QQsci-skill/references/evidence-chain.md

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: ...