Evidence, claims and safety

The explanation shown after each answer is read by a learner as settled fact, so it is written to two standards at once: a contested position is presented as contested, with the disagreement named, and a well-evidenced one is stated plainly rather than hedged away. Numbers carry a date. Safety facts are exempt from the rule against repetition, and where an answer names urgency it also names where to go.

Do not overclaim

Some things in sport science are argued about, and a test must not settle an argument by keying one side. Whether the end-of-race surge proves that fatigue is regulated centrally, the core claim of the central governor model, is a live dispute. Triathlon once shipped a question that asserted that argument as fact, while the next question in the same test correctly called it the contested core of the model. Both could not be right, and the first was rewritten to say what the model claims and that it is contested.

The rule is not to avoid contested ground. It is to present contested ground as what it is, with the disagreement named: “the central governor model holds that”, “under the Laws, but the playing conditions for ODIs change it”, “recommended by some coaching schools and rejected by others”.

Do not under-claim either

Excessive caution is the same defect facing the other way. A triathlon question stated that no programme reliably prevents injury. The best evidence says otherwise: in the meta-analysis by Lauersen, Bertelsen and Andersen (2014, 25 randomised trials), strength training roughly halved overuse injuries and cut sports injuries overall by about a third. A learner reading the original explanation was steered away from the best-evidenced preventive measure available. The question was rewritten, and reviewers are now asked to check claims in both directions: is anything stated more firmly than the evidence allows, and is anything hedged that the evidence supports?

Numbers carry a date

A record, a rule reference or a figure that can change carries the season or year it was true. “IFAB Laws of the Game 2025/26” rather than “the Laws”. “The 24-team format introduced in 2024” rather than “the current format”. The goalkeeper’s eight-second limit is stated as in force since 1 July 2025, because until then it was six seconds and an indirect free kick, and a learner who learned the old rule from an old source deserves to know which one is current.

Cricket makes the same point in another way: a statement true under the Laws can be wrong for a one-day international, because the playing conditions override the Laws for that format. A stem that does not name the format usually has more than one correct answer, so it names the format.

Safety facts repeat

Insporta works hard to avoid asking the same fact twice, see No question twice. Safety facts are the exception. A warning about harm may appear in every sub-level that can lead a learner to the hazard, and the no-repeat rule is applied to principles and explanations, never to warnings.

That exception was learned from a near miss. A triathlon sub-level on nutrition and hydration was written with the instruction not to cover drinking to thirst or hyponatraemia, because the beginner level already owned them. The result was a hydration test with no counterweight, and a keyed answer telling a nauseated athlete late in a race to keep sipping water. That is the path to exercise-associated hyponatraemia, not the treatment for it. The counterweight is now allowed everywhere it is needed.

The same standard applies to recognition signs. Exertional heat stroke victims are usually still sweating; hot, dry skin belongs to classic, non-exertional heat stroke. Four questions in an early draft taught dry skin as the sign to wait for, which teaches a learner to conclude that a confused, stumbling athlete who is still sweating is fine. The distinguishing feature is central nervous system dysfunction, and cooling comes before transport. Those facts appear in every sub-level that touches heat.

Name the channel

“Seek medical assessment” is read by a lay learner as a GP appointment next week. Where an answer names urgency, it names the channel too: “same day”, “emergency services”, “do not train until cleared”. Post-race red flags and exertional chest pain were both once keyed to “urgent medical assessment”; rhabdomyolysis and cardiac symptoms need the same day or an emergency call, and the answers now say so.

Why this is a methodology rule and not a style note

The construct Insporta measures is knowledge of the sport, as set out in What a question may measure, and knowledge includes knowing what is settled and what is not. A learner who is taught a contested claim as fact, or a well-evidenced one as doubtful, has been taught something false about the state of the sport. A learner taught the wrong response to a hazard has been harmed. Every fact a reviewer verifies or corrects is recorded in the sport’s register so it cannot come back: football, cricket, futsal, triathlon. How those registers fit into review is in Fact-checking and quality gates.