Typical scenario

Similar graphs were treated as proof of causation

If a report links an increase in equipment failures to a changed operating regime solely through similar graphs, their shared trend does not explain the damage mechanism. A typical review asks whether workload, product mix or failure recording also changed, and which observations distinguish competing explanations.

What needs to be clarified

Review the move from statistical association to causation, reconstruct the compared series and identify alternative explanations addressed using the available original observations.

Materials to prepare

  • Report with graphs, formulas and the proposed causal explanation
  • Original failure and operating logs with timestamps
  • Workload, product mix and event-recording change records

What to compare

Compare observation intervals, units, gaps and event inclusion rules. Distinguish failure counts from rates accounting for workload. Check time order and shared trends; compare the proposed mechanism with independent observations. Record an unexamined third factor separately without declaring it the established cause.

Possible outcome of the analysis

A review may provide reconstructed graphs, testable causal assumptions and an assessment of which parts of the explanation the material supports and which need further observations.

Limits of the conclusions

Correlation alone does not establish the cause of an individual failure. The review covers the supplied series and does not replace equipment examination or a planned comparison of conditions.

Reviews of studies and forensic examinations — review.moscow
Write to usDiscuss your task ↗