10 Stage 7: Produce the Evidence Map
10.1 Orientation
The final stage does not end research. It converts collection from accumulation into a reasoned plan. The map now shows what the project asks, what evidence bears on it, where the corpus is weak, and what further work is worth its cost.
10.2 Learn
Assemble the six prior artifacts without flattening them into one table. The question frame supplies boundaries. The concept grid supplies dimensions. The source inventory supplies possible record-producing institutions. The search log supplies routes and revisions. The evidence register supplies claim-specific judgments. The gap analysis supplies uncertainty and priority.
The collection plan assigns the next action to each important gap. Search further, seek access, consult an expert, add language competence, triangulate, narrow the claim, or accept the limit. Every action has a reason and a review date.
The stopping rule states when active collection ends for the present phase. It should refer to coverage of important dimensions, diversity of source families, declining information yield, treatment of rivals and negative cases, unresolved contradictions, and practical or ethical constraints. It should also state what new evidence would reopen collection.
10.3 Worked Example
The terrorism map may support a claim about how database procedures create divergent accounts while remaining unable to adjudicate the true global number of events. That is an acceptable result. The map narrows the claim to what the evidence can bear.
The stopping rule might close active collection after the main methodological periods are documented, competing classification systems are represented, important transformations are traced, and new searches yield only dependent repetition. It would reopen if a new codebook, originating archive, or independent event series became available.
10.4 Try It
Write the strongest claim the present corpus can support. Write the strongest claim it cannot support. Then draft the stopping rule in one paragraph that names both evidence and limits.
10.5 Guided AI Workflow
Ask the model to attack the stopping rule. Require it to identify unsupported confidence, neglected rivals, circular dependence, and vague language. Revise only after checking the critique against the map. A usable prompt: “Attack this stopping rule. Identify unsupported confidence, neglected rivals, circular dependence, and vague language.”
Permitted input: The stopping rule and a redacted summary of coverage, with no protected records.
Do not provide: The evidence itself, restricted records, or protected collection detail.
Verify: Check each objection against the map before revising. An objection is a prompt to reexamine, not a verdict.
Record: Log which objections changed the stopping rule, and the model and date.
10.6 Integrity Checkpoint
Do not convert inaccessible evidence into presumed support. Do not treat silence as absence without examining the record-producing institution. Do not present a practical deadline as methodological sufficiency. Confirm before saving:
No presumed support: inaccessible evidence is not counted as if it agreed.
Silence examined: an absence is traced to the record-producing institution before it is read as evidence.
Constraint named: a deadline or access limit is stated as itself, not as sufficiency.
10.7 Save the Artifact
Save evidence-map-stopping-rule-v1.0.xlsx, a dated release that links the six prior artifacts rather than flattening them: the question frame, concept grid, source-family inventory, search log, evidence register, and gap analysis, together with the collection plan and stopping rule. Preserve editable working files and a stable review copy. Link the release to the question version it answers.
10.8 Advanced Practice
In team projects, the map becomes an instrument of governance. It assigns responsibility, records disagreements, and makes handoffs possible. The map should not become a surveillance device for counting activity. Its unit is a research decision, not an hour worked.