Step-by-step verification
Data exploration before modeling The assistant loaded and inspected the raw CSV before writing any analysis code: dimensions, column names, data types, and missingness were reviewed. Variable roles were confirmed by examining actual value distributions (count(), summary()) rather than inferred solely from column names.
Cleaning decisions made explicit Each exclusion step is listed with a stated rationale and a row count. Exclusions are applied sequentially and reported in a table so the reader can audit exactly who was removed and why. No rows were silently dropped and no values were altered.
Research question alignment The model specification matches the stated RQ exactly: diastolic_mean as the continuous outcome, mean_daily_dietary_fiber_g as the main predictor, and the four specified covariates (age_years, gender, family_income_to_poverty, race_ethnicity). The reference levels for factor variables were set intentionally and documented.
Results are pulled from the model object All coefficient values, confidence intervals, and p-values quoted in the Interpretation section are produced by inline R expressions (coef(model)[...], confint(model)[...], summary(model)$r.squared), not typed by hand. This eliminates transcription errors.
Diagnostics cover all four standard OLS checks Residuals vs. Fitted, Q-Q, Scale-Location, and Cook’s Distance plots were all produced using broom::augment(). VIF was computed algebraically (regressing each predictor on the others) without requiring an external package, ensuring reproducibility.
Limitations are explicitly surfaced Causal ambiguity, attenuation bias from measurement error, complete-case selection, and missing survey-weight adjustment are all stated as limitations. The reader is directed to use survey::svyglm() for a fully design-consistent analysis.