psyclaw 0.27.22 → 0.28.0

package/vendor/ars/deep-research/references/systematic_review_toolkit.md

@@ -0,0 +1,353 @@
+# Systematic Review Toolkit — Reference Guide
+
+## Purpose
+
+Comprehensive reference for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Covers Cochrane methodology, PRISMA 2020 reporting, risk of bias instruments, heterogeneity interpretation, GRADE certainty framework, and protocol registration. Used by `risk_of_bias_agent`, `meta_analysis_agent`, `bibliography_agent`, and `report_compiler_agent`.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Cochrane Handbook v6.4 — Key Principles
+
+The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (v6.4, 2023) is the gold standard reference for systematic review methodology.
+
+### Core Methodology Stages
+
+| Stage | Cochrane Chapter | Key Requirements |
+|-------|-----------------|-----------------|
+| Planning | Ch 1-3 | Protocol registration, clear objectives, PICOS |
+| Searching | Ch 4 | Comprehensive search (≥ 2 databases), documented strategy |
+| Selecting | Ch 4 | Independent dual screening, predefined criteria |
+| Data extraction | Ch 5 | Standardized forms, pilot testing, dual extraction |
+| Risk of bias | Ch 8 (RoB 2), Ch 25 (ROBINS-I) | Domain-based assessment, signaling questions |
+| Synthesis | Ch 10-12 | Appropriate statistical methods, heterogeneity assessment |
+| GRADE | Ch 14 | Certainty of evidence for each outcome |
+| Reporting | Ch 15 | PRISMA 2020 compliance |
+
+### Fundamental Principles
+
+1. **A priori protocol**: Register the protocol before conducting the review (PROSPERO, OSF)
+2. **Comprehensive searching**: Search multiple databases; do not rely on a single source
+3. **Dual independent processes**: Two reviewers for screening, extraction, and risk of bias (at minimum for a subset)
+4. **Pre-specified methods**: Analysis plan defined before seeing results
+5. **Transparent reporting**: Document everything; another team should be able to replicate the review
+
+---
+
+## 2. PRISMA 2020 — Full 27-Item Checklist
+
+**Full Name**: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
+**Reference**: Page et al. (2021). BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
+
+### Title and Abstract
+
+| # | Item | Guidance |
+|---|------|---------|
+| 1 | **Title** | Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both |
+| 2 | **Abstract** | Structured summary: background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal/synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions, registration number |
+
+### Introduction
+
+| # | Item | Guidance |
+|---|------|---------|
+| 3 | **Rationale** | Describe the rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge |
+| 4 | **Objectives** | Provide an explicit statement of the questions being addressed with reference to PICOS |
+
+### Methods
+
+| # | Item | Guidance |
+|---|------|---------|
+| 5 | **Eligibility criteria** | Specify inclusion and exclusion criteria (PICOS components, date range, language, publication status) |
+| 6 | **Information sources** | Describe all information sources searched (databases, registers, websites, organizations, reference lists) with dates |
+| 7 | **Search strategy** | Present the complete search strategy for at least one database, including any filters and limits |
+| 8 | **Selection process** | State methods for deciding which studies met eligibility criteria (number of reviewers, consensus process) |
+| 9 | **Data collection process** | Describe methods for extracting data (number of reviewers, whether independently, any processes for obtaining/confirming data from investigators) |
+| 10 | **Data items** | List and define all outcome variables and other variables extracted |
+| 11 | **Study risk of bias assessment** | Describe methods for assessing risk of bias in included studies, including tools used and how results were used in synthesis |
+| 12 | **Effect measures** | Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) used (e.g., RR, MD, SMD) |
+| 13a | **Synthesis methods** | Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis |
+| 13b | | Describe any methods required to prepare the data for synthesis (e.g., handling multi-arm studies) |
+| 13c | | Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses |
+| 13d | | Describe any methods used to synthesize results and rationale (meta-analysis: model, software; narrative: SWiM) |
+| 13e | | Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity (subgroup, meta-regression) |
+| 13f | | Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted |
+| 14 | **Reporting bias assessment** | Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results (publication bias) |
+| 15 | **Certainty assessment** | Describe any methods used to assess certainty in the body of evidence (e.g., GRADE) |
+
+### Results
+
+| # | Item | Guidance |
+|---|------|---------|
+| 16a | **Study selection** | Describe results of the search and selection process, ideally using a PRISMA flow diagram |
+| 16b | | Cite studies that appeared to meet inclusion criteria but were excluded, and explain why |
