{
  "name": "目標設定・人事評価・フィードバック・報酬 主張レジスター",
  "version": "0.1",
  "license": "CC BY 4.0",
  "claims": [
    {
      "id": "PM-C01",
      "claim": "業績管理は、目的、目標、資源、測定、対話、評価、報酬、育成、異議、更新を結ぶ制度であり、年1回の評定だけではない。",
      "label": "実務原則",
      "directness": "混合",
      "relationship": "統合からの定義",
      "sources": [
        "denisi-2017",
        "franco-2012"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "目的ごとに制度を分ける"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "定義"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C02",
      "claim": "具体的で困難な目標は平均として業績を高め得るが、能力、コミットメント、フィードバック、課題複雑性等の条件がある。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "メタ分析・統合",
      "sources": [
        "tubbs-1986",
        "mento-1987",
        "locke-2002"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "研究年代・課題差",
        "健康・倫理・複数成果を別途確認"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "目標設定"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C03",
      "claim": "目標は注意、努力、持続、方略へ作用する一方、目標外の重要成果を見えなくし得る。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "理論・レビュー",
      "sources": [
        "locke-2002",
        "ordonez-2009"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "測れない成果・副作用を監視"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "目標の経路"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C04",
      "claim": "新規・複雑課題では、短期業績目標より学習目標が方略獲得を支え得る。",
      "label": "B",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "実験",
      "sources": [
        "seijts-2004",
        "locke-2006"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "実験課題",
        "学習時間・支援が必要"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "学習目標"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C05",
      "claim": "目標コミットメントを強制的な同意や情熱の表明で測らず、期待、価値、参加、資源、実行可能性を確認する。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "メタ分析からの原則",
      "sources": [
        "klein-1999"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "相関研究を含む",
        "拒否・再交渉を保護"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "目標コミットメント"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C06",
      "claim": "品質、量、安全、速度、学習等の複数目標はトレードオフを生むため、優先順位と拒否条件を明示する。",
      "label": "B",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "実験・実務原則",
      "sources": [
        "gilliland-1992",
        "kerr-1975"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "実験課題",
        "指標間関係を継続監視"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "複数目標"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C07",
      "claim": "強い未達目標は条件により虚偽報告・危険行動等を促し得るため、倫理・安全の拒否条件と通報経路を設ける。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "実験・レビュー",
      "sources": [
        "schweitzer-2004",
        "ordonez-2009"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "実験課題",
        "組織文化・統制を別途確認"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "目標の副作用"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C08",
      "claim": "測りやすい代理指標を報酬対象にすると、望む成果と行動がずれる場合がある。",
      "label": "B",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "概念・政策分析",
      "sources": [
        "kerr-1975",
        "bevan-2006"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "個別指標の検証が必要"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "指標ゲーム"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C09",
      "claim": "閾値、ランキング、単一KPIは、待ち時間移転、対象除外、データ操作、品質低下等のゲーム化を監査する。",
      "label": "B",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "政策分析",
      "sources": [
        "bevan-2006",
        "franco-2012"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "特定制度・国",
        "意図しない結果の測定"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "目標ゲーム"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C10",
      "claim": "MBO・OKR等の名称から効果を推定せず、目標品質、参加、上位支援、資源、レビュー、結果を個別に評価する。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "混合",
      "relationship": "メタ分析・実務原則",
      "sources": [
        "rodgers-1991",
        "locke-2002"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "古いMBO研究を現代OKRへ直結しない"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "目標制度"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C11",
      "claim": "人事評価の目的である査定、育成、報酬、配置、解雇、研究を一つの面談・得点へ詰め込まず、目的と権利を分ける。",
      "label": "実務原則",
      "directness": "混合",
      "relationship": "レビューからの設計原則",
      "sources": [
        "levy-2004",
        "denisi-2017"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "目的間の緊張を開示"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "評価目的"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C12",
