F1 · Publication Volume 30

Mineral-System Hypotheses

source–pathway–trap–preservation reasoning and falsifiable predictions

Learning objectives and boundary

  • Explain source–pathway–trap–preservation reasoning and falsifiable predictions as an auditable evidence problem.
  • Separate source observations, controlled derivatives, interpretation and decision state.
  • Apply identity, spatial, semantic, lineage, quality and review checks.
  • Produce a competing-hypothesis matrix, dependency-aware evidence assessment and test plan.

This lesson is part of a general, institution-neutral tutorial and has no relationship to any company or individual. All identifiers, geometries and values in the worked case are explicitly synthetic. The method does not confer professional authority and must not be transferred to a real decision without appropriate sources, competence, law and review.

Core method

A mineral-system hypothesis explains how source, energy, pathway, trap, deposition and preservation could combine. It is not a checklist score. Express each alternative as a causal structure and derive predictions before inspecting the evidence used for evaluation. Predictions should state observable pattern, scale, location, expected absence and the result that would weaken the hypothesis.

Evidence contributes according to diagnosticity, quality and independence, not according to visual prominence or row count. A regional structure may be necessary but not sufficient; an anomaly may have multiple causes. Keep “unknown” distinct from “absent”. Build a matrix that shows support, contradiction, non-diagnostic evidence and missing tests for every alternative. The next action should maximise discrimination or reduce consequential uncertainty rather than merely add confirming evidence.

A competing-hypothesis matrix linking system components to predictions and tests
A competing-hypothesis matrix linking system components to predictions and tests

Record and evidence model

| Field or object | Operational meaning | |---|---| | hypothesis_id and causal_graph | alternative and its mechanism | | prediction_id | prespecified observable pattern and scale | | evidence_id and lineage_group | evaluated object and independence family | | relation | support, contradict, non-diagnostic or unknown | | discriminating_test | feasible observation and decision consequence |

Every record carries a version, validity interval, source or derivation link, quality state and review state. Missing, unknown, not applicable and failed are separate states; none is silently represented as zero or an empty string.

Controlled workflow

  1. Write two or more causal alternatives.
  2. Derive predictions without using evaluation outcomes.
  3. Group evidence by lineage and assess diagnosticity.
  4. Populate support, contradiction, non-diagnostic and unknown states.
  5. Test sensitivity to evidence quality and dependency.
  6. Select the next discriminating observation and stopping rule.

Record each step as an activity with declared inputs, parameters, outputs and checks. A rerun creates the same content or a documented difference; it never overwrites the evidence needed to explain the previous state.

Worked synthetic example

SYN-WB compares H-A, a structure-focused fluid pathway, with H-B, a contact-focused pathway. A magnetic edge supports both and is non-diagnostic. Synthetic alteration ratios support H-A but derive from one raster family. Two drillholes contradict the predicted H-A orientation, while preservation under cover remains unknown. The selected next test is an oriented section across the intersection of the two predicted pathways, not a denser reprocessing of the same raster.

The example is deliberately small enough to inspect row by row. Its names and numbers are fictional teaching values and cannot be used to infer a real place, right, resource, hazard or organisation.

Quality control and failure modes

Run six gates before accepting the lesson artefact: identity resolves the exact objects; spatial control confirms coordinate and extent validity; semantics preserve units, vocabularies and epistemic class; lineage exposes every transformation and dependency; quality records passed, failed and not-run checks; review binds a disposition to the exact content digest. A failed gate is retained as evidence and blocks only the affected use. It is never converted into a favourable value or hidden to simplify the display.

Common failure modes:

  • Scoring checklist presence as hypothesis probability
  • Writing predictions after seeing outcomes
  • Counting dependent products as repeated support
  • Treating unknown as absence
  • Selecting the next test only because it confirms the preferred model

Practical exercise

Complete the following tasks against a new copy of the synthetic package:

  1. Write two causal mineral-system hypotheses.
  2. Derive four predictions for each before revealing evidence.
  3. Classify eight evidence objects by relation and lineage.
  4. Choose a test that can change the preferred action.

For every answer, cite the package object IDs, show the failed as well as passed checks, and state which conclusion would change if one assumption were reversed.

Completion artefact and verification

Deliver a competing-hypothesis matrix, dependency-aware evidence assessment and test plan. Include a manifest, exact input identities, transformation or reasoning record, machine-readable validation results, human-readable limitations and the current review state. A second reader must be able to trace one accepted conclusion to its source support, one rejected path to its first failed gate and one unknown to the evidence required to resolve it. Rebuild the artefact from a clean location and compare content digests. Completion is withheld when a required source, parameter, permission or review is missing; no substitute data are invented.

Sources