+| 17 | **Study characteristics** | For each included study cite it and present its characteristics |
+| 18 | **Risk of bias in studies** | Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study |
+| 19 | **Results of individual studies** | For all outcomes, present for each study: summary data, effect estimates and CIs, results of syntheses |
+| 20a | **Results of syntheses** | For each synthesis, briefly summarize the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies |
+| 20b | | Present results of all statistical syntheses conducted, including CIs and measures of heterogeneity |
+| 20c | | Present results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity |
+| 20d | | Present results of all sensitivity analyses |
+| 21 | **Reporting biases** | Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results |
+| 22 | **Certainty of evidence** | Present assessments of certainty of evidence for each outcome assessed |
+
+### Discussion
+
+| # | Item | Guidance |
+|---|------|---------|
+| 23 | **Discussion** | Provide a general interpretation of results in the context of other evidence, discuss limitations of the evidence and of the review process, implications |
+| 24 | **Registration and protocol** | Provide registration information including register name and registration number, and a link to the protocol |
+| 25 | **Support** | Describe sources of financial or non-financial support and the role of funders |
+| 26 | **Competing interests** | Declare any competing interests of review authors |
+| 27 | **Availability of data, code, and other materials** | Report which of the following are publicly available: template data collection forms, data extracted from included studies, analysis code, any other materials |
+
+### PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram
+
+```
+ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+ │                 IDENTIFICATION                      │
+ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+ │ Records identified from databases (n = )            │
+ │ Records identified from other sources (n = )        │
+ └──────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────┘
+                        │
+ ┌──────────────────────▼──────────────────────────────┐
+ │ Records removed before screening:                   │
+ │   Duplicate records (n = )                          │
+ │   Records marked as ineligible by automation (n = ) │
+ │   Records removed for other reasons (n = )          │
+ └──────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────┘
+                        │
+ ┌──────────────────────▼──────────────────────────────┐
+ │                  SCREENING                          │
+ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+ │ Records screened (n = )                             │
+ │ Records excluded (n = )                             │
+ └──────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────┘
+                        │
+ ┌──────────────────────▼──────────────────────────────┐
+ │ Reports sought for retrieval (n = )                 │
+ │ Reports not retrieved (n = )                        │
+ └──────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────┘
+                        │
+ ┌──────────────────────▼──────────────────────────────┐
+ │ Reports assessed for eligibility (n = )             │
+ │ Reports excluded, with reasons (n = )               │
+ │   Reason 1 (n = )                                   │
+ │   Reason 2 (n = )                                   │
+ │   Reason 3 (n = )                                   │
+ └──────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────┘
+                        │
+ ┌──────────────────────▼──────────────────────────────┐
+ │                  INCLUDED                           │
+ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+ │ Studies included in review (n = )                   │
+ │ Reports of included studies (n = )                  │
+ │                                                     │
+ │ Studies included in quantitative synthesis (n = )   │
+ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+---
+
+## 3. RoB 2 Instrument Summary
+
+**Full Name**: Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials (version 2)
+**Reference**: Sterne et al. (2019). BMJ, 366, l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898
+
+### Domains
+
+| Domain | Abbreviation | Focus |
+|--------|-------------|-------|
+| Bias arising from the randomization process | D1 | Sequence generation, allocation concealment, baseline balance |
+| Bias due to deviations from intended interventions | D2 | Blinding, protocol adherence, ITT analysis |
+| Bias due to missing outcome data | D3 | Completeness, differential dropout, handling of missing data |
+| Bias in measurement of the outcome | D4 | Outcome assessment method, blinding of assessors |
+| Bias in selection of the reported result | D5 | Pre-registration, selective reporting |
+
+### Judgment Scale
+
+- **Low risk of bias**: The study is judged to be at low risk of bias for this domain
+- **Some concerns**: The study raises some concerns about bias for this domain
