ncl-normative-claim-analysis

name	ncl - Normative Claim Analysis
description	Evaluate a "should" claim. Identify underlying values, check if prescriptions serve those values, and assess competing considerations.
output	{"format":"prose"}

Normative Claim Analysis

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Step 1: State the Normative Claim

Extract the "should" statement and make it explicit.

ORIGINAL STATEMENT: [as stated]
NORMATIVE CLAIM: [rewritten as a clear "X should Y" statement]
CLAIM SCOPE: [universal / contextual / personal]
PRESCRIBES: [what action or state of affairs is being recommended]
IMPLICIT AUDIENCE: [who is being told they "should"]

Rules:

• Many normative claims are disguised as factual claims — "it's important to X" means "you should X"
• Distinguish between moral "should," prudential "should," and aesthetic "should"
• Make the audience explicit — "one should" often means "you specifically should"
• If multiple "shoulds" are present, separate and analyze each

---

Step 2: Identify the Underlying Value

Find the value or principle that makes the "should" feel compelling.

VALUE ANALYSIS:
- Primary value: [The value that drives this claim — e.g., fairness, efficiency, safety, autonomy]
- Value type: [moral / prudential / aesthetic / conventional / epistemic]
- Is the value stated or assumed? [STATED / ASSUMED]
- How widely shared is this value? [UNIVERSAL / WIDELY SHARED / CONTESTED / NICHE]

Rules:

• Every "should" is powered by at least one value — find it
• If the value is assumed rather than stated, the argument is weaker
• Universal values (reduce suffering, keep promises) are stronger foundations than niche ones
• Some claims stack multiple values — identify all of them

---

Step 3: Check If the Value Is Shared

Assess whether the audience actually holds the underlying value.

VALUE AGREEMENT:
- Does the target audience hold this value? [YES / MOSTLY / SPLIT / NO]
- What would someone who REJECTS this value say? [steel-manned counter-position]
- Is the disagreement about the value itself or about facts? [VALUE DISAGREEMENT / FACTUAL DISAGREEMENT]
- If factual: what facts would resolve it?
- If value-based: is compromise possible?

Rules:

• If the audience doesn't share the value, the "should" has no force for them
• Many apparent value disagreements are actually factual disagreements in disguise
• "You should exercise" — is the disagreement about health's importance, or about exercise's effectiveness?
• Identifying the real source of disagreement is more useful than insisting on the "should"

---

Step 4: Check If the Prescription Serves the Value

Test whether doing the recommended thing actually achieves the underlying value.

PRESCRIPTION EFFECTIVENESS:
- Does [prescribed action] actually achieve [underlying value]? [YES / PARTIALLY / NO / UNKNOWN]
- Evidence: [what shows the prescription works or doesn't]
- Unintended consequences: [does the prescription create new problems?]
- Alternative prescriptions: [other actions that might serve the same value better]
  1. [Alternative]: [how it serves the value]
  2. [Alternative]: [how it serves the value]

Rules:

• This is where many "should" claims fail — the value is right but the prescription is wrong
• "You should eat less fat" — even if health is the right value, the prescription might not serve it
• Always check for unintended consequences — prescriptions often create new problems
• If alternatives serve the value better, the original "should" is weakened

---

Step 5: Identify Competing Values

Find values that conflict with the claim's underlying value.

VALUE TENSIONS:
1. [Competing value]: [How it conflicts with the primary value]
   - Which wins in this context? [assessment]
   - Can both be served? [YES — how / NO — which takes priority]

2. [Competing value]: [How it conflicts]
   - Which wins? [assessment]
   - Can both be served? [assessment]

Rules:

• Almost every "should" trades off against something else
• "You should be honest" competes with "you should be kind" in specific situations
• "You should move fast" competes with "you should be careful"
• The strength of a "should" depends on how it handles its competing values, not just its primary value

---

Step 6: Assess the Strength of the "Should"

Deliver a final assessment.

NORMATIVE VERDICT:
- Claim: [the "should" statement]
- Underlying value: [identified value]
- Value strength: [STRONG / MODERATE / WEAK]
- Prescription effectiveness: [EFFECTIVE / PARTIALLY EFFECTIVE / INEFFECTIVE]
- Competing values addressed: [YES / PARTIALLY / NO]

OVERALL ASSESSMENT: [COMPELLING / REASONABLE / WEAK / UNFOUNDED]

STRONGEST VERSION: [How the claim would need to be modified to be as strong as possible]

KEY OBJECTION: [The single best argument against this "should"]

---

Integration

Use with:

• /fctl -> Verify factual claims embedded in the normative argument
• /cscl -> Test causal claims about what the prescription will achieve
• /mocl -> If the claim involves "could" or "would," analyze those modal aspects
• /icl -> If the claim involves what someone intends, analyze credibility