contradiction-finder

name	contradiction-finder
description	Use this to surface stated values that collide with measured behavior, and strengths whose shadow side shows.

Contradiction Finder

Belief vs Behavior

The highest-value section of any audit. Find collisions between what the subject says they value and what their behavior shows.

Only report contradictions with strong evidence. Structure examples like this - content comes from data, never assumption:

• "X is stated as the priority, but 63% of relevant sessions go toward Y."
• "Simplicity is requested repeatedly, but scope expands after start."
• "Model A feels fastest, but tasks completed via B show less rework."
• "Testing is called mandatory, but validation collapses under deadline."

Format every survivor as a table row:

| What I appear to believe | What behavior shows | Evidence | Consequence |

Prioritize these findings. They are nearly impossible to see from inside a single session, which is exactly why they are worth surfacing.

Strength -> Shadow Pairs

No generic strengths. Every pair needs evidence.

STRENGTH: the capability, with episodes. WHY IT HELPS: observed outcome. SHADOW SIDE: where the same behavior becomes excessive and costly. EARLY WARNING: an observable signal that the shadow is starting.

Example shapes - format only, discover the real ones:

• fast experimentation -> rapid learning -> but constant switching blocks consolidation.
• deep research -> better decisions -> but delays cheap reversible experiments.

When It Backfires

• Manufacturing contradictions from tone instead of measured behavior.
• Listing strengths without shadow sides. If no shadow exists yet, say so - that is also information.

One-Line Memory

The gap between said and done is where the leverage hides.