Causal reasoning asks more than whether two variables move together. This pack supplies four fictional cases spanning observation, self-selection, and randomised intervention. The learner names cause and outcome, checks design and time order, generates alternatives, proposes discriminating evidence, and writes a bounded classification. Numerical differences remain descriptive until design supports a causal interpretation.
This dossier explains the evidence and its limits. It is not a diagnosis, personal recommendation, assessment, clearance, performance promise or training programme. Actionable teaching appears only when the canonical Power record explicitly authorises it.
Complete bounded explanation
What this power means.
Capability to develop or express causal reasoning in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports
Instruction can reduce selected causal-reasoning errors in science-report interpretation, with short delayed retention.
How to observe or measure it without overclaiming
Declare causal question, design, alternatives, confounding, mechanism, uncertainty, data limits and decision context; diagram quality is not causal truth.
Myth
See the true cause of anything
Metric
Accurate causal classification and alternative-cause generation on novel declared cases
Boundary
A training-task gain cannot certify causality in a complex real system.
Negative and limiting findings
Evidence remains bounded to science-report and control-of-variables tasks.
Probe questions without direct instruction did not improve children’s unconfounded experimental reasoning.
No real policy, clinical or organizational outcome was tested.
Claims this evidence cannot support
see the true cause of anything
causal training proves expertise
correlation never matters
one diagram explains a social system
Evidence guide frame · non-prescriptive
A guide frame—not a training protocol.
Explain causal classification and alternative causes without treating a diagram or training task as proof about a complex system.
What this frame may discuss
Evidence and measurement boundaries for causal reasoning
Task specificity, access configurations and negative findings
Limits on transfer, efficacy and authority
Conceptual observations
Conceptually distinguish association, intervention, confounding and plausible mechanism.
Consider how alternative causes and missing variables constrain a causal claim.
Reflection prompts
What design would separate the proposed cause from a confounder?
Which alternative explanation remains compatible with the observations?
What it cannot establish
A training-task gain cannot certify causality in a complex real system.
It cannot establish: see the true cause of anything.
It cannot establish: causal training proves expertise.
It cannot establish: correlation never matters.
It cannot establish: one diagram explains a social system.
Accessibility alternatives
A benign fictional case can be represented in text, audio or diagrams.
Declared tools and extra processing time are valid configurations.
No personal, clinical or political case is needed.
Non-participation remains valid: Yes.
Stop and escalation boundaries
Stop if the frame is used to accuse a person, diagnose a condition or justify policy, legal, financial or employment action.
Do not generate realistic misinformation or persuasion material as an example.
Consequential causal claims require domain experts, appropriate study design, affected-person input and accountable review.
Prohibited uses
Causal-reasoning drill, score, target, rank or progression.
Diagnosis, blame, accusation or consequential decision rule.
Claims that a diagram or checklist establishes causal truth.
No collection or scoring: this page requests no answers, stores nothing and produces no personal or Titan result.
Causal reasoning asks more than whether two variables move together. This pack supplies four fictional cases spanning observation, self-selection, and randomised intervention. The learner names cause and outcome, checks design and time order, generates alternatives, proposes discriminating evidence, and writes a bounded classification. Numerical differences remain descriptive until design supports a causal interpretation.
OrientRead the definition, evidence, measurement boundary and prohibited claims on this canonical page.
BaselineOpen the governed lesson and record its declared baseline before practising.
PractiseFollow the ordered lesson exactly; do not add dose, intensity or claims.
RetestUse the lesson's delayed retention and predeclared transfer checks as separate records.
Maintain or retireKeep only what remains useful inside the evidence and safety boundary.
Authority boundary: A governed step-by-step lesson may be completed independently inside its stated limits. The method is Power-specific; its actionability follows this treatment.
Citation roles are explicit. A source may support existence or trainability while simultaneously limiting transfer, certainty, generalisation or safety.
Colleen M. Seifert; Michael Harrington; Audrey L. Michal; Priti Shah · 2022 · Primary research
Current teaching and evidence boundary
The next gate remains visible.
No external confirmation is required for the current bounded explainer and non-prescriptive guide-frame permissions; any stronger efficacy, generalisation, protocol, promotion or independent-validation claim requires a new adjudication.
A separately governed practical lesson is available at /tutorials/pwr-116/. Its safe configuration, prerequisites, ordered practice, measurement, stopping, accessibility, retention, transfer and review rules remain controlling.