Filling Holes and Building Interdisciplinary Bridges: Are Inconvenient Facts and Oversights Hidden in the Gaps Between Dimensions?

Interdisciplinary research can connect concepts, evaluative criteria, and evidence while leaving the reasons for those connections difficult to locate. This paper presents a bridge audit table for examining published interdisciplinary conclusions. The audit takes each conclusion as its unit, lists the transfers required to support it, and records the locations of the corresponding warrants. It distinguishes transfers of concepts, evaluative criteria, and evidence, along with rules for combining criteria. Warrants are classified as stated, connections declared without supporting reasons, or absent on a full reading. Detected holes are then recorded as overlooked holes, explicitly retained holes, or holes the argument must fill, according to whether authors acknowledge them and whether the conclusion depends on them. The procedure is applied to three published papers, by Zhang et al. (2025), Dung et al. (2025), and Rockström et al. (2023). Across nine required bridges, five receive the classification warrant stated and four receive connection declared only; none remain without a relevant sentence after full-text reading. The audit records differences explicitly retained by the original authors and identifies cases requiring further scrutiny. It offers a record that other researchers and reviewers can apply, test for agreement, and revise.