+- **High risk of bias**: The study is judged to be at high risk of bias for this domain
+
+### Overall Judgment Algorithm
+
+- All domains Low → Overall **Low**
+- Some Concerns in ≥ 1 domain, no High → Overall **Some Concerns**
+- High in ≥ 1 domain → Overall **High**
+
+---
+
+## 4. ROBINS-I Summary
+
+**Full Name**: Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions
+**Reference**: Sterne et al. (2016). BMJ, 355, i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919
+
+### Domains (7 domains spanning 3 time points)
+
+**Pre-intervention**:
+- D1: Bias due to confounding
+- D2: Bias in selection of participants into the study
+
+**At intervention**:
+- D3: Bias in classification of interventions
+
+**Post-intervention**:
+- D4: Bias due to deviations from intended interventions
+- D5: Bias due to missing data
+- D6: Bias in measurement of outcomes
+- D7: Bias in selection of the reported result
+
+### Judgment Scale
+
+- **Low risk**: Comparable to a well-performed RCT
+- **Moderate risk**: Sound for a non-randomized study but cannot be considered comparable to a well-performed RCT
+- **Serious risk**: Some important problems
+- **Critical risk**: Study is too problematic to provide useful evidence
+- **No information**: Insufficient reporting
+
+---
+
+## 5. I² Interpretation Guide
+
+| I² Range | Label | What It Means | Action |
+|----------|-------|---------------|--------|
+| 0-40% | Low | Heterogeneity might not be important | Proceed with pooling; report I² |
+| 30-60% | Moderate | May represent moderate heterogeneity | Proceed with pooling; investigate sources |
+| 50-90% | Substantial | Substantial heterogeneity | Investigate sources; consider subgroup analyses; report prediction interval |
+| 75-100% | Considerable | Considerable heterogeneity | Question whether pooling is meaningful; consider narrative synthesis |
+
+**Important caveats**:
+- Ranges overlap intentionally (per Cochrane Handbook 10.10.2)
+- I² significance depends on: magnitude of effects, p-value from Q-test, and visual inspection of forest plot
+- A high I² with all effects in the same direction is less concerning than moderate I² with effects crossing zero
+- I² is influenced by precision of studies — many precise studies can yield high I² even with small absolute differences
+- Always report the 95% CI for I² (which can be very wide with few studies)
+
+---
+
+## 6. GRADE Certainty of Evidence Framework
+
+**Full Name**: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations
+**Reference**: Guyatt et al. (2008). BMJ, 336, 924-926.
+
+### Starting Points
+
+| Study Design | Starting Certainty |
+|-------------|-------------------|
+| Randomized trials | HIGH (⊕⊕⊕⊕) |
+| Non-randomized studies | LOW (⊕⊕◯◯) |
+
+### Factors That Lower Certainty (Rate Down)
+
+| Factor | Rate Down | When to Apply |
+|--------|-----------|---------------|
+| Risk of bias | -1 or -2 | Serious or very serious limitations in study design/execution |
+| Inconsistency | -1 or -2 | Unexplained heterogeneity (I² > 50%, different directions of effect) |
+| Indirectness | -1 or -2 | Evidence does not directly address the PICOS of the review question |
+| Imprecision | -1 or -2 | Wide CIs, small sample sizes, CIs cross clinical decision threshold |
+| Publication bias | -1 | Funnel plot asymmetry, small study effects, known unpublished trials |
+
+### Factors That Raise Certainty (Rate Up — Observational Studies Only)
+
+| Factor | Rate Up | When to Apply |
+|--------|---------|---------------|
+| Large effect | +1 or +2 | RR > 2 or < 0.5 (large), RR > 5 or < 0.2 (very large), without confounders |
+| Dose-response gradient | +1 | Clear dose-response relationship observed |
+| Plausible confounding | +1 | All plausible confounders would reduce the observed effect |
+
+### Certainty Levels
+
+| Level | Symbol | Meaning |
+|-------|--------|---------|
+| High | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ | Very confident the true effect lies close to the estimate |
+| Moderate | ⊕⊕⊕◯ | Moderately confident; the true effect is likely close but may be substantially different |
+| Low | ⊕⊕◯◯ | Limited confidence; the true effect may be substantially different |
+| Very Low | ⊕◯◯◯ | Very little confidence; the true effect is likely substantially different |
+
+---
+
+## 7. Protocol Registration Guidance
+
+### When to Register
+
+- **Always** for systematic reviews intended for publication
+- **Before** starting the literature search
+- Registration prevents outcome reporting bias and demonstrates a priori planning
+
+### Where to Register
+
+| Platform | Focus | Cost | URL |
+|----------|-------|------|-----|
+| **PROSPERO** | Health-related systematic reviews | Free | crd.york.ac.uk/prospero |
+| **OSF Registries** | Any discipline | Free | osf.io/registries |
+| **INPLASY** | Any discipline | ~$40 | inplasy.com |
+| **Research Registry** | Any discipline | Free for systematic reviews | researchregistry.com |
+
+### Protocol Content (PRISMA-P 2015)
+
+See `templates/prisma_protocol_template.md` for the complete protocol template.
