rlcl-relational-claim-analysis

name	rlcl - Relational Claim Analysis
description	Evaluate claims about how things relate. Verify the relationship type, test its strength, and identify its boundaries.
output	{"format":"prose"}

Relational Claim Analysis

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Step 1: State the Relationship

Extract and formalize what relationship is being claimed.

RELATIONAL CLAIM: [A] [relationship] [B]
ENTITY A: [what it is, clearly defined]
ENTITY B: [what it is, clearly defined]
CLAIMED RELATIONSHIP TYPE: [causal / correlational / structural / analogical / hierarchical / oppositional / dependent]
DIRECTION: [A->B / B->A / bidirectional / non-directional]

Rules:

• Many relational claims are vague — "X is related to Y" could mean almost anything
• Force precision: what KIND of relationship is being claimed?
• Check direction — "A depends on B" is different from "B depends on A"
• If A or B are poorly defined, the relationship claim can't be evaluated — flag this

---

Step 2: Check If Both Things Exist as Described

Verify that the entities in the relationship are real and accurately characterized.

ENTITY VERIFICATION:
ENTITY A: [name]
- Exists as described? [YES / PARTIALLY / NO]
- Accurate characterization? [YES / DISTORTED / OVERSIMPLIFIED]
- Key nuance missing: [if any]

ENTITY B: [name]
- Exists as described? [YES / PARTIALLY / NO]
- Accurate characterization? [YES / DISTORTED / OVERSIMPLIFIED]
- Key nuance missing: [if any]

Rules:

• A relationship between two mischaracterized things is meaningless even if the relationship type is correct
• Watch for strawmanning — one entity described accurately, the other distorted
• Watch for reification — treating abstract concepts as concrete things ("the market wants...")
• If either entity doesn't exist as described, the relational claim fails at the foundation

---

Step 3: Verify the Relationship Type

Test whether the claimed relationship type is accurate.

RELATIONSHIP TYPE ANALYSIS:
CLAIMED: [type]
TESTED ALTERNATIVES:
1. Could it be [alternative type] instead? [assessment]
2. Could it be [alternative type] instead? [assessment]
3. Could it be [alternative type] instead? [assessment]

ACTUAL TYPE: [what the evidence best supports]
MATCH: [CONFIRMED / PARTIALLY CORRECT / WRONG TYPE]

Relationship type definitions:

• Causal: A produces or prevents B
• Correlational: A and B co-occur but neither causes the other
• Structural: A and B are parts of the same system
• Analogical: A resembles B in specific ways but they're independent
• Hierarchical: A contains B, or B is a type of A
• Oppositional: A and B are in tension or conflict
• Dependent: A requires B to function (or vice versa)

Rules:

• The most common error is claiming causal when the relationship is correlational
• The second most common is claiming analogical when things are actually unrelated
• Test at least 2 alternative relationship types before confirming the claimed one

---

Step 4: Test the Relationship's Strength

Assess how strong and reliable the relationship is.

STRENGTH ASSESSMENT:
- Consistency: Does the relationship hold across different contexts? [ALWAYS / USUALLY / SOMETIMES / RARELY]
- Magnitude: How strong is the connection? [STRONG / MODERATE / WEAK / NEGLIGIBLE]
- Exclusivity: Could A have this relationship with many other things? [EXCLUSIVE / SELECTIVE / COMMON]
- Stability: Does the relationship persist over time? [STABLE / VARIABLE / DETERIORATING]

OVERALL STRENGTH: [STRONG / MODERATE / WEAK / QUESTIONABLE]

Rules:

• A relationship that only holds in specific contexts is weaker than one that holds broadly
• A relationship where A connects to many things equally is less meaningful
• Strength and existence are different questions — a weak relationship still exists
• Assess strength with evidence, not intuition

---

Step 5: Identify Boundaries

Find where the relationship breaks down or stops applying.

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS:
THE RELATIONSHIP HOLDS WHEN:
- [Condition 1]
- [Condition 2]

THE RELATIONSHIP BREAKS WHEN:
- [Condition 1]: [What happens to A-B when this occurs]
- [Condition 2]: [What happens to A-B when this occurs]

EDGE CASES:
- [Situation where the relationship is ambiguous]

SCOPE: [The domain within which this relationship claim is valid]

Rules:

• Every relationship has boundaries — if you can't find them, you haven't looked
• Boundary conditions are often more informative than the relationship itself
• Overgeneralized relationships (claimed to hold everywhere) are almost always wrong at the edges
• State the valid scope explicitly — this prevents misapplication

---

Step 6: Verdict

RELATIONAL VERDICT:
- Claim: [A] [relationship] [B]
- Relationship exists: [YES / PARTIALLY / NO]
- Type as claimed: [CONFIRMED / DIFFERENT TYPE: ___]
- Strength: [STRONG / MODERATE / WEAK]
- Valid scope: [where it holds]

REFINED STATEMENT: [How the relationship should actually be described]

---

Integration

Use with:

• /cscl -> If the relationship is causal, do a full causal analysis
• /fctl -> Verify factual claims about the entities in the relationship
• /mocl -> If the claim is about a possible relationship, analyze the modal aspect
• /mtcl -> If the claim is about how claims relate to each other, use meta-claim analysis