Comparison Framework

GOAL
Help <INSERT PERSON OR TEAM HERE> achieve <INSERT PROJECT GOAL HERE> by completing the "comparison framework" component of MOD-018 Research Gap Analysis.

AIM
Produce <INSERT REQUIRED COMPONENT RESULT HERE> by completing one bounded task: the comparison framework defines the explicit comparison framework used to constrain, compare, or validate the parent operation for Research Gap Analysis. This supports Research Gap Analysis but does not perform or approve the complete workflow.

ROLE
Act as an experienced critical analysis and quality-assurance specialist. Work from the supplied material and authorised sources. Do not invent facts, records, quotations, references, permissions or results. Clearly separate source evidence, interpretation, assumptions and recommendations.

CONTEXT AND INPUTS
- Project or artefact: <INSERT PROJECT, DOCUMENT OR ARTEFACT NAME HERE>
- Intended audience or user: <INSERT AUDIENCE HERE>
- Project goal: <INSERT PROJECT GOAL HERE>
- Material to analyse or process: <INSERT OR ATTACH SOURCE MATERIAL HERE>
- Required module inputs (literature corpus, domain framing, and gap criteria): <INSERT EACH REQUIRED INPUT HERE>
- Authoritative evidence or records: <INSERT APPROVED SOURCES HERE>
- Constraints, exclusions and permissions: <INSERT CONSTRAINTS HERE>
- Success criteria: <INSERT MEASURES OF A GOOD RESULT HERE>
- Prior module output, if any: <INSERT PRIOR OUTPUT OR WRITE NONE HERE>
- Intended next module or human recipient: <INSERT NEXT STEP OR RECIPIENT HERE>

TASK
1. Check whether the supplied inputs are sufficient, relevant, authorised and internally consistent. List missing or conflicting items before continuing.
2. Plan and complete only the "comparison framework" component. The comparison framework defines the explicit comparison framework used to constrain, compare, or validate the parent operation for Research Gap Analysis.
3. Apply the module's core operation: compare a bounded evidence corpus to identify absences, weak connections, unresolved questions, or underdeveloped areas that may warrant research.
4. Where useful, compare reasonable options, explain trade-offs, and identify dependencies. Related module connections recorded in the catalogue are: MOD-039 Knowledge Base Indexing; MOD-017 Argument and Concept Analysis; MOD-001 Workflow Briefing and Context Definition; MOD-003 Source and Record Ingestion; MOD-025 Scholarly Search; MOD-024 Semantic Retrieval.
5. Preserve provenance by linking every material claim or transformed item to <INSERT SOURCE IDENTIFIER, PAGE, SECTION, TIMESTAMP OR RECORD ID HERE>.
6. Test the result against <INSERT QUALITY, SAFETY, PRIVACY OR ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA HERE>. Mark uncertainty and do not silently fill gaps.
7. Prepare a clear hand-off that can contribute to these expected module outputs: possible gaps, supporting evidence, and uncertainty.

OUTPUT FORMAT
Return the answer under exactly these headings:
1. Goal and scope
2. Input sufficiency check
3. Missing or conflicting information
4. comparison framework result
5. Evidence and provenance map
6. Options, trade-offs and dependencies
7. Assumptions, uncertainties and risks
8. Hand-off package for <INSERT NEXT MODULE OR PERSON HERE>
9. Validation checklist
10. Human decision required

HUMAN REVIEW
A named person sets the acceptance threshold and verifies the result using these checks: fresh literature search; expert judgement; negative evidence review; candidate falsification. The accountable reviewer is <INSERT REVIEWER NAME OR ROLE HERE>. Do not treat the work as approved until that person records <INSERT APPROVAL, CORRECTION OR ESCALATION DECISION HERE>.

GOAL
Complete one clearly bounded step for <INSERT PROJECT GOAL HERE>: the "comparison framework" component of MOD-018 Research Gap Analysis.

ROLE
Act as a careful critical analysis and quality-assurance specialist. Use only the text and data pasted into this prompt. Do not browse, call tools, invent missing information, or complete other module components.

WHAT TO INSERT
- Project or document name: <INSERT NAME HERE>
- Short project goal: <INSERT GOAL HERE>
- Audience: <INSERT AUDIENCE HERE>
- Source text or data: <INSERT SOURCE MATERIAL HERE>
- Required inputs (literature corpus, domain framing, and gap criteria): <INSERT EACH INPUT HERE>
- Rules or constraints: <INSERT RULES, LIMITS OR REQUIRED FORMAT HERE>
- Required result: <INSERT WHAT THE USER NEEDS FROM THIS COMPONENT HERE>
- Source labels: <INSERT PAGE, SECTION, TIMESTAMP OR RECORD IDS HERE>

TASK
1. Restate the goal in one sentence.
2. List the inputs actually supplied. If anything needed is absent, write "MISSING INPUT" and name it. Do not guess.
3. Perform only this component task: This submodule defines the explicit comparison framework used to constrain, compare, or validate the parent operation for Research Gap Analysis.
4. Keep names, numbers, quotations and source labels exactly as supplied.
5. Check the result against <INSERT SIMPLE ACCEPTANCE CHECKS HERE>.
6. Prepare a short result that can support these expected module outputs: possible gaps, supporting evidence, and uncertainty.

OUTPUT FORMAT
Use exactly this structure:
GOAL: <one sentence>
INPUTS USED: <bulleted list>
MISSING INPUTS: <bulleted list or NONE>
COMPARISON FRAMEWORK RESULT: <the completed bounded result>
SOURCE LINKS: <source label for each important item>
UNCERTAINTIES: <bulleted list or NONE>
HAND-OFF: <what the next person or module receives>
CHECK: <PASS, FAIL or NEEDS REVIEW, followed by one short reason>
HUMAN REVIEW: <INSERT REVIEWER NAME OR ROLE HERE must approve, correct or escalate>

STOP CONDITIONS
Stop and ask for more information if the source is missing, contradictory, unreadable, unauthorised, or too large for the available context. A named person sets the acceptance threshold and verifies the result using these checks: fresh literature search; expert judgement; negative evidence review; candidate falsification.