A toxicological risk assessment is only as trustworthy as its weakest unsupported assertion. Yet most assessments—including well-regarded ones—compress their reasoning into prose that obscures the chain of inference. A NOAEL appears without its study. An uncertainty factor is applied without naming the rationale. An exposure estimate is stated without the arithmetic that produced it.
Every Number Has a Name: Claims-Driven Risk Assessment in Practice
A worked example with dodecanedioic acid shows what it looks like when every conclusion in a toxicological risk assessment is backed by a named, traceable, verifiable claim.