+
+Key sections:
+1. Title, registration, authors, amendments
+2. Rationale, objectives, PICOS eligibility criteria
+3. Information sources, search strategy, study records management
+4. Data extraction, risk of bias assessment, data synthesis plan
+5. Meta-bias assessment, confidence in cumulative evidence
+
+---
+
+## 8. Software and Tools
+
+### Statistical Software for Meta-Analysis
+
+| Tool | Language | Best For | Key References |
+|------|----------|----------|---------------|
+| **metafor** (R) | R | Comprehensive meta-analysis (all models, diagnostics) | Viechtbauer (2010) |
+| **meta** (R) | R | User-friendly standard meta-analyses | Balduzzi et al. (2019) |
+| **dmetar** (R) | R | Companion to "Doing Meta-Analysis in R" textbook | Harrer et al. (2021) |
+| **RevMan** | Standalone | Cochrane reviews (required for Cochrane) | Cochrane Collaboration |
+| **robvis** (R) | R | Risk of bias visualization (traffic-light plots) | McGuinness & Higgins (2020) |
+| **GRADE pro GDT** | Web-based | GRADE Summary of Findings tables | McMaster University |
+
+### Screening and Management Tools
+
+| Tool | Purpose | Cost |
+|------|---------|------|
+| **Covidence** | Study screening, data extraction, RoB | Paid (free Cochrane license) |
+| **Rayyan** | Abstract screening (AI-assisted) | Free |
+| **EPPI-Reviewer** | Full review management | Paid |
+| **ASReview** | AI-assisted screening | Free (open source) |
+| **Zotero/Mendeley** | Reference management | Free |
+
+---
+
+## Quick Decision Guide
+
+```
+Starting a systematic review?
+│
+├── 1. Register your protocol
+│   └── PROSPERO (health) or OSF (any field)
+│
+├── 2. Write your protocol
+│   └── Use PRISMA-P template → templates/prisma_protocol_template.md
+│
+├── 3. Search systematically
+│   └── ≥ 2 databases, document everything, PRISMA flow
+│
+├── 4. Screen and select
+│   └── Dual screening, predefined criteria
+│
+├── 5. Assess risk of bias
+│   └── RCTs → RoB 2 | Non-randomized → ROBINS-I
+│
+├── 6. Synthesize evidence
+│   ├── Quantitative data + comparable studies → Meta-analysis
+│   └── Otherwise → Narrative synthesis (SWiM)
+│
+├── 7. Assess certainty
+│   └── GRADE for each outcome
+│
+└── 8. Report
+    └── PRISMA 2020 checklist → templates/prisma_report_template.md
+```

package/vendor/ars/deep-research/templates/evidence_assessment_template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
+# Evidence Assessment Template
+
+## Purpose
+Per-source quality assessment card. Used by the source_verification_agent to systematically evaluate each source entering the research pipeline.
