adversarial-escalation

name	adversarial-escalation
description	Strategy: Progressive pressure escalation — starts with surface-level challenges and escalates to fundamental assumption attacks based on defender confidence decay.
type	strategy
tactics	["dialectical-escalation"]
dependencies	{"tactics":["stress-test-dialectical-escalation"],"sops":["confidence-calibration","debate-architect","debate-critic","debate-defender","debate-judge"]}

Adversarial Escalation Strategy

Progressive pressure: escalate attack sophistication based on defender performance.

Method

1. debate-architect designs escalation ladder (surface → structural → foundational)
2. Level 1: debate-critic probes surface claims and evidence quality
3. confidence-calibration measures defender resilience
4. Level 2: debate-critic attacks structural coherence and logical dependencies
5. Level 3: debate-critic challenges foundational assumptions and paradigm fit
6. Each level only reached if defender survives previous level

Budget Table

Parameter	S	M	L
Debate rounds	4	8	12
Participating agents	3	5	8
Coverage dimensions	3	5	7
External evidence searches	2	5	10

Orchestration

debate-architect → [design escalation ladder]
→ [for each level]:
    debate-critic (level-appropriate attack)
    → debate-defender → debate-judge
    → confidence-calibration
    → (escalate if survived, terminate if collapsed)
→ debate-transcript-analysis → verdict-synthesis

Subagents

• debate-architect (escalation design)
• debate-critic (multi-level attacks)
• debate-defender (responses)
• debate-judge (level adjudication)
• confidence-calibration (escalation trigger)

Available Tactics

Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.

Tactic	When to use
stress-test-dialectical-escalation	Tactic: Progressive debate escalation based on confidence thresholds. Each round increases attack sophistication until defender collapses or proves resilient.

Available SOPs

Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.

SOP	When to use
confidence-calibration	Calibrates confidence scores based on debate progression. Determines whether to escalate, continue, or terminate based on cumulative evidence.
debate-architect	Designs debate structure based on artifact type — selects attack vectors, assigns perspectives, determines escalation ladder, and configures round parameters.
debate-critic	Generates structured criticism from attack stance using Toulmin model. Produces claims, grounds, warrants, and rebuttals targeting artifact weaknesses.
debate-defender	Responds to attacks with counter-evidence and counter-arguments. Defends artifact using evidence, clarification, and rebuttal while acknowledging valid criticisms.
debate-judge	Evaluates debate exchanges, adjudicates argument quality, and produces round verdicts with confidence scores and reasoning.