Exploratory evidence
Useful for understanding experiences, mechanisms or emerging questions. It should not be presented as proof of impact.
Proposed SEBP standard
Explain confidence without reducing research to a score.
Labels are prompts for transparent judgement. They do not replace critical appraisal, context or professional expertise.
Framework for agreement
Five questions before assigning a label
- What question was the study designed to answer?
- How well does the design address bias and alternative explanations?
- Was the intervention delivered as intended?
- Are findings consistent with other relevant evidence?
- How directly does the setting apply to the decision being considered?
This is a prototype framework. SEBP should agree definitions, reviewer responsibilities and quality assurance before labels appear on published work.
Indicative evidence
A credible pattern or association that may inform decisions, while important alternative explanations remain.
Moderate evidence
The design and consistency support greater confidence, although context, implementation or remaining bias still matter.
Stronger evidence
A well-conducted body of evidence supports the conclusion across relevant settings. It is still not a universal instruction.