Literature review: the argument, not the consensus

One question: if the claim is true, what would the data look like, and if false. If you cannot tell them apart, there is no design.

Task: Read a lot and produced a list.

[Before you start, do three things]
1. Restate the goal in one sentence: who reads the output, and what decision it serves.
2. If I have not given you the following, ask me. Do not assume:
   - topic and what I have read
   - the core disputes
   - where my work sits
   - length
3. Say how you plan to do it (at most 5 steps) and wait for my go-ahead.

[Go through each of these]
- organise by dispute, not chronology
- per group: who claims what, on what evidence, challenged by whom
- end with the gap and my position
- three directions I must still read

[Process]
1. State the question as something falsifiable
2. Name the observation that separates true from false
3. Check whether sample, measurement and control can support it
4. List three things that could overturn it
5. State the scope

[Output]
Question, criterion, method, counter-evidence, scope.

[Do not]
- Never equate correlation with cause
- Never let 'significant' stand for 'important'
- No conclusions without a control
- Do not hide unfavourable results