courtroom-structured

name	courtroom-structured
description	Strategy: Legal adversarial structure — prosecution presents case, defense responds, evidence is cross-examined, judge delivers verdict. Emphasizes evidence quality and procedural rigor.
type	strategy
tactics	["evidence-tournament","dialectical-escalation"]
dependencies	{"tactics":["evidence-tournament","stress-test-dialectical-escalation"],"sops":["cross-examination","debate-architect","debate-critic","debate-defender","debate-judge","evidence-scout"]}

Courtroom-Structured Strategy

Legal adversarial model with formal evidence presentation and cross-examination.

Method

1. debate-architect structures the case — defines charges (weaknesses to probe)
2. debate-critic (prosecution) presents opening arguments with evidence
3. evidence-scout gathers supporting/opposing evidence from external sources
4. debate-defender presents counter-case
5. cross-examination probes both sides for inconsistencies
6. debate-judge delivers structured verdict per charge

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 → [define charges]
→ [for each charge]:
    debate-critic (prosecution) → evidence-scout
    → debate-defender → evidence-scout
    → cross-examination → debate-judge
→ debate-transcript-analysis → verdict-synthesis

Subagents

• debate-architect (case structure)
• debate-critic (prosecution)
• debate-defender (defense counsel)
• evidence-scout (evidence gathering)
• cross-examination (probing)
• debate-judge (verdict per charge)

Available Tactics

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

Tactic	When to use
evidence-tournament	Tactic: Evidence gathering, cross-examination, and quality judgment. External evidence is collected, presented, challenged, and scored for relevance and reliability.
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
cross-examination	Probes defender responses for inconsistencies, logical gaps, and unsupported claims. Acts as follow-up interrogation after initial defense.
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.
evidence-scout	Searches for external evidence supporting or opposing specific claims. Returns structured evidence with source assessment and relevance scoring.