By name: disagreement-cartography description: Map the structure of disagreement across perspectives using Policy Delphi, Argument Delphi, or SAST methods. used-by: structured-consensus
Disagreement Cartography
Purpose: Rather than forcing convergence, map the topology of disagreement — identify clusters of opinion, the arguments supporting each cluster, and the fault lines between them. Useful for wicked problems where premature consensus would be harmful.
When to use:
- Wicked problems with legitimate value conflicts
- Policy questions where understanding disagreement matters more than resolving it
- Situations where forced consensus would mask important minority views
- Interdisciplinary disputes with incommensurable frameworks
Budget
| Parameter | Constraint |
|---|---|
| Rounds | 1–2 (mapping, not converging) |
| Perspectives | ≥4 independent |
| Cluster minimum | ≥2 distinct clusters to be useful |
State Ledger
| Key | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| question | string | The focal question or issue |
| perspectives | array | List of perspective descriptions |
| judgments | array | Raw collected judgments |
| clusters | array | Identified opinion clusters |
| arguments | array | Extracted arguments per cluster |
| disagreement_map | object | Final visualization structure |
Available Tactics
- disagreement-mapping — Core flow: collect → cluster → extract arguments → visualize
Available SOPs
- judgment-collection
- cluster-analysis
- argument-extraction
- disagreement-visualization
Execution Guidance
- Frame the question to elicit diverse positions (not just ratings)
- Run disagreement-mapping tactic
- Ensure each cluster has its strongest arguments represented
- Produce disagreement map showing fault lines and bridging possibilities
Output Format
clusters:
- id: <cluster_id>
position: <summary>
size: <number of perspectives>
core_arguments: [...]
fault_lines:
- between: [cluster_a, cluster_b]
nature: <empirical/value/definitional>
bridging_possibilities: [...]