counter-thesis-construction

name	counter-thesis-construction
description	Construct the strongest possible counter-argument to the convergence decision using Dialectical Inquiry and Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis methods.
dependencies	{"tactics":["adversarial-debate-protocol","assumption-excavation"],"sops":["steel-manning-synthesis"]}

Counter-Thesis Construction

Purpose: Build the most compelling counter-thesis to the convergence winner — not to overturn the decision, but to ensure it can withstand the strongest possible intellectual challenge and to surface any synthesis opportunities.

When to use:

• When the decision needs maximum intellectual rigor
• When the problem domain is complex with legitimate competing views
• When synthesis between thesis and antithesis might produce a superior option
• When the decision will face external scrutiny

Budget

Metric	Minimum
Counter-thesis depth	Full argument with evidence
Debate rounds	>= 2 (thesis vs antithesis)
Synthesis attempts	>= 1

State Ledger

thesis: <the convergence decision>
antithesis: <constructed counter-argument>
debate_rounds: []
synthesis_attempted: false
synthesis_result: null
final_verdict: null  # THESIS_STANDS | ANTITHESIS_WINS | SYNTHESIS_FOUND

Available Tactics

Tactic	When to Deploy
adversarial-debate-protocol	Default — formal advocate/critic/judge cycle
assumption-excavation	When counter-thesis rests on different assumptions

Available SOPs

• advocate-construction — build the counter-thesis case
• critic-attack — attack from both thesis and antithesis sides
• judge-verdict — render verdict on thesis vs antithesis
• steel-manning-synthesis — attempt synthesis of thesis and antithesis

Execution Guidance

1. Articulate the thesis (convergence decision) clearly
2. Construct the strongest antithesis using advocate-construction
3. Deploy adversarial-debate-protocol: thesis advocates vs antithesis advocates
4. After debate, attempt synthesis — is there a superior option combining both?
5. Judge renders final verdict with explicit reasoning

Output Format

strategy: counter-thesis-construction
thesis: <decision>
antithesis: <counter-argument>
antithesis_strength: <1-10>
debate_rounds: <count>
synthesis_found: true | false
synthesis: <if found>
verdict: THESIS_STANDS | ANTITHESIS_WINS | SYNTHESIS_FOUND
reasoning: <key evidence>
conditions: []

Available Tactics

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

Tactic	When to use
adversarial-debate-protocol	Structured debate protocol that constructs an advocate, deploys critic attacks, and renders a judge verdict through iterative rounds.
assumption-excavation	Systematic extraction, challenge, and sensitivity analysis of assumptions underlying a decision to identify load-bearing beliefs.

Available SOPs

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

SOP	When to use
steel-manning-synthesis	Synthesize all attacks and verdicts into a final unified assessment with surviving concerns and recommended modifications.