Every part and the whole,verified by math and statistics.
From experimental design to claims, SciGround verifies each stage and the whole workflow within supported methods and stated assumptions. Approved changes are rechecked, with versioned evidence others can verify.
From design to claims.Here’s how.
Research runs from design to claim, and you can start at any stage. The four foundations are not extra steps: each supports that same research in its own way.
Select a foundation
- Design: Question, comparison, units, declared assumptions.Handoff check to Data: Correspondence
- Data: Source data, samples, preparation.Handoff check to Analysis: Numerical accuracy
- Analysis: Supported method, results, uncertainty.Handoff check to Claim: Claim follows
- Claim: What the results support.
- Research versionv3
- Inputs & assumptions
- Methods & results
- Checks, status & claim
Select a foundation in the diagram to see its role.
Where does my research live as it changes?
A Project keeps the design, data, analyses, claims, and Records of one research together. Each approved change becomes a new version; earlier versions stay traceable and the current one stays clear.
Explore ProjectHow does it work with the tools I already trust?
Where a supported route applies, a stage’s calculation or processing runs in established scientific software, with inputs, settings, method conditions, and tool versions attached. Which tool runs depends on the route; running a tool does not by itself make a result valid.
Explore IntegrationsWhy does the result hold?
Math checks properties within each stage, checks that each handoff keeps what the next stage needs, and joins both into verification from the declared design to the final claim. It works within supported methods and stated assumptions, and does not certify how an experiment was run or measured.
Explore MathHow can someone else check it?
A Record fixes one research version with its inputs, assumptions, methods, results, checks, status, and claim, so others can verify it without the original chat. It is never rewritten after a correction, and its outcome may be unresolved or not established as well as supported.
Explore RecordOne study,checked as a whole.
How much does mean body weight at day 14 differ between treated and control animals?
- Two independent groups
- 10 animals each
- One planned comparison
- Comparison
- Treatment − Control
- Unit
- One animal
- Outcome
- Body weight, day 14 (g)
Set in the design. Held through to the claim.
- Design
The right comparison.
Treatment − Control on day-14 body weight, one animal per unit, fixed before the data.
Handoff check to Data: Correspondence
- Data
The right observations.
All 20 planned animals appear once, in their assigned group, with a day-14 weight in grams.
Handoff check to Analysis: Numerical accuracy
- Analysis
The calculation, checked.
Welch’s comparison runs in SciPy, and its key numbers carry error bounds.
Handoff check to Claim: Claim follows
- Claim
The conclusion, supported.
The wording follows the estimate’s direction and interval, without claiming a cause.
The claim must answer the planned comparison, for the planned animals and outcome, from the approved data. A correct calculation on the wrong samples, or for a different comparison, does not pass.
Declared, not proven: random assignment, independence, accurate weights.
Every check, and what it is for
- Treatment − Control, two-sided, planned in advance
- One animal is one experimental unit
- Body weight on day 14, in grams
Sets what every later stage must answer.
- Each of the 20 planned animals matched exactly once
- Group labels agree with the assignment record
- All weights from day 14, in grams, none missing
The analysis gets the observations the design asks for.
- Welch’s comparison runs in an established library (SciPy)
- Key numbers carry error bounds; too close to call means unresolved
- Normality is assumed; Welch’s degrees of freedom are an approximation, reported separately
The right number, with its conditions in view.
- Direction and size follow the estimate and its interval
- A group difference is not reported as a cause
- “Not established” is never rewritten as “no effect”
What you report says no more than the result.
Mean day-14 body weight is 2.08 g lower in the treated group (95% CI 1.33 to 2.83 g lower).
- Under the stated assumptions
- Not a causal claim
- These 20 animals only
Method and assumptions
- Method
- Two-sided Welch t-test; 95% confidence interval for the mean difference
- Groups
- Control 24.92 g (n = 10); Treatment 22.84 g (n = 10)
- Test
- t = −5.85, df = 17.8 (Welch–Satterthwaite approximation), two-sided p < 0.001
- Inclusion
- All 20 supplied animals included; no missing values or exclusions.
- Assumptions
- Independent observations and approximately normal within-group outcomes are assumed; equal variances are not required.
- Not verified
- Source matching does not verify animal identity, measurement accuracy, random assignment, or independence.
Synthetic data. The numbers are recomputed from the CSV with SciPy; this is an illustration, not a SciGround-issued Record.
One correction,traced to the claim.
Correct one group label, and the estimate, its interval, and its evidence are updated, while the earlier version stays on record. This is the correction behind version 3 above.
M17Groupwas Treatmentnow ControlWeight 26.2 g, unchanged
The original assignment record, supplied after v2, places M17 in Control. You confirm the correction; the v2 input is kept, not overwritten.
Confirmed by you, not proven: that the assignment record is right.
- ProjectThe correction becomes v3; v2 stays exactly as it was.
- IntegrationsWelch’s comparison runs again on the corrected groups.
- MathGroup correspondence, error bounds, and the claim are checked again.
- RecordA v3 Record is issued; the v2 Record is kept, marked superseded.
Unchanged: the design, the outcome, all 20 weights, and the method.
| v2 SupersededChecked against the inputs and declarations recorded at v2. No longer current. | v3 CurrentThe version in the study above. | |
|---|---|---|
| Animals per groupChanged | Treatment 11 · Control 9 | Treatment 10 · Control 10 |
| Mean differenceChanged | −1.63 g | −2.08 g |
| 95% CIChanged | −2.58 to −0.68 g | −2.83 to −1.33 g |
| Finding directionRechecked, unchanged | Lower in the treated group · Supported | Lower in the treated group · Supported |
| Reported claimRewritten with new values | 1.63 g lower in the treated group (95% CI 0.68 to 2.58 g lower) | 2.08 g lower in the treated group (95% CI 1.33 to 2.83 g lower) |
| RecordChanged | v2 Record, kept as issued | v3 Record, current |
Both calculations
- v2
- Control 24.78 g (n = 9); Treatment 23.15 g (n = 11); t = −3.64, df = 16.7, two-sided p = 0.002
- v3
- Control 24.92 g (n = 10); Treatment 22.84 g (n = 10); t = −5.85, df = 17.8, two-sided p < 0.001
- Method
- Two-sided Welch t-test with a 95% confidence interval, on the same 20 weights; only the group of M17 differs.
Synthetic data. Both versions are recomputed from the CSV with SciPy; this is an illustration, not SciGround-issued Records.
The foundations make strong, specific guarantees. See what they establish, and what they don’t.