      "claim": "業績評定は真の業績だけでなく、評定者固有の見方と測定誤差を大きく含み得る。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "メタ分析・分散分解",
      "sources": [
        "viswesvaran-1996",
        "scullen-2000"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "信頼性は妥当性・公平性ではない"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "評定誤差"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C13",
      "claim": "単一の総合点へ還元せず、課題、品質、安全、協働、学習等の次元と証拠を分ける。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "混合",
      "relationship": "評定研究・実務原則",
      "sources": [
        "landy-1980",
        "scullen-2000"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "次元数と負担のバランス"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "評価尺度"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C14",
      "claim": "評価反応は公正、有用性、満足、正確性等で異なり、満足度だけを制度品質としない。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "測定研究",
      "sources": [
        "keeping-2000",
        "colquitt-2001"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "自己報告",
        "結果への賛否と手続公正を区別"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "評価反応"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C15",
      "claim": "評価は評定者の認知だけでなく、目的、関係、信頼、組織政治、文化、報酬制度の影響を受ける。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "統合レビュー",
      "sources": [
        "levy-2004",
        "landy-1980"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "レビュー",
        "制度文脈を記録"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "社会的文脈"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C16",
      "claim": "評価制度の改善を評定精度だけで判断せず、本人の業績・学習・健康・公平・仕事設計が改善したかを追う。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "100年レビュー",
      "sources": [
        "denisi-2017"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "長期介入証拠の不足"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "業績改善"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C17",
      "claim": "フィードバックは平均として業績を改善し得る一方、悪化させる場合もあり、人格・自己価値でなく課題・過程・次の行動へ向ける。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "メタ分析",
      "sources": [
        "kluger-1996"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "課題・介入の異質性",
        "公開羞恥を正当化しない"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "フィードバック"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C18",
      "claim": "フィードバックを一回の面談でなく、情報源の信頼性、質、利用可能性、支援を含む環境として設計する。",
      "label": "B",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "測定・概念",
      "sources": [
        "steelman-2004",
        "ashford-1983"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "自己報告・尺度",
        "常時監視と区別"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "フィードバック環境"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C19",
      "claim": "フィードバック探索は有益な場合があるが、探索量を成長意欲や忠誠心の代理にせず、質問の安全とコストを下げる。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "メタ分析",
      "sources": [
        "anseel-2015"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "相関研究中心",
        "上司との関係・報復リスク"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "フィードバック探索"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C20",
      "claim": "多面フィードバック後の平均的改善は小さく、受容、目標、支援、継続対話等に依存する。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "メタ分析・レビュー",
      "sources": [
        "smither-2005"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "研究の異質性",
        "査定利用との混同"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "360度評価"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C21",
      "claim": "360度評価は、匿名性、最小回答人数、閲覧者、開発利用と査定利用、報復防止を先に決める。",
      "label": "実務原則",
      "directness": "混合",
      "relationship": "プライバシー・設計",
      "sources": [
        "smither-2005",
        "ilo-data"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "少人数の再特定",
        "人気投票化"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "360度評価"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C22",
      "claim": "強制順位・強制分布の潜在効果を示すシミュレーションは、協働、誤分類、健康、公平、離職への実証的安全性を証明しない。",
      "label": "B",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "シミュレーションの限定",
      "sources": [
        "scullen-2005"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "仮定依存",
        "制度副作用の実証不足"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "強制順位"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C23",
      "claim": "相対順位で報酬・雇用を決める場合、助け合いの抑制、情報隠し、妨害、運の差、チーム間比較可能性を監査する。",
      "label": "B",
      "directness": "混合",
      "relationship": "理論・実務原則",
      "sources": [
        "lazear-1981",
