After the click: testing whether evidence was understood

Clicks and reading time describe exposure but do not establish comprehension, retention, or transfer. This methods note develops an evaluation for two hypothetical, accurate versions of a climate-evidence explainer. It draws on van der Bles and colleagues’ uncertainty-communication experiments, Karpicke and Blunt’s learning experiments, and the Magenta Book. Proposed tasks examine baselines, aggregate scale, and uncertainty while keeping trust, confidence, and policy agreement separate from learning. The analysis addresses audience selection, attrition, assessment-induced learning, delayed follow-up, accessible questions, and proportionate privacy. No reader data or communication effects are reported. Its practical implication is to choose evidence measures that test a defined capability and preserve disagreement over values, rather than treating platform engagement as proof that public understanding improved.