+
+## Assessment Card
+
+```markdown
+## Evidence Assessment Card
+
+### Source Identification
+- **Citation (APA 7.0)**: [full reference]
+- **DOI/URL**: [link]
+- **Type**: [journal article / book / report / web / conference paper / thesis / other]
+- **Access Date**: [when verified]
+
+---
+
+### Quality Assessment
+
+#### 1. Evidence Level
+**Level**: [I / II / III / IV / V / VI / VII]
+**Justification**: [why this level]
+
+#### 2. Publication Venue
+- **Journal/Publisher**: [name]
+- **Indexed in**: [Scopus / WoS / PubMed / DOAJ / other / none]
+- **Impact Factor/CiteScore**: [value or N/A]
+- **COPE member**: [Yes / No / Unknown]
+- **Predatory indicators**: [None / Flags: list]
+
+**Venue Grade**: [Excellent / Good / Adequate / Questionable / Unacceptable]
+
+#### 3. Author Credibility
+- **Author(s)**: [names]
+- **Affiliation(s)**: [institutions]
+- **ORCID**: [if available]
+- **Track record**: [publication history in field]
+- **Expertise match**: [relevant to topic? Yes/Partial/No]
+
+**Author Grade**: [Excellent / Good / Adequate / Unknown / Questionable]
+
+#### 4. Methodological Quality
+- **Design**: [description]
+- **Sample**: [size, selection, representativeness]
+- **Analysis**: [appropriate for design?]
+- **Limitations acknowledged**: [Yes / Partially / No]
+- **Replicable**: [Yes / Partially / No]
+
+**Method Grade**: [Excellent / Good / Adequate / Weak / Flawed]
+
+#### 5. Currency
+- **Publication year**: [YYYY]
+- **Data collection period**: [if stated]
+- **Field velocity**: [Rapid / Moderate / Slow / Foundational]
+- **Still current**: [Yes / Conditionally / No]
+
+**Currency Grade**: [Current / Acceptable / Dated / Outdated / Foundational]
+
+#### 6. Conflict of Interest
+- **Declared COI**: [None / Listed: details]
+- **Funding source**: [source or Not stated]
+- **Potential undeclared COI**: [None detected / Possible: details]
+
+**COI Grade**: [Clean / Minor / Moderate / Significant / Critical]
+
+---
+
+### Overall Assessment
+
+| Dimension | Grade |
+|-----------|-------|
+| Evidence Level | [I-VII] |
+| Venue | [Excellent-Unacceptable] |
+| Author | [Excellent-Questionable] |
+| Method | [Excellent-Flawed] |
+| Currency | [Current-Outdated] |
+| COI | [Clean-Critical] |
+| **Overall** | **[A / B / C / D / F]** |
+
+### Recommendation
+- [ ] **Use as primary evidence** (Grade A-B)
+- [ ] **Use as supporting evidence** (Grade B-C)
+- [ ] **Use with explicit caveats** (Grade C-D)
+- [ ] **Do not use** (Grade D-F) — Reason: [specific reason]
+
+### Notes
+[Any additional observations, caveats, or context]
+```
+
+## Batch Assessment Summary
+
+```markdown
+## Source Verification Summary
+
+**Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
+**Sources assessed**: [N]
+**Assessor**: source_verification_agent
+
+### Grade Distribution
+| Grade | Count | % |
+|-------|-------|---|
+| A (Excellent) | X | X% |
+| B (Good) | X | X% |
+| C (Adequate) | X | X% |
+| D (Weak) | X | X% |
+| F (Unacceptable) | X | X% |
+
+### Flagged Sources
+| Source | Issue | Severity | Recommendation |
+|--------|-------|----------|---------------|
+| [ref] | [issue] | [High/Medium/Low] | [Include with caveat / Exclude] |
+
+### Predatory Journal Alerts
+[List any flagged journals]
+
+### Overall Source Base Quality
+**Assessment**: [Strong / Adequate / Mixed / Weak]
+**Recommendation**: [Proceed / Supplement / Major revision of source base needed]
+```
+
+## Usage Notes
+- Complete one card per source for full verification
+- Batch summary should be produced after all cards are complete
+- Minimum spot-check: 20% of sources get full card assessment
+- All Grade D/F sources require documented justification
+- Any predatory journal flag requires full verification

package/vendor/ars/deep-research/templates/literature_matrix_template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+# Literature Matrix Template
+
+## Purpose
+Source x Theme cross-tabulation for systematic evidence mapping. Used by the synthesis_agent to organize evidence before writing the synthesis narrative.