        "kerr-1975"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "理論モデル",
        "個別制度で検証"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "トーナメント"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C24",
      "claim": "金銭インセンティブは平均として業績と関連するが、特に量と質、個人とチーム、短期と長期を分ける。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "メタ分析",
      "sources": [
        "jenkins-1998",
        "garbers-2014"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "研究・仕事の異質性",
        "品質・安全・選抜効果"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "金銭報酬"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C25",
      "claim": "成果給導入後の生産性上昇には行動変化だけでなく、誰が残り誰が入るかという選抜効果が含まれ得る。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "フィールド研究",
      "sources": [
        "lazear-2000"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "単一企業・特定仕事",
        "因果の構成要素"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "成果給"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C26",
      "claim": "内発的動機と外発的誘因は単純な二者択一でなく、異なる業績面を同時に予測し得る。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "メタ分析",
      "sources": [
        "cerasoli-2014"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "相関・実験混在",
        "因果・課題差"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "動機"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C27",
      "claim": "期待された有形報酬が内発的動機を低下させる条件はあるが、賃金・公正な報酬一般が有害という意味ではない。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "実験メタ分析",
      "sources": [
        "deci-1999"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "教育・実験課題を多く含む",
        "賃金と実験報酬を区別"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "報酬と動機"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C28",
      "claim": "報酬と創造性の関係は、創造性を明示的に評価するか、報酬の予告、選択、基準等で異なる。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "メタ分析",
      "sources": [
        "byron-2012"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "実験を多く含む",
        "創造性測定差"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "創造性"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C29",
      "claim": "公共・ケア・専門職の成果給は、測定可能性、使命、協働、利用者選別、質、安全への隠れた費用を評価する。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "メタ分析・レビュー",
      "sources": [
        "weibel-2010",
        "bevan-2006"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "公共部門中心",
        "国制度差"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "公共部門"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C30",
      "claim": "個人報酬とチーム報酬は、課題・成果相互依存、貢献の可視性、フリーライド、協働を踏まえて組み合わせる。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "メタ分析・フィールド",
      "sources": [
        "garbers-2014",
        "shaw-2002"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "異質性",
        "相互依存の測定"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "チーム報酬"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C31",
      "claim": "賃金分散は常に良くも悪くもなく、仕事の相互依存、正当化可能な基準、機会、公正、情報へ依存する。",
      "label": "B",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "観察的関連",
      "sources": [
        "shaw-2002"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "観察研究",
        "因果方向",
        "上位層の極端な格差を別途評価"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "賃金格差"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C32",
      "claim": "賃金秘密はプライバシー保護と同義ではなく、格差発見、交渉、説明責任、信頼を妨げる場合がある。",
      "label": "B",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "概念レビュー",
      "sources": [
        "colella-2007"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "国法・文化・制度差",
        "個人給与の無制限公開を意味しない"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "賃金透明性"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C33",
      "claim": "賃金透明性は範囲、職務価値基準、個人情報、報告、是正、報復防止を一体で設計する。",
      "label": "実務原則",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "relationship": "賃金・権利",
      "sources": [
        "eu-pay-2023",
        "ilo-c100",
        "ilo-data"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "EU法の適用範囲を限定",
        "国内法・労使制度を確認"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "賃金透明性"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C34",
      "claim": "同一価値労働の比較では肩書の同一性だけでなく、技能、努力、責任、条件等を検討し、歴史的な職務価値の偏りを監査する。",
      "label": "実務原則",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "relationship": "同一価値労働",
      "sources": [
        "ilo-c100",
        "eu-pay-2023"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "国内評価制度を確認",
        "ジェンダー以外の交差性も検討"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "同一価値労働"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C35",
