Statistics Claim Check

Appendix F companion • Read dashboard and AI claims before you communicate or act

A dashboard claim card, a row of five boundary checks with one flagged for review, and three next-move decision pills — illustrating the Appendix F claim-check discipline.
Every claim gets read against the boundaries — then routed to one of three next moves: communicate, investigate, or method review.

Companion to Appendix F: Reading Statistical Claims in Defensible Analytics. Use this page when a dashboard, AI visual, or chat answer makes a claim about an average, a group difference, a relationship, or a driver.

This is not a formal-inference course. It does not teach hypothesis testing, regression fitting, p-value calculation, forecasting, or model selection. It helps you decide whether a claim is ready to communicate, needs more checking, or needs qualified method review before a consequential decision.

Start with the claim

Before accepting a number, name the boundaries that make it meaningful.

Choose the next move

Decision state When it fits Next move
Communicate a bounded description Unit, population, denominator, comparison, and material limitation are clear. State what the data shows and name the boundary.
Investigate before acting An outlier, subgroup, alternate filter, or plausible confounder could change the story. Check the distribution, a finer grain, or a focused comparison.
Seek qualified method review A consequential decision depends on an interval, significance claim, ANOVA, or model output. Review the method, assumptions, and decision consequence with a qualified analyst.

Read, do not overclaim

Practice workbook

Open the workbook in Excel, Excel for the web, or Google Sheets. The formulas are visible so you can inspect the claim, then return here to choose the next check.

Worked claim check

A support dashboard says: “Tier 2 resolution time rose 34%, so staffing is the cause.”

Show worked answer
  1. Unit: mean resolution time per Tier 2 ticket.
  2. Population and denominator: unresolved until the dashboard names which Tier 2 tickets and whether reopened or unresolved tickets are included.
  3. Comparison: 34% higher than an unstated baseline period; name the baseline before quoting the change.
  4. Grain: Tier 2 aggregate. Check month, incident severity, product area, and ticket mix at the next-finer grain.
  5. Key limitation: staffing is only one plausible explanation. Releases, migrations, incident-heavy months, and ticket complexity could confound the claim.
  6. Decision state: investigate before acting. A bounded rewrite is: “Mean Tier 2 resolution time was 34% higher than [baseline] for [defined population]; investigate ticket mix, incident severity, releases, and staffing before attributing cause.”

Go deeper

When a decision requires formal study beyond Appendix F, use an authoritative resource rather than extending a dashboard calculation beyond its evidence.

Resource Printed URL Purpose
OpenIntro Statistics https://www.openintro.org/book/os/ Free textbook, data, and exercises for formal study.
Penn State STAT 200 https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat200/ Open notes for statistical methods beyond this companion’s scope.
NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/ Public reference for exploration, measurement, modeling, monitoring, and comparison.
Practical Statistics for Data Scientists https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/practical-statistics-for/9781492072935/ Applied bridge for analysts who need more depth on sampling, significance, regression, and misuse.

Related book resources