LLM-Assisted Thematic Analysis Protocol (LATA)
Phase 4 — Concept Validation (v1.0)

1. Purpose

This phase aims to determine whether the conceptual framework generated during the previous phases constitutes a conceptually coherent, methodologically defensible, and scientifically useful representation of the intellectual organization of the bibliographic corpus.

Unlike the previous phases, which progressively construct the thematic framework, Concept Validation critically evaluates the framework as an integrated conceptual system before it is used to support scientific interpretation and reporting.

The objective is not to validate the LLM itself, but to validate the conceptual framework produced through the LATA Protocol.

2. Input

The input consists of the complete conceptual framework generated during Phase 3 — Concept Abstraction.

The framework should include:

Conceptual dimensions
Macroclusters
Latent topics
Documented analytical rationale supporting every conceptual transformation throughout the protocol

Validation should consider the framework as a complete conceptual construction rather than evaluating individual analytical components independently.

3. Analytical Principles

This phase follows seven methodological principles.

a) Conceptual coherence. Evaluate whether the complete conceptual framework exhibits logical consistency across all analytical levels.

b) Conceptual robustness. Assess whether the framework remains stable under reasonable alternative interpretations. Minor analytical adjustments should not substantially alter the overall conceptual organization.

c) Transparency. Every analytical decision should remain explicitly documented and scientifically justified.

d) Interpretability. The framework should provide a meaningful and understandable representation of the research field for researchers beyond the original study.

e) Traceability. Every conceptual decision should remain traceable throughout the analytical hierarchy, from conceptual dimensions to the underlying bibliographic documents.

f) Reflexivity. Critically reflect upon the analytical decisions adopted during previous phases and actively consider alternative conceptual organizations where appropriate.

g) Methodological defensibility. The objective of validation is not to demonstrate that the framework is uniquely correct, but that it is conceptually coherent, methodologically defensible, transparent, and suitable for scientific interpretation.

4. Operational Instructions

Conduct a systematic critical evaluation of the complete conceptual framework.

The analysis should proceed through four sequential stages.

Stage 1 — Global Framework Assessment

Review the complete conceptual framework as an integrated analytical system.

Evaluate whether the relationships among conceptual dimensions, macroclusters, latent topics, and bibliographic documents remain logically consistent throughout the hierarchy.

Stage 2 — Evaluation Against Validation Principles

Evaluate the framework according to the methodological principles established above.

Assess:

conceptual coherence;
conceptual robustness;
transparency;
interpretability;
traceability;
reflexivity;
methodological defensibility.

Document both strengths and identified limitations.

Stage 3 — Expert-Challenged Critical Review

Conduct an independent expert review of the conceptual framework.

The purpose of this review is not to confirm the LLM output, but to critically challenge the proposed conceptual organization.

Specifically evaluate whether:

conceptual relationships are adequately supported by the evidence;
alternative conceptual interpretations provide stronger explanations;
conceptual boundaries require refinement;
important research phenomena have been overlooked;
conceptual abstraction exceeds the empirical evidence available.

Where substantial conceptual weaknesses are identified, these should be explicitly documented and addressed through revision of the framework.

Agreement with the original LLM output should never constitute sufficient justification for retaining a conceptual decision.

Stage 4 — Framework Refinement and Validation

Where appropriate, revise the conceptual framework based on expert evaluation.

Each modification should remain fully documented together with its analytical rationale.

If substantial conceptual revisions are required, previous phases of the protocol may be revisited before completing the validation process.

The final objective is to obtain the most coherent, transparent, traceable, and scientifically defensible conceptual framework rather than the framework that most closely reproduces the initial LLM proposal.

5. Expected Output

The output of this phase should include:

an overall evaluation of the conceptual framework;
identified strengths;
documented conceptual limitations;
expert observations and recommendations;
documented revisions, where applicable;
the final validated conceptual framework ready for scientific interpretation and reporting.

6. Quality Assurance Checks

6.1. Analytical calibration

Before completing the validation process, critically examine the conceptual framework as an integrated analytical system. Rather than reviewing isolated classifications, evaluate whether the complete hierarchy—from bibliographic documents to conceptual dimensions—remains logically consistent, methodologically defensible, and scientifically useful.

Where substantial conceptual weaknesses are identified, determine whether they can be resolved through targeted refinements or require revisiting one or more previous phases of the protocol. Document all revisions together with their analytical rationale before confirming the framework as validated.

6.2. Phase-specific checks

Before completing this phase, verify that:

the conceptual framework remains internally coherent across all analytical levels;
the framework demonstrates sufficient conceptual robustness;
analytical decisions remain transparent and fully traceable;
the framework is readily interpretable by independent researchers;
expert review has critically challenged rather than merely confirmed the framework;
revisions have been explicitly documented where required;
the validated framework is methodologically defensible and scientifically suitable for interpretation.

7. Transition to Scientific Interpretation

The validated conceptual framework constitutes the thematic foundation for the interpretation, discussion, and reporting of the bibliographic analysis.

The LATA Protocol concludes once the conceptual framework has successfully completed expert validation and is considered sufficiently robust to support scientific reasoning.

Subsequent conclusions should derive from the validated conceptual framework as a whole rather than from isolated classifications or individual LLM outputs.