      "claim": "能力主義を掲げるだけで評価・報酬の偏りは消えず、基準、裁量、証拠、結果差、是正を監査する。",
      "label": "B",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "実験・メタ分析",
      "sources": [
        "castilla-2010",
        "joshi-2015"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "実験・二分法カテゴリ",
        "組織差"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "能力主義"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C36",
      "claim": "同程度の業績でも報酬差が残る可能性があるため、評価だけでなく昇給・賞与・機会・交渉結果を追う。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "メタ分析",
      "sources": [
        "joshi-2015",
        "eu-pay-2023"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "職種・国・時代差",
        "交差性"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "報酬格差"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C37",
      "claim": "現在職の高い個人成績と管理職としての能力は同じでないため、昇進基準を次職の仕事へ合わせる。",
      "label": "B",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "観察研究",
      "sources": [
        "benson-2019"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "特定職種・企業",
        "管理能力測定の制約"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "昇進"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C38",
      "claim": "「ハイポテンシャル」を不透明な総合印象で決めず、対象職務、証拠、期間、機会格差、異議、更新を明示する。",
      "label": "実務原則",
      "directness": "混合",
      "relationship": "選抜・公平",
      "sources": [
        "benson-2019",
        "colquitt-2001",
        "ilo-data"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "将来予測の不確実性",
        "固定ラベル化を避ける"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "潜在能力"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C39",
      "claim": "社会的承認・フィードバック・金銭等の介入は課題業績を改善し得るが、操作的な称賛や常時強化にせず、尊重と公正を保つ。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "人事評価直接研究",
      "relationship": "メタ分析",
      "sources": [
        "stajkovic-1997",
        "kluger-1996"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "研究年代",
        "介入パッケージ",
        "長期効果"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "承認"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C40",
      "claim": "人事評価データは目的限定し、評価・育成・研究・AI訓練への二次利用を分け、アクセス、訂正、保存、削除を設ける。",
      "label": "実務原則",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "relationship": "個人データ統治",
      "sources": [
        "ilo-data",
        "nist-ai-100"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "国内法を確認",
        "匿名化後の再特定"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "評価データ"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C41",
      "claim": "通信量、返信速度、在席、キーストローク、会議発言量を、それだけで業績・協働・忠誠心の代理にしない。",
      "label": "不支持",
      "directness": "予防原則に基づく推論",
      "relationship": "測定・尊厳",
      "sources": [
        "kellogg-2020",
        "ilo-data"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "役割差・障害・勤務帯・見えない労働を欠落"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "デジタル指標"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C42",
      "claim": "アルゴリズム評価は仕事配分・監視・報酬・関係を変えるため、モデル精度だけでなく仕事の質、健康、権力、公平を評価する。",
      "label": "A",
      "directness": "人事評価隣接研究",
      "relationship": "統合レビュー",
      "sources": [
        "kellogg-2020",
        "parent-parker-2022"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "概念・レビュー",
        "長期効果は未確立"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "アルゴリズム評価"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C43",
      "claim": "AI評価では入力、目的、主要要因、適用範囲、誤り・群別差、人の責任者、訂正、異議、停止、記録を示す。",
      "label": "実務原則",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "relationship": "AI統治",
      "sources": [
        "nist-ai-100",
        "eu-platform-2024",
        "ilo-data"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "EU指令の適用範囲を限定",
        "国内制度を確認"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "AI評価"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C44",
      "claim": "感情、忠誠心、精神健康、離職意向、将来能力を通信・音声・映像から本人に隠れて推定し、評価・報酬・雇用判断へ用いることを支持しない。",
      "label": "不支持",
      "directness": "予防原則に基づく推論",
      "relationship": "尊厳・妥当性",
      "sources": [
        "ilo-data",
        "who-2022"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "推定誤差・文脈欠落・萎縮効果"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "秘密推定"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C45",
      "claim": "評価・報酬の異議申立てには、根拠へのアクセス、人による再審査、訂正、期限、報復防止、独立経路を設ける。",
      "label": "実務原則",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "relationship": "救済",
      "sources": [
        "eu-pay-2023",
        "eu-platform-2024",
