Abstract: Plate tectonic models provide the fundamental spatiotemporal framework for deep-time research, including paleogeography, paleoclimate reconstruction, geodynamic modeling, and resource exploration. However, significant discrepancies exist among current models due to variations in data and methodology, severely compromising the reliability of research grounded in these models. To address the lack of a unified evaluation framework, this study establishes a five-dimensional evaluation system—encompassing geometry, kinematics, dynamics, comparison of model predictions with independent observational data, and model-driven forward simulations with indirect validation-anchored in the principle of “consilience”. This framework aims to reduce model uncertainty through the cross-validation of independent chains of evidence. Applying this system to the  controversy over the position of the North China Block (NCB) at 380 Ma reveals a high convergence between kinematic trajectories and paleobiogeographic distributions. These findings strongly support that the NCB was located in the Southern Hemisphere during this period, drifting northward from the margin of Gondwana. This consilience of multi-source evidence demonstrates that the Scotese model aligns more closely with geological facts than the Matthews model. We propose that establishing a quantitative evaluation framework integrating multidisciplinary evidence is essential for resolving model discrepancies and ensuring the robustness of deep-time research.

Key words: plate tectonic model, paleogeography, consilience, North China Block, model intercomparison and evaluation