| name | speculation-control |
| version | 1.0 |
| description | Enforces strict separation between evidence-based statements and speculative, interpretive, or subjective content. All non-factual content must be explicitly labeled and grounded in known information. Use when producing research, analysis, or factual writing that requires clear epistemic discipline. |
Speculation, Opinion, and Non-Factual Content Control
When Not to Use
- When the task is explicitly creative, fictional, or speculative by design (brainstorming, scenario planning, science fiction)
- When all content is clearly framed as opinion or editorial from the outset
- When the genre or format already makes the speculative nature obvious (e.g., a clearly labelled opinion column)
Interaction Protocol
Before starting, ask if not already clear:
- Is any speculation or opinion explicitly invited, and if so, in what scope?
- Are there factual claims that need grounding, or is the task to review existing text?
Output style:
- Prefix non-factual content with
Speculation:, Hypothesis:, or Opinion: as appropriate
- Flag any gap in evidence explicitly — do not fill gaps silently
- Do not mix labeled and unlabeled content within the same sentence
Inputs and Outputs
Input: Text to be written or reviewed, with optional indication of which sections may include speculation
Output: Text with all non-factual content explicitly labeled; list of evidentiary gaps
Composability: Apply alongside citation-discipline and research for full epistemic rigour
Purpose
Prevent unsubstantiated speculation, ensure all non-factual content is explicitly
labeled, and maintain strict separation between evidence-based statements and
interpretive or subjective material.
Core Principles
- No speculation is allowed unless explicitly requested and clearly labeled.
- No opinion is allowed unless explicitly requested and clearly labeled.
- Interpretive statements must be grounded in evidence and framed as interpretations, not facts.
- Subjective language must not be used to mask uncertainty.
Operational Rules
Speculation
- Speculation may only occur when the user explicitly requests it.
- All speculative statements must be prefixed:
Speculation: or Hypothesis:.
- Speculation must follow logically from known information — not be invented.
Opinion
- Opinions may only be expressed when explicitly requested.
- All opinions must be labeled
Opinion: and kept concise.
- Opinions must not be presented as facts or universally accepted views.
Interpretation
- Interpretations must specify the evidence they are grounded in.
- When multiple interpretations exist, alternatives must be acknowledged.
Uncertainty
- When information is incomplete, state the limits of what is known.
- Do not fill gaps with invented detail.
- Use precise uncertainty language: "cannot be determined from available evidence", "no reliable data exists".
Language
- Avoid subjective intensifiers ("clearly", "obviously", "undeniably") unless the claim is demonstrably true.
- Avoid rhetorical framing that implies certainty without evidence.
Fabrication and Prediction
- If a request requires fabrication, decline and state the constraint.
- If a request asks for predictions, provide only reasoned scenarios with stated assumptions — not definitive outcomes.
Mandatory Pre-Output Scan
Run these steps in order before outputting any document. Do not mark output as complete until all steps pass.
- Evaluative and comparative terms scan: Find every sentence containing the words "right", "correct", "best", "most", "superior", "adequate", "sufficient", "pragmatic", "appropriate", "optimal", or any superlative form. For each sentence, verify it is either: (a) directly supported by a cited source that makes the same evaluative claim, or (b) labeled
Opinion:, [inference], or [assumption]. If neither condition is met, apply the appropriate label or remove the evaluative framing.
- Causal claims scan: Find every sentence containing causal language ("causes", "leads to", "results in", "degrades when", "is a manifestation of", "is triggered by", "produces", or equivalent constructions). Verify each causal claim is labeled
[inference] unless a primary source directly asserts the causal relationship. If the source only correlates, narrates, or implies the relationship, the claim must be labeled [inference].
Failure Modes
- Implicit speculation disguised as fact
- Opinions embedded in factual prose
- Filling evidentiary gaps with invented detail
- Overconfident language unsupported by evidence
- Evaluative or comparative judgment ("the right design", "the best available option", "superior to all alternatives") presented as a conclusion without an
Opinion:, [inference], or [assumption] label.
- Causal claim ("X causes Y", "Y degrades whenever X", "X is a manifestation of Y") stated as an established fact without a primary source directly asserting the causal relationship.
Integration
Works alongside:
- remove-ai-slop — apply when output also requires surface-level AI pattern removal; run slop removal after epistemic labeling is complete so that structural cleanup does not disturb label placement
