Collection
The exclusion of irrelevance is at least as important as the inclusion of information.
The Collection comprises publicly available articles and studies that have been relevant in the course of our analyses.
Some have served as source material. Others illustrate when and how analysis drifts into wishful thinking.
The Wishful Thinking Index assigned to each entry indicates the extent to which a given piece, within its subject area, remained within the bounds of data-driven, structured analysis — and the extent to which it diverged into narrative, political, or presupposition-driven interpretation.
The index evaluates the writing, not the author.
Wishful Thinking Index (1–5)
1 – Strongly wishful
A pre-determined narrative, selective use of data, and the omission of risks or counterarguments.
2 – Weakly substantiated
Partial data sets, inferential leaps, and distorted proportions.
3 – Mixed quality
Substantive arguments accompanied by identifiable gaps or bias.
4 – Methodologically sound
Structured, quantitative and disciplined analysis, with limited distortion.
5 – Professionally grounded
Transparent methodology, multiple scenarios, a relevant evidentiary base, and conclusions largely borne out by subsequent developments.
- 0
Methodological Framework of the Assessment
The determination of the Wishful Thinking Index is a manual internal professional judgement. The assessment is conducted on the basis of information available at the time of analysis, together with developments that can be subsequently verified. The S6B does not undertake automatic retrospective revision. The index reflects the professional position held at the time of evaluation.
The author’s personal standing, institutional affiliation, or reputation do not form part of the assessment.