SYNCLOGIC
Decision context
Specify jurisdiction, eligible households, policy period, funding source and decision authority.
From political promises to decision-grade policy.
SyncLogic audits the reasoning, evidence and assumptions behind policy claims so you know what is supported, what is uncertain, and what is safe to rely on.
Transform any policy claim into an audited, evidence-based conclusion with a clear level of reliance.
Cuts through rhetoric to the actual claim being made
Finds, evaluates and registers the right evidence
Tests alternatives, trade-offs and opportunity costs
Finds the weakest link that limits the entire policy case
Assigns a Reliance Class (RC 0–7) and states what is justified
Issues a Permission-to-Rely verdict for the intended use
The same disciplined method, applied to this claim type: define, decompose, register evidence, test admissibility, explore alternatives, find the weakest link, assign reliance, and issue a verdict.
Rewrite the policy claim precisely. Lock the scope: population, location, time frame.
What exactly is being claimed?Break the policy claim into explicit sub-claims: objectives, mechanisms, impacts, costs, distribution.
What must be true for this claim to hold?Find evidence: reports, data, evaluations, academic studies, official statistics. Register each source to the specific sub-claim.
What evidence exists and what does it actually support?Evaluate each source for relevance, authority, timeliness, transparency, methodology, jurisdiction and limitations.
Is this source fit for the claim and for this purpose?Identify and map credible alternative policies, mechanisms and explanations. Include opportunity costs and second-order effects.
Have reasonable alternatives been tested seriously?Test causal pathways, key assumptions and transferability. Flag untested or optimistic assumptions.
Which assumptions or links are most fragile?Locate the sub-claim or assumption that most limits the reliability of the whole policy case.
Where could the policy case break first?Rate overall claim based on evidence strength, uncertainty, dependency and sensitivity.
How much reliance is justified?State what the claim can be used for—and at what level (explore, inform, decide, act).
What is this claim safe to be used for, right now?Produce a transparent audit record: claims, sources, methods, limitations, verdicts and references.
Can others see, test and reproduce the audit?Policy claims are often persuasive, not proven.
Policies involve many variables, groups, sectors and feedbacks.
Long timeframes and uncertain outcomes mask weak cases.
Policies create winners and losers. Evidence alone is not enough.
Full costs, trade-offs and opportunity costs are frequently missing.
Political and institutional bias can override scrutiny.
Narrow findings are stretched into broad promises.
SyncLogic brings rigor, transparency and accountability to policy claims. It shows what is supported, what is not, and what level of reliance is justified. Better audits. Better policies. Better outcomes.
This is an illustrative method example, not a completed client audit or an independently validated finding.
Specify jurisdiction, eligible households, policy period, funding source and decision authority.
Separate bill reduction, distributional impact, fiscal cost, market response and implementation claims.
Register modelling assumptions, historical comparisons, administrative data and stakeholder evidence.
Compare targeted relief, market reform, efficiency investment and no-policy counterfactuals.
The model assumes supplier behaviour will remain unchanged after the subsidy alters demand and price signals.
Useful for option development, but not yet sufficient for a final policy decision without sensitivity and implementation analysis.