        "ilo-data"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "国内法・労使制度を確認"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "異議申立て"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C46",
      "claim": "目標達成が長時間労働、休憩削減、危険な近道、同僚への負担転嫁で成り立っていないかを追跡する。",
      "label": "実務原則",
      "directness": "混合",
      "relationship": "健康・安全",
      "sources": [
        "ordonez-2009",
        "who-2022"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "健康・安全の専門評価を別途実施"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "健康"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C47",
      "claim": "評価期間中の休職、障害、ケア、勤務形態、配置機会の違いを本人の能力不足として扱わず、機会・障壁・配慮を確認する。",
      "label": "実務原則",
      "directness": "混合",
      "relationship": "包摂・評価",
      "sources": [
        "colquitt-2001",
        "who-2022",
        "ilo-data"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "必要以上の自己開示を求めない",
        "国内法を確認"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "合理的配慮"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C48",
      "claim": "制度変更では平均だけでなく、職種、雇用形態、ジェンダー、障害、勤務帯、拠点別の評価・報酬・離職差を監査する。",
      "label": "実務原則",
      "directness": "混合",
      "relationship": "分配評価",
      "sources": [
        "joshi-2015",
        "eu-pay-2023",
        "who-2022"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "少人数の再特定",
        "交差性"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "分配"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C49",
      "claim": "業績管理の成果は、評定分布や目標達成率だけでなく、品質、安全、学習、健康、公平、協働、顧客・公益、将来能力で評価する。",
      "label": "実務原則",
      "directness": "混合",
      "relationship": "評価設計",
      "sources": [
        "franco-2012",
        "denisi-2017",
        "who-2022"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "遠い成果ほど他要因が多い"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "制度成果"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C50",
      "claim": "目標・評価・報酬制度は小さく試し、ゲーム化、誤分類、負担、格差、異議件数、実装度を確認して修正・撤回する。",
      "label": "実務原則",
      "directness": "混合",
      "relationship": "反復設計",
      "sources": [
        "bevan-2006",
        "franco-2012",
        "nist-ai-100"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "指標自体のゲーム化を監査"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "改善"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C51",
      "claim": "前提、需要、資源、役割、法令、健康・安全条件が変わったときは、目標を固定せず、改訂理由と影響を記録する。",
      "label": "実務原則",
      "directness": "混合",
      "relationship": "適応的目標管理",
      "sources": [
        "locke-2002",
        "franco-2012",
        "who-2022"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "頻繁な変更による予見可能性低下にも注意"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "目標改訂"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C52",
      "claim": "本人が統制できない変動やノイズの大きい指標へ報酬を強く連動させず、生活基盤となる報酬と変動部分を区別する。",
      "label": "実務原則",
      "directness": "混合",
      "relationship": "リスク配分",
      "sources": [
        "jenkins-1998",
        "weibel-2010",
        "shaw-2002"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "賃金・税・労働法は国と契約で異なる",
        "最適比率を示す研究ではない"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "報酬リスク"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C53",
      "claim": "評価では仕事を行う機会と観察機会を確認し、欠測・短い在籍・配置差を自動的に低業績へ置き換えない。",
      "label": "実務原則",
      "directness": "混合",
      "relationship": "機会と測定",
      "sources": [
        "landy-1980",
        "levy-2004",
        "ilo-data"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "職務固有の証拠設計が必要"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "評価機会"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C54",
      "claim": "賃金透明性は個人別賃金の無制限公開を意味せず、目的に必要な集計・範囲・基準と個人データ保護を両立させる。",
      "label": "実務原則",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "relationship": "透明性とプライバシー",
      "sources": [
        "eu-pay-2023",
        "ilo-data"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "国内法・労使制度を確認",
        "少人数集計の再特定"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "賃金透明性"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    },
    {
      "id": "PM-C55",
      "claim": "評価・報酬・昇進の基準と運用について、保護される属性や雇用形態等による不当な機会・待遇差を監査し、是正経路を設ける。",
      "label": "実務原則",
      "directness": "公式指針・制度",
      "relationship": "平等・非差別",
      "sources": [
        "ilo-c111",
        "eu-pay-2023",
        "colquitt-2001"
      ],
      "limits": [
        "保護事由・立証・救済は国内法を確認",
        "交差性と少人数保護"
      ],
      "scope": [
        "非差別"
      ],
      "last_searched": "2026-07-12",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0"
    }
  ]
}