By name: counter-thesis-construction description: Construct the strongest possible counter-argument to the convergence decision using Dialectical Inquiry and Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis methods. dependencies: tactics: - adversarial-debate-protocol - assumption-excavation sops: - steel-manning-synthesis
Counter-Thesis Construction
Purpose: Build the most compelling counter-thesis to the convergence winner — not to overturn the decision, but to ensure it can withstand the strongest possible intellectual challenge and to surface any synthesis opportunities.
When to use:
- When the decision needs maximum intellectual rigor
- When the problem domain is complex with legitimate competing views
- When synthesis between thesis and antithesis might produce a superior option
- When the decision will face external scrutiny
Budget
| Metric | Minimum |
|---|---|
| Counter-thesis depth | Full argument with evidence |
| Debate rounds | >= 2 (thesis vs antithesis) |
| Synthesis attempts | >= 1 |
State Ledger
thesis: <the convergence decision>
antithesis: <constructed counter-argument>
debate_rounds: []
synthesis_attempted: false
synthesis_result: null
final_verdict: null # THESIS_STANDS | ANTITHESIS_WINS | SYNTHESIS_FOUND
Available Tactics
| Tactic | When to Deploy |
|---|---|
| adversarial-debate-protocol | Default — formal advocate/critic/judge cycle |
| assumption-excavation | When counter-thesis rests on different assumptions |
Available SOPs
- advocate-construction — build the counter-thesis case
- critic-attack — attack from both thesis and antithesis sides
- judge-verdict — render verdict on thesis vs antithesis
- steel-manning-synthesis — attempt synthesis of thesis and antithesis
Execution Guidance
- Articulate the thesis (convergence decision) clearly
- Construct the strongest antithesis using advocate-construction
- Deploy adversarial-debate-protocol: thesis advocates vs antithesis advocates
- After debate, attempt synthesis — is there a superior option combining both?
- Judge renders final verdict with explicit reasoning
Output Format
strategy: counter-thesis-construction
thesis: <decision>
antithesis: <counter-argument>
antithesis_strength: <1-10>
debate_rounds: <count>
synthesis_found: true | false
synthesis: <if found>
verdict: THESIS_STANDS | ANTITHESIS_WINS | SYNTHESIS_FOUND
reasoning: <key evidence>
conditions: []
Available Tactics
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| Tactic | When to use |
|---|---|
| adversarial-debate-protocol | Structured debate protocol that constructs an advocate, deploys critic attacks, and renders a judge verdict through iterative rounds. |
| assumption-excavation | Systematic extraction, challenge, and sensitivity analysis of assumptions underlying a decision to identify load-bearing beliefs. |
Available SOPs
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP | When to use |
|---|---|
| steel-manning-synthesis | Synthesize all attacks and verdicts into a final unified assessment with surviving concerns and recommended modifications. |