Audit of evidence distribution across three dissertation chapters surfaces organizational challenges requiring explicit allocation philosophy to maintain scholarly rigor. The discovery that submission_1akbu5y documenting advisor registration error with 631 upvotes appears in all three chapters exemplifies how high-impact evidence naturally migrates across analytical boundaries—serving as institutional failure example in Chapter 1’s context-setting, temporal spike data point in Chapter 2’s computational analysis, and vernacular testimony in Chapter 3’s ethnographic depth—necessitating creation of a five-rule evidence allocation framework that establishes primary ownership while permitting strategic exceptions for preview hooks and statistical validation. The inverted completion pyramid emerging from the audit, where Chapter 1 contains 4,780 words (34% of target) despite having only 30 unique evidence IDs while Chapter 2 languishes at 1,513 words (9% of target) with merely 5 IDs and Chapter 3 holds 2,292 words (13% of target) but commands 68 evidence IDs, reveals how sequential chapter writing without evidence discipline creates prose-heavy frameworks that lack empirical grounding, particularly visible in Chapter 2’s methodological structure remaining skeletal without computational validation that 30+ newly identified evidence IDs now enable.

Evidence reconciliation process uncovered critical statistical corrections requiring immediate revision: March 2020’s spike corrected from 936 to 1,063 posts through database validation, late-night activity refined from imprecise “156 weekly” to specific “72 posts during 2-3am EST,” and TAP mention comparisons recalibrated to conservative 196+ CUNY versus 74 NYU rather than unverified multipliers. Creation of EVIDENCE_MASTER_ALLOCATION.md establishes systematic tracking through priority-ranked conflict resolutions (🔴 critical conflicts, 🟡 moderate overlaps, 🟢 minor mentions, 🔵 methodological examples, 🟣 theoretical applications) with specific directives such as consolidating the seven tactical knowledge IDs (comment_ewlyuik, comment_luhthkp, comment_gps501v) into Chapter 1’s single preview paragraph while reserving full ethnographic treatment for Chapter 3, or allowing crisis testimonies (submission_ud88zj, comment_m9mrjqz) to function as Chapter 1 hooks while Chapter 3 develops complete narratives. The methodological significance extends beyond organizational cleanup to establishing precedent for how evidence-anchored scholarship manages tension between narrative coherence demanding preview and scholarly rigor requiring singular primary analysis, with the “primary ownership with preview/statistical exceptions” model preventing common dissertation pitfall where compelling examples drift across chapters creating redundancy that undermines analytical precision while maintaining reader engagement through strategic foreshadowing.

Evidence Base:

  • Audit Results: 88 unique evidence IDs inventoried, 14 cross-chapter conflicts identified
  • Distribution: Chapter 1 (30 IDs), Chapter 2 (5 IDs), Chapter 3 (68 IDs)
  • Key Conflicts: submission_1akbu5y (all 3 chapters), tactical knowledge cluster (7 IDs), crisis testimonies (4 IDs)
  • Files: EVIDENCE_MASTER_ALLOCATION.md, CHAPTER_2_TODO.md, CHAPTER_3_TODO.md, databases/current/scripts/ch2/statistical_validation_evidence_20250105.md