Policy Failures Begin
in the Brief
Validity audits the logic inside policy documents before recommendations are adopted, exposing unexamined assumptions, causal gaps, and underestimated risk.
Validity does not rewrite documents or assess tone. It evaluates whether policy recommendations rest on sound reasoning.
Most Policy Failures Start on Paper
Before implementation fails or consequences emerge, the warning signs are usually present in the document.
- Causal claims made without established mechanisms
- Behavioral assumptions treated as certainties
- Second-order effects ignored or dismissed
- Evidence cherry-picked to support predetermined conclusions
These are reasoning failures, not implementation surprises. Validity is designed to surface them before policies are adopted.
A Logic Audit for Policy Decisions
Validity analyses policy briefs, white papers, recommendations, and advisory memos to evaluate:
- Whether recommendations logically follow from the evidence
- Where causal claims lack supporting mechanisms
- How dependent outcomes are on untested assumptions
- Where second-order effects have been overlooked
It does not propose alternatives. It does not assess political feasibility. It evaluates whether the reasoning behind the policy holds up under scrutiny.
Before the Vote. Before Implementation. Before Consequences.
Validity is used at three critical points:
1. Pre-Decision Review
Stress-test the internal logic of a policy brief before it reaches decision-makers.
2. External Recommendation Audit
Evaluate advisory reports and consultant proposals for logical gaps and unsupported claims.
3. Legacy Policy Re-Evaluation
Re-examine existing policies when assumptions change or outcomes diverge from expectations.
What It Detects
Validity flags patterns commonly associated with policy failures:
Unsupported Causality
Policy outcomes asserted without mechanisms, precedent, or supporting evidence linking action to outcome.
Assumption Substitution
Critical assumptions about behavior, incentives, or capacity treated as established facts.
Missing Counterfactuals
Expected outcomes described without considering what would happen otherwise.
Second-Order Blindness
Downstream effects, behavioral responses, or system-level consequences ignored.
Evidence Selectivity
Supporting evidence emphasized while contradictory data is omitted or minimized.
Sample Output
Illustrative example of a Validity policy audit
Unsupported Causality
The brief asserts that regulatory change will drive behavioral compliance without identifying a causal mechanism, precedent, or incentive structure.
Missing Counterfactual
Expected outcomes are described without comparing to baseline conditions or considering what would occur without intervention.
Second-Order Blindness
Downstream consequences and behavioral responses to the policy are not addressed.
It Strengthens Policy Deliberation
Policy teams use Validity to:
- Surface hidden assumptions before they become failure points
- Force explicit examination of causal mechanisms
- Identify logical gaps that reviewers might miss
- Create audit trails that survive post-implementation review
Validity doesn't tell you what policy to adopt. It ensures your reasoning can withstand scrutiny.
Who It's For
Better Reasoning, Before Implementation
Request early access for your policy or advisory team.
Request Access