Statistical tests are often asked to do too much. A single reported result is expected to describe what the observed data say, reassure readers about repeated-sampling behavior, and remain convincing when the working model is perturbed. Those tasks are connected, but they are not equivalent. Fisherian inductive inference and Neyman-Pearson decision theory clarify the first two; robust testing, sensitivity analysis, fragility measures, multiverse analysis, and distributional-stability methods speak to the third. I propose Evidence-Calibration-Stability (ECS) as a framework for keeping these roles separate while reporting them together. Evidence is post-data. Calibration belongs to the design or procedure. Stability is the post-data distance from the benchmark analysis to a conclusion-reversing perturbation within a declared model neighborhood. Full ECS support is conjunctive: a strong coordinate cannot rescue a failed one. For finite-dimensional affine perturbations, I derive an exact ellipsoidal stability radius. For smooth nonlinear margins, a uniform quadratic-remainder condition yields a certified lower bound over a declared neighborhood, showing when the affine formula is only a surrogate. I also establish coordinate invariance and a matrix extension for multiple claims, and distinguish confirmatory calibration from descriptive calibration profiles when prespecification is unavailable. Simulations for the one-sample t test and Student's historical sleep data show that the three coordinates can lead to different interpretations. ECS is a formal synthesis, not a claim that evidence, power, or robustness is itself new.

翻译：暂无翻译