On this page
RNX code library · 4 controls
RNX-1030Experimental Design and Uncertainty
Read what these checks mean, why they matter and which evidence they concern. Each ID below keeps its canonical place in the RNX hierarchy.
These are free learning summaries, not full technical tests or an industry certification. Specialized checks apply only to the relevant feature. Experimental labels are preserved from the canonical source.
RNX-1030.T001
Predeclared hypothesis
Experimental — not an established ranking requirement
Write down the expected result and comparison before an experiment.
Why it matters. This makes it harder to invent a success story after seeing the numbers.
Illustration — fictional. Primary outcome changed after seeing results.
When it applies. Inspected target: experiment plan. Use this check only when that object or feature exists in the review scope; provider-specific checks require that provider's integration. Missing evidence remains unknown.
RNX-1030.T002
Confounder record
Experimental — not an established ranking requirement
Record other changes and seasonal effects during a test.
Why it matters. A busy season may explain growth that a website edit did not cause.
Illustration — fictional. Paid campaign starts with treatment but is omitted.
When it applies. Inspected target: confounder ledger. Use this check only when that object or feature exists in the review scope; provider-specific checks require that provider's integration. Missing evidence remains unknown.
RNX-1030.T003
Comparison design
Experimental — not an established ranking requirement
State what the comparison can and cannot establish.
Why it matters. A simple before-and-after chart rarely isolates one cause.
Illustration — fictional. Changed product pages are compared only with unrelated blog posts, without a defensible comparison design.
When it applies. Inspected target: comparison design. Use this check only when that object or feature exists in the review scope; provider-specific checks require that provider's integration. Missing evidence remains unknown.
RNX-1030.T004
Uncertainty reporting
Experimental — not an established ranking requirement
Report uncertainty rather than false precision.
Why it matters. Small or noisy samples do not support exact claims of improvement.
Illustration — fictional. Five closely related prompts are treated as five independent proofs of improvement.
When it applies. Inspected target: uncertainty statement. Use this check only when that object or feature exists in the review scope; provider-specific checks require that provider's integration. Missing evidence remains unknown.