contrarian-analysis

name	contrarian-analysis
description	Gate 5 - Pre-mortem, steel-man opposition, surface biases, second-order effects

Gate 5: Contrarian Analysis

Purpose: Actively attack the decision. Find the strongest reasons it could fail.

Announce: "Moving to Contrarian Gate - let's stress-test this decision."

Entry Criteria

• Calibration Gate completed
• Facts vs Assumptions documented
• Knowns/Unknowns matrix updated

Why This Gate Exists

Humans naturally defend their decisions. Once we've invested time in analysis, we become attached to conclusions. This gate forces adversarial thinking by requiring:

• Imagining failure before it happens
• Building the best case for options we rejected
• Actively hunting for cognitive biases
• Tracing consequences we haven't considered

This gate should feel uncomfortable. If it doesn't, you're not doing it right.

Process

1. Pre-Mortem (Kahneman/Klein)

Imagine the decision was made and failed spectacularly. Work backward.

Prompt: "It's one year from now. This decision was a disaster. What happened?"

Document failure scenarios:

• What went wrong?
• What did we miss?
• What assumption proved false?
• What external event derailed us?
• What internal failure occurred?

For each scenario, assess:

• Probability (likely/possible/unlikely)
• Severity (catastrophic/serious/manageable)
• Detectability (would we see it coming?)

2. Steel-Man the Opposition

Build the strongest possible case for the alternatives we rejected.

For each rejected option:

• What's the best argument for it?
• Under what circumstances would it be the right choice?
• What are we giving up by not choosing it?
• Who would advocate for this option and why?

Rule: You must make the opposition case so well that someone could genuinely be persuaded by it.

3. Surface Cognitive Biases

Audit the decision process for common biases:

Bias	Question to Ask	Red Flags
Confirmation	Did we seek disconfirming evidence?	Only found data supporting our view
Anchoring	Are we over-weighted on early information?	First option still dominates
Sunk Cost	Are past investments influencing us?	"We've already invested so much..."
Availability	Are we over-weighting vivid examples?	Recent events dominating analysis
Overconfidence	What's our track record on similar decisions?	High certainty with little evidence
Groupthink	Did anyone disagree? Were they heard?	Unanimous agreement without debate

For each bias detected, document:

• Evidence of the bias
• How it might be affecting the decision
• What would change if we corrected for it

4. Second-Order Effects

Map ripple effects beyond immediate consequences.

First-order: Direct consequences of the decision Second-order: Consequences of the consequences

Consider effects on:

• Stakeholders not in the room
• Competitors' likely responses
• Market dynamics
• Internal culture and incentives
• Future option value (doors opened/closed)

5. Identify Decision Killers

Are there fatal flaws that should stop this decision entirely?

A decision killer is:

• A failure mode with high probability AND catastrophic severity
• An unrecoverable scenario
• A must-be-true condition that is likely false
• An ethical or legal red line

If decision killers exist, the decision should not proceed without addressing them.

Depth by Weight

Aspect	Light	Medium	Complete
Pre-mortem	Top 3 risks	5 scenarios with assessment	5+ with probability/severity/detectability
Steel-man	Skip	Top rejected alternative	All rejected alternatives
Bias audit	Quick self-check	Standard audit (3-4 biases)	Full audit with corrections
Second-order	Note obvious	One level deep	Two levels deep
Decision killers	Quick check	Standard review	Thorough analysis

Light: Focus on top 3 failure scenarios. Skip formal steel-manning. Quick bias self-check. Note obvious second-order effects only.

Medium: 5 pre-mortem scenarios. Steel-man the top rejected alternative. Standard bias audit. One level of second-order effects.

Complete: Comprehensive pre-mortem (5+ scenarios with full assessment). Steel-man all rejected alternatives. Full bias audit with correction analysis. Two levels of second-order effects.

Upgrade Detection

Suggest upgrading if:

• Pre-mortem reveals high-probability catastrophic scenarios
• Steel-manning a rejected option reveals it may actually be better
• Significant biases detected that weren't addressed earlier
• Second-order effects reveal hidden risks

Upgrade prompt:

⚠️ Contrarian analysis is surfacing serious concerns:
- [High-risk scenario identified]
- [Bias detected: X]
- [Rejected alternative may actually be stronger because Y]

This suggests we should examine these issues more thoroughly.

Current: [Weight]
Suggested: [Higher Weight] - would allow [deeper analysis of these concerns]

Continue at current depth, or upgrade?

Output

Update the decision artifact:

## Contrarian Gate Analysis

### Pre-Mortem Failure Scenarios

| Scenario | Probability | Severity | Detectability |
|----------|-------------|----------|---------------|
| [Failure mode 1] | Likely | Serious | Low |
| [Failure mode 2] | Possible | Catastrophic | High |
| [Failure mode 3] | Unlikely | Manageable | Medium |

**Highest-risk scenarios:**
- [Which require mitigation?]

### Steel-Manned Alternatives

**Alternative A: [Rejected option]**
Best case for it:
- [Argument 1]
- [Argument 2]
When it would be right: [circumstances]
What we give up: [trade-offs]

### Bias Audit

| Bias | Evidence | Impact | Correction |
|------|----------|--------|------------|
| [Bias type] | [How we detected it] | [Effect on decision] | [What changes] |

### Second-Order Effects

**First-Order:**
- [Direct consequence 1]
- [Direct consequence 2]

**Second-Order:**
- [Consequence of consequence 1]
- [Consequence of consequence 2]

**Stakeholders affected indirectly:**
- [Who else is impacted?]

### Decision Killers

- [ ] None identified - proceed to Synthesis
- [ ] **KILLER:** [Fatal flaw] - must address before proceeding

**Mitigation required:**
- [What must change to proceed?]

Exit Criteria

• Pre-mortem scenarios documented (depth per weight)
• Rejected alternatives steel-manned (depth per weight)
• Bias audit completed (depth per weight)
• Second-order effects mapped (depth per weight)
• Decision killers identified or confirmed absent
• Human has reviewed and engaged with contrarian analysis

Bias Watch

Watch for:

• Defensive reasoning - Dismissing valid criticisms to protect the preferred option
• Motivated reasoning - Finding ways to discount uncomfortable findings
• Premature closure - Rushing through this gate to get to the decision

Counter: If you find yourself defending against the contrarian analysis, that's signal. Sit with the discomfort.

Next Gate

Proceed to: deliberate-decisions:synthesis