Boundary Conditions, Scope & Identifiability (psychrev-boundary-conditions)
When to trigger
- Your theory reads as if it explains everything (a red flag to reviewers)
- You have not said where the theory stops holding
- For a formal model: you have not checked whether distinct parameter settings are distinguishable
- A reviewer will ask "what would falsify this?" or "can you even estimate that parameter?"
Why scope is a contribution, not a confession
At Psychological Review, stating where a theory holds and where it fails is part of the theory
itself, not a limitations paragraph tacked on at the end. A theory that "explains everything"
explains nothing — unbounded scope signals an unfalsifiable model. Editors read explicit
boundaries as a sign of theoretical maturity. Three kinds of limit must be stated.
1. Scope (the explanatory boundary)
- Phenomena in scope vs. phenomena explicitly out of scope (left to other processes).
- Population / domain limits — does the theory claim to hold across development, species,
cultures, tasks, or only within a stated range?
- Level of analysis — computational, algorithmic, or implementational (Marr); be consistent,
and theorize level shifts rather than sliding between them.
- Conditions of breakdown — name the regime where the mechanism should stop producing the
phenomena, and treat that prediction as a test of the theory.
2. Identifiability (for formal/computational models)
This is the modeling-specific boundary reviewers probe hardest:
- Structural identifiability — can the parameters, in principle, be recovered from the kind
of data the theory addresses, or do different settings produce identical predictions (a
mimicry problem)?
- Parameter recovery — demonstrate, by simulation, that fitting the model to data it
generated recovers the true parameters; report where recovery degrades.
- Model mimicry — can your model and a rival mimic each other on the available data? If so,
the comparison is not diagnostic; say what data would separate them.
- Sloppiness / sensitivity — note parameters the predictions barely depend on (and resist
over-interpreting them).
3. What it does NOT explain
A short, explicit list of phenomena the theory deliberately does not address, with one line
each on why (out of scope vs. genuinely open). This pre-empts the "but it can't handle Y"
reviewer objection by conceding Y on your own terms.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- A theory presented as universal, with no stated breakdown condition
- Boundary conditions written as apologies ("a limitation is...") rather than as theory
- Skipping identifiability for a model with many free parameters
- Claiming parameters are meaningful without ever showing they can be recovered
- Ignoring that a rival model mimics yours on the available data
- Burying scope limits in a final paragraph instead of theorizing them up front
Output format
【In scope】[phenomena explained]
【Out of scope】[phenomena left to other processes, with reasons]
【Domain limits】[development / species / culture / task / Marr level]
【Breakdown regime】[where the mechanism should stop — stated as a test]
【Identifiability】structural: ok/at-risk | recovery: demonstrated/degraded where [...] | mimicry: [rival], separating data: [...]
【Does NOT explain】[short explicit list]
【Next step】psychrev-conceptual-exhibits (diagram + simulation figures) → psychrev-contribution-framing
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Psychological-Review-Skills/skills/psychrev-boundary-conditions/SKILL.md
1---2name: psychrev-boundary-conditions3description: Use when setting the scope of a Psychological Review theory — what it explains, what it does NOT, and (for formal models) whether its parameters are identifiable. Bounds the theory; it does NOT derive its predictions (psychrev-argument-development) or frame its advance over rivals (psychrev-contribution-framing).4---567# Boundary Conditions, Scope & Identifiability (psychrev-boundary-conditions)89## When to trigger1011- Your theory reads as if it explains everything (a red flag to reviewers)12- You have not said where the theory stops holding13- For a formal model: you have not checked whether distinct parameter settings are distinguishable14- A reviewer will ask "what would falsify this?" or "can you even estimate that parameter?"1516## Why scope is a contribution, not a confession1718At Psychological Review, stating where a theory holds and where it fails is part of the theory19itself, not a limitations paragraph tacked on at the end. A theory that "explains everything"20explains nothing — unbounded scope signals an unfalsifiable model. Editors read explicit21boundaries as a sign of theoretical maturity. Three kinds of limit must be stated.2223### 1. Scope (the explanatory boundary)2425- **Phenomena in scope** vs. **phenomena explicitly out of scope** (left to other processes).26- **Population / domain limits** — does the theory claim to hold across development, species,27 cultures, tasks, or only within a stated range?28- **Level of analysis** — computational, algorithmic, or implementational (Marr); be consistent,29 and theorize level shifts rather than sliding between them.30- **Conditions of breakdown** — name the regime where the mechanism should stop producing the31 phenomena, and treat that prediction as a test of the theory.3233### 2. Identifiability (for formal/computational models)3435This is the modeling-specific boundary reviewers probe hardest:3637- **Structural identifiability** — can the parameters, in principle, be recovered from the kind38 of data the theory addresses, or do different settings produce identical predictions (a39 *mimicry* problem)?40- **Parameter recovery** — demonstrate, by simulation, that fitting the model to data it41 generated recovers the true parameters; report where recovery degrades.42- **Model mimicry** — can your model and a rival mimic each other on the available data? If so,43 the comparison is not diagnostic; say what data *would* separate them.44- **Sloppiness / sensitivity** — note parameters the predictions barely depend on (and resist45 over-interpreting them).4647### 3. What it does NOT explain4849A short, explicit list of phenomena the theory deliberately does not address, with one line50each on why (out of scope vs. genuinely open). This pre-empts the "but it can't handle Y"51reviewer objection by conceding Y on your own terms.5253## Checklist5455- [ ] Phenomena in scope and explicitly out of scope are both listed56- [ ] Population/domain/level limits are stated (development, species, culture, task, Marr level)57- [ ] A breakdown regime is named and treated as a test, not a disclaimer58- [ ] (Formal) structural identifiability is discussed; mimicry risk addressed59- [ ] (Formal) parameter recovery is demonstrated by simulation, with degradation noted60- [ ] (Formal) data that *would* separate the model from a mimicking rival are specified61- [ ] A short "what this theory does not explain" list is included with reasons6263## Anti-patterns6465- A theory presented as universal, with no stated breakdown condition66- Boundary conditions written as apologies ("a limitation is...") rather than as theory67- Skipping identifiability for a model with many free parameters68- Claiming parameters are meaningful without ever showing they can be recovered69- Ignoring that a rival model mimics yours on the available data70- Burying scope limits in a final paragraph instead of theorizing them up front7172## Output format7374```75【In scope】[phenomena explained]76【Out of scope】[phenomena left to other processes, with reasons]77【Domain limits】[development / species / culture / task / Marr level]78【Breakdown regime】[where the mechanism should stop — stated as a test]79【Identifiability】structural: ok/at-risk | recovery: demonstrated/degraded where [...] | mimicry: [rival], separating data: [...]80【Does NOT explain】[short explicit list]81【Next step】psychrev-conceptual-exhibits (diagram + simulation figures) → psychrev-contribution-framing82```8384---8586**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Psychological-Review-Skills/skills/psychrev-boundary-conditions/SKILL.md`