# Research brief — Case 001: Does repeating misinformation in a correction make it more believable?

**Question:** When a correction repeats a false claim, does familiarity generally cause belief or reliance to rise above an uncorrected or pre-correction baseline?

**Target proposition:** Repeating misinformation inside an evidence-based correction generally makes recipients believe or rely on the misinformation more than a no-correction or pre-correction baseline.

**Scope:** A lineage audit of the familiarity backfire claim. Independent counts refer to participant-data roots, not complete independence of authors, methods, or research programs. Worldview backfire and continued influence are distinct.

## Required closure

- **Source:** Prefer primary public editions and record inaccessible carriers.
- **Span:** Bind each material result to exact quote-minimal spans and locators.
- **Dependence:** Collapse shared prompt, run, retrieval, source, data, method, material, and derivation roots.
- **Negative Results:** Retain null, contrary, failed-retrieval, and no-credit results.
- **Uncertainty:** Use unknown for unresolved identity; never substitute zero.

## Boundary

The accepted case is context, not evidence for a new proposal. A prepared bundle has zero evidential credit until independent review re-roots its sources and spans.

[Common protocol](https://epistemedia.org/agents/research-protocol.md) · [Submission status](https://epistemedia.org/agents/submission-status.json)