+
+## Matrix Structure
+
+### Basic Matrix
+
+```markdown
+## Literature Matrix: [Research Topic]
+
+**Date compiled**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
+**Total sources**: [N]
+**Themes identified**: [N]
+
+| Source | Year | Level | Theme A | Theme B | Theme C | Theme D | Theme E |
+|--------|------|-------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
+| Author1 | 2024 | II | ✓ Supports | — | ✓ Supports | ✗ Contradicts | — |
+| Author2 | 2023 | III | ✓ Supports | ✓ Supports | — | — | ✓ Supports |
+| Author3 | 2022 | VI | — | ✓ Supports | ✓ Supports | ✓ Supports | — |
+| Author4 | 2024 | I | ✓ Supports | ✓ Supports | ✗ Contradicts | — | ✓ Supports |
+| Author5 | 2023 | IV | ✗ Contradicts | — | ✓ Supports | ✓ Supports | — |
+| **Totals** | | | **4✓ 1✗** | **3✓ 0✗** | **3✓ 1✗** | **2✓ 1✗** | **2✓ 0✗** |
+
+### Legend
+- ✓ Supports: Source provides evidence supporting this theme
+- ✗ Contradicts: Source provides evidence contradicting this theme
+- — : Source does not address this theme
+- Level: Evidence hierarchy level (I = highest, VII = lowest)
+```
+
+### Extended Matrix (with detail)
+
+```markdown
+## Extended Literature Matrix
+
+| Source | Method | Sample | Theme A: [name] | Theme B: [name] | Quality |
+|--------|--------|--------|-----------------|-----------------|---------|
+| Author1 (2024) | RCT, N=500 | University students, US | "Finding X was significant (p<.001)" — Supports | Not addressed | A |
+| Author2 (2023) | Case study, N=3 institutions | Asian universities | "Institution A showed..." — Supports | "However, in context B..." — Partial | C |
+| Author3 (2022) | Meta-analysis, k=42 | Global | "Pooled effect size d=0.45" — Strong support | "Subgroup analysis revealed..." — Mixed | A |
+```
+
+### Convergence Summary
+
+```markdown
+## Evidence Convergence Summary
+
+| Theme | Sources For | Sources Against | Net | Strength | Confidence |
+|-------|-----------|----------------|-----|----------|-----------|
+| Theme A | 4 (Levels I, II, III, IV) | 1 (Level VI) | +3 | Strong | High |
+| Theme B | 3 (Levels I, III, IV) | 0 | +3 | Strong | High |
+| Theme C | 3 (Levels II, III, VI) | 1 (Level I) | +2 | Contested | Medium |
+| Theme D | 2 (Levels IV, VI) | 1 (Level II) | +1 | Weak | Low |
+| Theme E | 2 (Levels I, III) | 0 | +2 | Moderate | Medium |
+
+### Interpretation Guide
+- **Strong** (≥3 supporting, higher-level evidence): Confident finding
+- **Moderate** (2-3 supporting, mid-level evidence): Likely finding, more evidence welcome
+- **Weak** (1-2 supporting, lower-level evidence): Tentative, needs more research
+- **Contested** (evidence on both sides): Genuine debate, report both sides
+- **Gap** (0 sources): Knowledge gap identified
+```
+
+### Gap Identification
+
+```markdown
+## Knowledge Gaps
+
+| Gap | Type | Implication | Priority |
+|-----|------|-------------|----------|
+| No data on [population X] | Empirical | Cannot generalize to this group | High |
+| Only [method type] used | Methodological | Triangulation needed | Medium |
+| No studies since [year] | Temporal | Evidence may be outdated | Medium |
+| Only studied in [region] | Geographic | Generalizability unknown | Low |
+| No theoretical framework for [finding] | Theoretical | Theory development opportunity | Low |
+```
+
+## Usage Notes
+- Start with the Basic Matrix for initial organization
+- Upgrade to Extended Matrix as synthesis deepens
+- Convergence Summary should directly inform the synthesis narrative
+- Gap Identification feeds into the Discussion section
+- Update the matrix as new sources are added — it is a living document