dari

name	dari
description	Bridges the deductive strategy system with adversarial review testing for maximum strategy confidence.
output	{"format":"prose"}

Deductive Adversarial Review Integration

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Overview

Bridges the deductive strategy system with adversarial review testing. The deductive system provides logical derivations (proofs). Builder-breaker provides adversarial attacks. Together, they produce strategies that are both logically derived (not guessed) AND battle-tested (survived attacks).

This is the highest level of strategy confidence.

Steps

Step 1: Derive Strategy Deductively

First, derive the strategy using the logical proof system:

1. → INVOKE: /lps (logical proof system) with the input
2. Obtain:
   • The derived strategy
   • The axioms it rests on
   • The inference chain
   • The proof strength
   • The critical assumptions

DEDUCTIVE OUTPUT:
Strategy: [what was derived]
Proof strength: [strong / moderate / weak]
Critical assumptions:
1. [assumption] — confidence: [H/M/L]
2. [assumption] — confidence: [H/M/L]
Weakest inference: [which step is least certain]

Step 2: Convert Weaknesses to Attack Targets

From the deductive analysis, identify what to attack:

Attack Target	Source	Why It's Vulnerable
[assumption 1]	Critical assumption	If false, strategy collapses
[inference X]	Weakest step	Relies on [type of reasoning]
[axiom Y]	Problem definition	May not be complete/accurate
[missing factor]	Completeness gap	Not in the proof at all

Step 3: Run Adversarial Review

→ INVOKE: /advr (adversarial review) targeting the identified weaknesses:

Builder presents: The derived strategy with its proof chain Breaker attacks: Each identified vulnerability, plus any additional weaknesses found

For each attack:

ATTACK: [description]
Target: [which part of the proof]
Severity: [fatal / serious / minor]
Builder response: [refute / repair / reinforce / concede]
Proof impact: [proof holds / proof weakened / proof collapses]

Step 4: Update Proof Based on Attacks

After adversarial review, reassess the derivation:

Original Assessment	After Attack	Change
Proof strength: [X]	Proof strength: [Y]	[stronger/same/weaker]
Assumption 1: [confidence]	Assumption 1: [new confidence]	[up/same/down]
Assumption 2: [confidence]	Assumption 2: [new confidence]	[up/same/down]
Strategy: [derived]	Strategy: [revised?]	[unchanged/modified/abandoned]

Step 5: Classify Final Confidence

Level	Criteria	Description
Proven	Strong proof + survived all attacks	As confident as we can be
Robust	Moderate proof + survived most attacks	High confidence, some uncertainty
Plausible	Weak proof but survived key attacks	Reasonable but not certain
Fragile	Strong proof but fell to attacks	Logically sound but practically vulnerable
Dubious	Weak proof and fell to attacks	Low confidence — reconsider
Refuted	Proof collapsed under attack	Strategy should be abandoned

Step 6: Handle Each Outcome

If Proven/Robust: Proceed with the strategy. Document the proof and attacks it survived.

If Plausible: Proceed cautiously. Identify what additional evidence would upgrade confidence. Test the weakest assumptions first.

If Fragile: The logic is sound but reality may not cooperate. Design experiments to test the vulnerable assumptions. Have contingency plans.

If Dubious/Refuted: Do NOT proceed. Either:

• Find new axioms and re-derive
• Abandon this approach and try a different strategy
• Gather more information before re-attempting

Step 7: Report

DEDUCTIVE-ADVERSARIAL INTEGRATION:
Strategy: [what was analyzed]

Deductive phase:
- Proof strength: [level]
- Critical assumptions: [N]
- Weakest inference: [which]

Adversarial phase:
- Attacks attempted: [N]
- Attacks survived: [N]
- Fatal attacks: [N]
- Strategy modified by attacks: [Y/N — how]

Final confidence: [Proven / Robust / Plausible / Fragile / Dubious / Refuted]

If proceeding:
- Strategy: [final version after modifications]
- Key risk: [weakest surviving point]
- Monitor: [what to watch for]

If not proceeding:
- Why: [which attacks were fatal]
- Alternative: [what to do instead]

When to Use

• After deductive strategy discovery
• Before final strategy selection on high-stakes decisions
• When you need maximum confidence in a strategy
• → INVOKE: /lps (logical proof system) for the deductive phase
• → INVOKE: /advr (adversarial review) for the attack phase
• → INVOKE: /cv (convergent validation) for additional validation methods

Verification

• Deductive derivation completed BEFORE adversarial review
• Weaknesses from derivation used as attack targets
• All attack types attempted (evidence, reasoning, completeness)
• Proof level updated based on attacks survived
• Final confidence level is honest assessment
• Next steps appropriate to confidence level