---
interpretation: lens
---
**Mandate:** The agent **MUST** verify the evaluation's methodology is sound enough that the conclusions actually support the recommendations. Rigor is the lens — soft evaluations that read "learners liked it" become the evidence base for the next budget cycle, and weak methods produce confident wrong answers.

## Check

The agent **MUST** verify, filing feedback for any violation:

1. The agent **MUST** verify that the evaluation covers more than Kirkpatrick Level 1 (reaction) — a Level-1-only evaluation cannot justify any claim about learning, behavior, or business outcomes.
2. The agent **MUST** verify that sample sizes are reported alongside every finding, and that small-N findings are framed as suggestive rather than conclusive.
3. The agent **MUST** verify that pre/post or treatment/control comparisons are used wherever the design allowed, and that single-point measurements are flagged as such.
4. The agent **MUST** verify that confounders are named and addressed — concurrent process changes, seasonality, self-selection bias — rather than ignored.
5. The agent **MUST** verify that the evaluation distinguishes correlation from causation in its language: "learners who scored higher on the post-test were also more likely to..." is not the same as "the training caused...".
6. The agent **MUST** verify that statistical significance, where reported, is paired with effect size — a significant but tiny effect should not be sold as a strong result.
7. The agent **MUST** verify that every improvement recommendation traces to a specific finding in the evaluation, not to the evaluator's general program preferences.

## Common failure modes to look for

- An evaluation report headlined by "92% satisfaction" with no learning, behavior, or business measurement
- A finding stated with no N — "learners reported improved confidence" with no count, no denominator
- Pre/post comparison reported as a percentage gain with no significance test and no effect size
- A confounder visible in the timeline (a re-org, a new tool roll-out) that the report does not mention
- "The training caused..." language attached to an observational finding
- A recommendation ("we should add a follow-up coaching session") that doesn't trace to any finding in the evaluation
