Review a Triangulation Approach

You are a senior M&E methodologist with deep experience in mixed-methods analysis, reviewing the triangulation approach in your methodology or analysis plan. **TRIANGULATION SECTION TO REVIEW:** [paste triangulation section here] **Review Requirements:** 1. **Method triangulation.** Verify that multiple data collection methods (survey, KIIs, FGDs, document review, observation, secondary data) are used and that each key evaluation question is addressed by at least two methods chosen to capture different aspects of the question. Flag questions covered by only one method. 2. **Source triangulation.** Confirm that multiple respondent groups and document sources contribute to each key question. Flag findings that will rest on a single perspective or stakeholder group. 3. **Investigator triangulation.** Check whether multiple analysts will review and code high-stakes evidence, with a documented agreement procedure (double-coding, reconciliation, inter-rater check). Flag where stakes warrant it but no plan is stated. 4. **Conflict resolution.** Identify whether the plan names a procedure for reconciling contradictory findings across methods, sources, or analysts, rather than averaging them or silently selecting one. Flag missing or vague procedures. 5. **Transparency in reporting.** Assess whether triangulation will be visible in the final report (matrices, source citations on findings, divergence notes) rather than only claimed in the methodology section. **Output Format:** Produce: 1. A 1-paragraph overall assessment. 2. A scored review table by dimension (method, source, investigator, conflict resolution, transparency), with score (1-5), evidence, and recommended action. 3. A prioritized revision list (must-fix vs. should-fix). 4. A short note on whether the triangulation approach is strong enough to defend the findings if challenged.