# Materials Evidence Chain

Use this file to audit whether the manuscript's claims are supported by the
provided characterization, controls, mechanism tests, and performance data.

## Claim-evidence checks

### Structure and composition

Typical claims:

- successful synthesis
- phase purity
- morphology control
- nanoscale architecture
- interface formation
- defect engineering
- oxidation state or coordination change
- dopant incorporation

Common evidence:

- XRD, SAED, Raman, FTIR, XPS, EDS, ICP, elemental mapping
- SEM, TEM, AFM, BET, contact angle, zeta potential
- thermal analysis, mechanical testing, spectroscopy

Risk flags:

- morphology shown without composition confirmation
- XPS peak fitting overinterpreted
- single image used as proof of uniformity
- no control sample for dopant/interface effects

### Properties

Typical claims:

- improved conductivity, charge transfer, ion transport, surface activity,
  toughness, stretchability, adhesion, wettability, optical response, or
  dielectric/piezoelectric/triboelectric behavior

Common evidence:

- EIS, I-V, Hall, four-probe, CV, GCD, LSV, Tafel, ECSA, PL/TRPL, UV-vis,
  DMA, tensile tests, fatigue, bending/cycling tests

Risk flags:

- property improvement is reported but not linked to structure
- only one sample or no error bars
- no stability or repeatability for device claims

### Mechanism

Mechanism claims require a chain:

1. The material has the proposed structural/chemical feature.
2. That feature changes a relevant property.
3. The property change explains the performance trend.
4. Controls or perturbations reduce alternative explanations.

Acceptable wording:

- Direct evidence: `demonstrates`, `confirms`, `establishes`
- Indirect but coherent evidence: `indicates`, `suggests`, `is consistent with`
- Hypothesis: `may arise from`, `could be associated with`

### Performance and benchmarking

Check:

- benchmark metric and units are clear
- operating condition is stated
- control material/device is fair
- literature comparison uses comparable conditions
- stability, cycling, bending, humidity, temperature, pH, voltage window, or
  rate/current density are relevant to the application
- sample size, error bars, and statistics appear when the claim depends on
  reproducibility

Risk flags:

- `record-high` or `superior` without a controlled literature table
- application claim based only on lab conditions
- durability mentioned without cycle count or test conditions

## Output template

Use this compact map:

`Claim: ... | Evidence: Fig. xxx / data xxx | Status: supported / partial /
needs evidence | Fix: ...`