The Looking Glass

Five lenses, not five scores

Magnitude — severity. IARC Group 2A maps to 0.70; EPA OPP’s “not likely” maps to 0.15. EPA value under re-evaluation. Higher = more concerning.

Confidence — how well-supported the assessment is. Higher = better backed.

Recency — how current the data is. Exponential decay, exp(−t/5) for a study t years old: 0.368 at 5 years, 0.135 at 10. Sources labelled exactly IARC, US EPA, EPA, EFSA, NTP, CalEPA or ECHA are floored at 0.500.

These weights are ALETHEIA conventions under review, not regulatory standards.

Methodology — study-design quality. EBM hierarchy: animal → cohort → RCT → meta-analysis. The pattern texture inside Methodology cells shows the dominant tier.

Specificity — how applicable the source data is to the chosen context. A study on mammals applied to a dog-context query is weighted lower than a breed-specific study.

Why theobromine, and what to look for

Theobromine is the textbook case of context flipping the answer. Switch between Human — adult and Dog and the chart transforms — same molecule, same data, different metabolism.

Then watch the Specificity wedge from inner ring outward. Most safety research targets pure compound, not retail formulations — so Specificity drops as you move from Compound (inner) to Product (outer). That drop is the methodology surfacing its own limitation, not failing.

Pick the Aquatic life context: Theobromine in waterways is mostly a wastewater question — chocolate-factory effluent and human metabolic excretion. Magnitude is mid-range; the evidence base is moderate.