused rather than silently shortened.

Released packages and earlier product revisions remain unchanged.
{% endstep %}
{% endstepper %}

## Check the result

* Is the proposition clear and bounded by time or an explained nonforecast context?
* Can a reviewer inspect all three confidence pillars independently of likelihood?
* Are challenged lynchpins linked to affected judgements?
* Does a material change explain the exact published predecessor?
* Is significant unresolved dissent visible to the authorised customer?

## If you get stuck

<details>

<summary>Why is submission refused?</summary>

Adopted-profile or commissioned judgements require structured confidence reasoning and a timeframe/nonforecast context.

Correct missing reasoning, unknown assumption keys, conflicting timeframe fields or unresolved current assessment grades in a new revision.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Why is the previous publication unavailable?</summary>

Check current Release/Product/Analysis/Memory permissions, full handling and the exact release.

A predecessor must be an actual released product with retained structured judgements; historical or sanitised packages are not upgraded. Inaccessible evidence also prevents selection or later reads.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Can I erase dissent by amending the analysis?</summary>

No. Dissent events and independent resolutions stay retained outside editable analytical content.

The author can address the issue in a new revision. Only the independent recorder resolves their open dissent; the original statement remains visible.

</details>

<details>

<summary>What happens when a limit is reached?</summary>

Use at most:

* 20 shared assumptions
* 20 judgements
* 1,000 characters per confidence pillar
* 64 dissent events

The existing retained-history and product output bounds still apply.

A failed save/export does not discard old content; use a deliberately scoped follow-on assessment where appropriate.

</details>

## Responsibility and limits

* Analysts own assessments and explanations; software does not infer certainty from technique completion or votes.
* Independent reviewers record attributable dissent, including authorised summaries from another organisation. A typed organisation label is not a grant or verification of external identity.
* Product and release authorities remain accountable for the exact submitted version and disclosed limitations.

## Reference and scope

The registered AnCR and PHIA analytical standards inform the separate confidence pillars, clear propositions and explanation of change. The application does not calculate a confidence score or certify analytical truth.

## Related workflows

* [Develop and independently review an assessment](broken://pages/79db57a6c6245feef3fb58e4fe6d4a507b2a74a0)
* [Choose a probability edition and retain uncertainty](broken://pages/4c96c9a79a52994de4d43143bf3cdea688b19791)
* [Agree an analytical commission and decision need](file:///7397340/direction/commissioning.md)
* [Author an intelligence Product and inspect its exports](file:///7397340/product/products.md)
* [Review, approve and publish an exact internal release](file:///7397340/product/release.md)