counterfactual-probing

name	counterfactual-probing
description	Campaign: Counterfactual reasoning to identify load-bearing factors. Core question: If key factors were different, would the conclusion still hold? Methods: Pearl SCM Three-Step, Lewis Possible Worlds, Tetlock & Belkin, PNS/PS.
type	campaign
produces	CounterfactualMap
artifact-types	["gap","hypothesis","research-question","idea","approach","experiment-design","claim"]
dependencies	{"strategies":["closest-worlds","factor-removal","necessity-sufficiency","structural-counterfactual","thought-experiment"],"tactics":["causal-necessity-testing","minimal-change-search","systematic-factor-ablation"],"sops":["context-checkpoint","context-init","stress-test-saturation-detection","verdict-synthesis"]}

Counterfactual Probing Campaign

Core question: If key factors were different, would the conclusion still hold?

Methodology Sources

• Pearl (2000) — Structural Causal Models, Three-Step counterfactual procedure
• Lewis (1973) — Possible Worlds semantics for counterfactuals
• Tetlock & Belkin (1996) — Counterfactual thought experiments in world politics
• Fearon (1991) — Counterfactuals and hypothesis testing in political science
• Williamson (2007) — The Philosophy of Philosophy, thought experiment methodology

Strategy Routing

Artifact Type	Primary Strategy	Fallback Strategy
hypothesis, claim	structural-counterfactual	necessity-sufficiency
research-question	thought-experiment	closest-worlds
idea, approach	factor-removal	closest-worlds
experiment-design	necessity-sufficiency	structural-counterfactual
gap	closest-worlds	factor-removal

Budget Table

Parameter	S (Quick)	M (Standard)	L (Deep)
Factors examined	5	10	20
Counterfactual scenarios	3	8	15
Necessity tests	3	6	12
Flip-point search depth	2	4	8

Tactics

• systematic-factor-ablation — Remove factors one at a time, observe conclusion stability
• minimal-change-search — Find smallest change that flips the conclusion
• causal-necessity-testing — Evaluate necessity and sufficiency of each causal claim

Context Management

Each subagent operates in isolated context. Factor enumeration precedes all counterfactual reasoning. Scenarios are constructed with minimal deviation from actuality. Fragility measurements aggregate across all tested factors.

Output

Produces CounterfactualMap containing: load-bearing factors ranked by necessity, fragility index per factor, flip-points identified, robustness assessment, and recommended sensitivity analyses.

Available Strategies

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

Strategy	When to use
closest-worlds	Strategy: Lewis Possible Worlds — find the minimal change to reality that would flip the conclusion, measuring how close the nearest world where the conclusion fails.
factor-removal	Strategy: Systematic factor removal — remove factors one at a time and observe whether the conclusion remains stable, identifying which factors are load-bearing.
necessity-sufficiency	Strategy: Probability of Necessity and Sufficiency (PNS/PS) — systematically evaluate whether each factor is necessary, sufficient, both, or neither for the conclusion.
structural-counterfactual	Strategy: Pearl Three-Step counterfactual — Abduction (fit model to evidence), Action (intervene on factor), Prediction (derive counterfactual outcome).
thought-experiment	Strategy: Williamson-style precise thought experiments — construct carefully specified counterfactual scenarios to test whether conclusions depend on contingent features.

Available Tactics

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

Tactic	When to use
causal-necessity-testing	Tactic: Extract causal claims, evaluate probability of necessity (PN) and sufficiency (PS) for each, classify into necessity-sufficiency quadrants.
minimal-change-search	Tactic: Generate candidate changes, detect flip-points where conclusion reverses, measure fragility as distance to nearest flip.
systematic-factor-ablation	Tactic: List all factors, remove one at a time, assess conclusion stability, rank factors by load-bearing importance.

Available SOPs

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

SOP	When to use
context-checkpoint	Append research process and results to the current Phase's context file. Covers both process and results with genuine substance. Use this skill at plan-designated checkpoint points — typically after each strategy completes or at key decision nodes within a research Phase.
context-init	Create a new context file for a research Phase. Called once at Phase start to initialize the file that subsequent context-checkpoint calls will append to. Use this skill whenever a new research Phase begins and a fresh context file is needed.
stress-test-saturation-detection	Determines whether validation has reached saturation — no new weaknesses or failure modes being discovered. Used by all 5 campaigns as termination signal.
verdict-synthesis	Synthesizes findings from a completed campaign into typed verdict reports. Produces DebateVerdict, RedTeamReport, FailureAnticipationReport, CounterfactualMap, or AdversarialStressReport depending on campaign. Also supports cross-campaign StressTestSummary.