Protocol
Causal Questions and Identification
Analyze a synthetic observational study with known causal ground truth, then write the identification questions needed before applying the method to real data.
50–85 active hours60–90 min sessionsAdvanced
Mastery contract
Specialization · Standard 1.0 · Analyze a synthetic observational study with known causal ground truth, then write the identification questions needed before applying the method to real data.
Loading your learning records…
Reasoning — not yet passed
The DAG, estimand and adjustment derivation agree, and assumptions that data cannot verify are explicitly labeled.
Reliable implementation — not yet passed
The generator can compute interventional ground truth independently of the estimator.
Reproducible experiment — not yet passed
Compare naive and adjusted estimates with interventional ground truth across recorded seeds, including an identification-failure case; report bias and uncertainty for every setting.
Defense and handoff — not yet passed
Defend a causal claim or refusal using the DAG, numerical estimates and a counterexample showing why predictive model fit cannot establish identification.
All four criteria must pass. Activity completion does not satisfy them.
An independent reviewer reruns your work and varies something you did not rehearse: a fresh input, a different working directory, or a declared edge case.
Pilot decisions are provisional, not external credentials. For an appeal or sensitive artifact, contact your designated pilot operator with the submission ID. Export your assessment history.
What you will do
6 total
Derive an adjustment formula for a 3-variable DAG and construct a collider counterexample; state consistency, exchangeability and positivity assumptions.
Implement a structural data generator with a known treatment effect and an adjusted estimator; expose interventions separately from conditioning.
Compare naive and adjusted estimates across 3 confounding strengths and a positivity failure; report bias and uncertainty over repeated samples.
Debug adjustment for a post-treatment mediator or collider; show which estimand the altered procedure actually targets.
Write a 500–900 word technical report linking the reasoning, code, measurements, and limitations; include the project decision below.
Assess all 4 mastery criteria against saved artifacts, request an independent review, and repeat each failed criterion on a fresh example.
Essentials
A reading session alone never satisfies a mastery criterion.
Store source references, assumptions, and artifact paths beside every result.
Keep an untouched check case that differs from the worked example.
Record all attempts, including failures and results that contradict your prediction.
Use the stated comparison conditions; document every deviation before drawing a conclusion.
Protocol guardrails
Do
- +State the expected result before running the comparison.
- +Keep one minimal reproducible failing case when debugging.
- +Record environment versions and the exact command used.
- +Compare explanations with saved intermediate values.
- +Ask a reviewer to challenge the weakest assumption.
Don't
- ×Do not copy a worked solution and present it as an independent implementation.
- ×Do not tune against held-out evaluation outcomes.
- ×Do not report only the best seed or discard inconvenient runs.
- ×Do not equate elapsed hours or a completed run with a passed assessment.
- ×Do not conceal reduced-scale experiments behind claims about the original full-scale result.
Protocol authorship
Written by NuthinButta as instructional design. The teaching sources are the official references linked in each milestone; the exercises, workload and pass thresholds are ours, not their authors'.