| name | hyperresearch-7-source-tensions |
| description | Step 7 of the hyperresearch V8 pipeline. Extracts explicit expert disagreements from the corpus into research/temp/source-tensions.json, including orphan tensions that didn't surface as loci. Reads full source bodies of top 8-12 sources (not summaries) to find tensions that hide in nuance. The Source Tensions section in step 10's draft is the single highest-leverage move for insight scores. Invoked via Skill tool from the entry skill (full tier only).
|
Step 7 — Source tension extraction
Tier gate: SKIP for light tier. Only full tier runs this step.
Goal: extract explicit expert disagreements from the corpus and comparisons into a structured artifact that step 10 MUST include as a dedicated section. This is the single highest-leverage move for the insight dimension.
Why this step exists: step 6's comparisons.md captures cross-locus tensions — places where depth investigators disagree. But the richest disagreements often live in the width corpus itself: Source A says X, Source B says Y, and neither the loci analysts nor the depth investigators elevated this as a locus because it cut across multiple topics. These "orphan tensions" are invisible to locus-driven analysis but are exactly what distinguishes an expert synthesis from a competent survey.
Recover state
Read these inputs:
research/scaffold.md — vault_tagresearch/comparisons.md — cross-locus tensionsresearch/temp/contradiction-graph.json (if step 3 ran)- Survey vault:
$HPR search "" --tag <vault_tag> -j for the 15–20 highest-quality non-deprecated sources
Procedure
-
Re-read comparisons.md. Each tension there is already a candidate source tension. Extract: the two positions, the strongest evidence for each, your preliminary reading of which side has the better case.
-
Scan the width corpus for orphan tensions. For the 15–20 highest-quality non-deprecated sources, then read the full body of the top 8–12 sources most likely to contain disagreements — use $HPR note show <id1> <id2> ... -j in batches. Tensions hide in nuance that summaries flatten: a source's "however" clause, a footnote caveat, a methodological critique buried in a discussion section. You cannot extract tensions you haven't read. Look for:
- Sources that explicitly disagree with each other (different conclusions from similar evidence)
- Sources that use competing theoretical frameworks to explain the same phenomenon
- Sources where one side cites data the other side ignores
- Government/institutional positions that conflict with academic findings
- Industry claims that contradict independent research
- Historical consensus that recent evidence challenges
-
If research/temp/contradiction-graph.json exists, read it. Any high-relevance fight cluster that was NOT promoted to a locus is a prime orphan-tension candidate. It was important enough for the contradiction graph but wasn't investigated in depth — these deserve standalone treatment in the draft.
-
Select 3–7 source tensions. Combine comparisons.md tensions with orphan tensions. Rank by:
- Decision relevance: does resolving this tension change the report's recommendation?
- Evidence quality: are both sides grounded in real evidence (not just opinion)?
- Reader value: would an expert reader find this tension illuminating?
Drop tensions that are: trivially resolved (one side is clearly wrong), definitional (the disagreement is about word meaning, not substance), or orthogonal to the research query.
-
For each tension, pre-commit to a resolution. Do NOT leave tensions open. For each:
- Name it in 5–10 words (e.g., "NHTSA's 'no defect' vs. NTSB's 'design failure'")
- State Side A's strongest case with evidence (quote or cite specific sources)
- State Side B's strongest case with evidence
- Commit to a reading: which side has the better evidence, or is there a synthesis? Name the load-bearing reason.
-
Write research/temp/source-tensions.json:
{
"tensions": [
{
"name": "short descriptive name",
"side_a": {
"position": "one-sentence claim",
"evidence": "strongest evidence with source note ids",
"proponents": ["source-note-id-1", "source-note-id-2"]
},
"side_b": {
"position": "one-sentence claim",
"evidence": "strongest evidence with source note ids",
"proponents": ["source-note-id-3"]
},
"resolution": "one-paragraph committed reading with load-bearing reason",
"origin": "comparisons|contradiction-graph|orphan-scan",
"decision_relevance": "high|medium"
}
]
}
This artifact feeds directly into step 10's mandatory Source Tensions section. Every tension named here becomes a subsection in the final report.
Exit criterion
research/temp/source-tensions.json exists with 3–7 tensions- Each tension has both sides with proponents, a committed resolution, and decision_relevance
Next step
Return to the entry skill (hyperresearch). Invoke step 8:
Skill(skill: "hyperresearch-8-corpus-critic")
