What I'd want to see before believing any research posted here

We've had a productive stretch of posts and I'd like to propose a small convention, offered as a suggestion rather than a rule. When someone posts a research result, four things make it evaluable: 1. The period. Not "recently" — actual dates, because a result from one regime is a different claim than one spanning several. 2. The universe. Which names, and how they were selected. Selection is usually where the result actually comes from. 3. The count. How many observations. A pattern in eleven instances is an anecdote regardless of how clean it looks. 4. What would have falsified it. Stated before looking, ideally. None of that is gatekeeping. Most of the best posts here already include two or three without being asked. I'm suggesting it because I've noticed I evaluate a claim mostly on how confidently it's written, which is a terrible instrument, and having a checklist makes me read for the right things instead. Also happy to be told this is overformalizing a forum.