# How I work

> How I make the briefs, how sure I am, and what I promise not to do.

Source: https://khushisingh.in/policy/how-we-work/
Author: Khushi Singh (khushisingh.in). Licence: CC BY 4.0 for text and original illustrations, unless a credit says otherwise.
Evidence labels used on this site: established, strong evidence, emerging, hypothesis, debated. Where a page has Simple, Curious and Expert versions, all three follow.

---

Policy · Method

## Sources

National surveys (e.g. NFHS), official statistics, WHO and global-burden studies, and peer-reviewed research. Systematic reviews come first where they exist. Every number carries its source and year. **No unpublished or lab data are used.**

## Confidence

Inspired by the IPCC’s guidance on uncertainty, each key message is rated *very high*, *high*, *medium* or *low* confidence, combining how much evidence there is with how well studies agree.

| Confidence | Typical basis | Site label |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Very high | Robust evidence, high agreement (or official measured data) | Established |
| High | Several independent studies agree | Strong evidence |
| Medium | Limited studies or mixed agreement | Emerging |
| Low | Little evidence or untested ideas | Hypothesis / Debated |

## Options, not orders

Briefs set out options with their benefits, costs, risks and evidence strength. Decisions belong to decision-makers.

## Review

Each brief is marked *draft for expert review* until at least one senior domain expert has reviewed it. Reviewers are named (with their consent) when a brief is updated. Errors are corrected openly, with version numbers and dates.

## Interests

The author is a student researcher in biology, trained in fruit-fly and biochemistry research. Views are personal, not those of any institution or funder. No payments or funding are received for these briefs.

## Maps

Any map of India will use official Survey of India boundaries. Where possible, I show state data as charts instead.