Can SDX establish causality?

Evidence can establish that a condition held. Establishing why it held is a different claim.

Two claims, not one

Observation can support a statement about what was the case over a defined period at a defined location. Attributing that condition to a cause is a second statement, and it does not follow from the first.

Where the available evidence supports the observation but not the attribution, SDX states the observation and marks the attribution as unsupported. The gap is named rather than bridged.

Why the distinction is not academic

An institution that publishes a cause it cannot support has left the evidentiary ground without noticing. The statement may still be correct — but it is no longer defensible, because nothing in the record establishes it.

Consistency between an observed change and a reported cause is itself a question that evidence can address. Whether the reported cause is the actual one is not.

Related concepts

• What makes evidence defensible?
• Why do evidentiary boundaries matter?