Evidence categories
Original studies and meta-analyses can support bounded scientific background claims. Official research resources can explain a specifically named classification system. Public product documentation defines FermatMind's own behavior. Competitor copy, scores, prices, endorsements, and technical claims are not evidence for FermatMind.
Source selection
For scientific claims, prioritize original papers and record a stable public link, the scope supported, and the limitations. Secondary summaries can help locate sources but cannot alone support a central scientific claim.
Mapping claims to sources
Each material scientific claim should be supported by a directly relevant source. Research on the Big Five in general does not automatically validate FermatMind's reliability, validity, norms, scoring, or accuracy for individuals.
Boundaries of product evidence
Product numbers without a public basis remain Unknown. Do not substitute general personality research, competitor material, or editorial inference. Scenarios and suggested actions on our pages are prompts for testable questions, not diagnoses, screening decisions, or guaranteed outcomes.
Corrections and disagreements
When evidence changes, a link fails, or a statement is reasonably challenged, identify the affected claim, check the original source, narrow or correct any statement that exceeds the evidence, and retain a clear correction note. Where researchers disagree, present the applicable scope and uncertainty.
Evidence and privacy boundaries
Content review uses only public research and product information safe for public release. Private answers, assessment records, reports, orders, recovery information, payment data, and identifiable user records are not evidence for public claims.
Current public evidence index
- Goldberg (1990): Big Five factor structure does not validate FermatMind's scoring, norms, individual results, or outcome predictions.
- Soto and John (2017): BFI-2 domains and facets does not mean FermatMind implements the BFI-2 or inherits its measurement results.
- DeYoung, Quilty, and Peterson (2007): Ten aspects supports one classification and does not make all Big Five facet systems equivalent.
- Roberts, Walton, and Viechtbauer (2006): Meta-analysis of trait change describes group-level change; it cannot predict whether or how a particular individual will change.
