argument-crystallization

name	argument-crystallization
description	Distill the strongest arguments from each perspective through Argument Delphi or Dialectical Delphi methods.
dependencies	{"tactics":["disagreement-mapping","iterative-convergence-round"],"sops":["consensus-synthesis"]}

Argument Crystallization

Purpose: Rather than converging on a single answer, crystallize the strongest possible arguments for each position. Uses Argument Delphi (focus on argument quality over agreement) and Dialectical Delphi (thesis-antithesis-synthesis) to produce the most rigorous version of each stance.

When to use:

• Policy deliberation requiring clear pro/con articulation
• Interdisciplinary disputes where each field has valid concerns
• Pre-decision analysis where decision-makers need best arguments
• Situations where the goal is argument quality, not agreement

Budget

Parameter	Constraint
Rounds	2–3 (refine arguments, not opinions)
Perspectives	≥4 independent
Argument quality gate	Each argument must be steel-manned

State Ledger

Key	Type	Description
question	string	The deliberation question
perspectives	array	Contributing perspectives
initial_arguments	array	First-round arguments
critiques	array	Cross-perspective critiques
refined_arguments	array	Steel-manned final arguments
synthesis	object	Points of agreement and irreducible tensions

Available Tactics

• disagreement-mapping — Identify argument clusters
• iterative-convergence-round — Refine arguments across rounds

Available SOPs

• judgment-collection
• cluster-analysis
• argument-extraction
• feedback-distribution
• consensus-measurement
• consensus-synthesis

Execution Guidance

1. Collect initial positions with supporting arguments
2. Cross-distribute: each perspective critiques and steel-mans others
3. Authors refine arguments incorporating strongest critiques
4. Identify points of genuine agreement vs. irreducible tensions
5. Produce crystallized argument map with quality ratings

Output Format

positions:
  - label: <position name>
    strongest_arguments: [...]
    acknowledged_weaknesses: [...]
    steel_man_version: <best possible formulation>
agreements:
  - point: <shared conclusion>
    strength: <how robust>
irreducible_tensions:
  - between: [position_a, position_b]
    nature: <empirical/value/priority>
    why_irreducible: <explanation>

Available Tactics

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

Tactic	When to use
disagreement-mapping	Map disagreement structure by collecting judgments, clustering opinions, extracting arguments per cluster, and visualizing fault lines.
iterative-convergence-round	Execute one full Delphi round — collect judgments, distribute anonymous feedback, measure consensus, decide whether to continue.

Available SOPs

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

SOP	When to use
consensus-synthesis	Synthesize all rounds into a final consensus report documenting agreements, dissent, and process.