| name | pbtc - Pre-Baked Thesis Check |
| description | Detect when reasoning is working backwards from a predetermined conclusion. Surfaces the signs that the 'analysis' is actually a case built to support a thesis that was chosen before the evidence was examined. |
| output | {"format":"prose"} |
Pre-Baked Thesis Check
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Interpretations
Before executing, identify which interpretation matches the user's input:
Interpretation 1 — Check my own reasoning: The user suspects they may have already decided their conclusion and wants to verify whether their analysis is genuine or reverse-engineered from a predetermined answer.
Interpretation 2 — Check someone else's reasoning: The user is reading an argument, proposal, paper, or pitch and suspects the author decided the conclusion first and built the case backwards.
Interpretation 3 — Check a document or plan: The user has a specific piece of writing (report, strategy doc, recommendation) and wants it audited for signs of conclusion-first reasoning.
If ambiguous, ask: "I can help with checking your own reasoning for a pre-baked conclusion, auditing someone else's argument, or scanning a document — which fits?"
If clear from context, proceed with the matching interpretation.
Purpose
A pre-baked thesis is a conclusion that was chosen before the analysis began. The "reasoning" that follows isn't discovering truth — it's building a case. This is different from lying: the person often genuinely believes they reasoned their way to the conclusion. The tell is structural — the argument has fingerprints of reverse engineering even when the author doesn't know they did it.
Why this matters:
- Pre-baked theses survive scrutiny longer than they should because they come wrapped in evidence
- The person holding one feels more confident, not less, because they've "done the research"
- Organizations make expensive commitments based on analyses that were never actually open-ended
- Detecting the pattern early saves the cost of building on a rigged foundation
Recursive Passes
Default: 1x (single pass). Parse pass count from $ARGUMENTS if specified (e.g., "/pbtc 3x [input]").
The Nx modifier controls how many times the check runs recursively on its own output. This catches the meta-failure: the check itself can have a pre-baked thesis about whether the input is pre-baked.
| Passes | What happens |
|---|
| 1x | Run the check once on the input. Standard. |
| 2x | Run the check on the input → then run the check again on your Pass 1 output. Did your own analysis have a pre-baked conclusion about whether the thesis was pre-baked? |
| 3x | 2x + run the check on your Pass 2 output. Did your self-correction itself have a pre-baked thesis? |
| 4x+ | Continue the chain. Each pass checks the previous pass's output for pre-bake signals. |
How recursive passes work
Pass 1: Run Steps 1-7 on the user's input. Produce the verdict.
Pass 2: Treat your entire Pass 1 output as the new input. Run Steps 1-7 again, asking: "Did my Pass 1 analysis itself show signs of a pre-baked thesis?" Common findings:
- The check assumed SUSPECT or PRE-BAKED before examining signals (confirmation bias about bias)
- The check was too generous because it didn't want to accuse (performed neutrality)
- The check pattern-matched on surface features without engaging the actual argument
Pass 3+: Same pattern. Each pass treats the previous pass's full output as its input.
Reporting recursive passes
PASS 1 VERDICT: [verdict] on the original input
PASS 2 VERDICT: [verdict] on Pass 1's analysis
- [what Pass 2 found about Pass 1's reasoning]
- [adjustments to Pass 1's verdict, if any]
PASS 3 VERDICT: [verdict] on Pass 2's analysis (if 3x+)
- [what Pass 3 found]
FINAL VERDICT: [the verdict that survived all passes]
CONFIDENCE: [higher if verdicts converged; lower if they kept flipping]
If verdicts oscillate (Pass 1 says CLEAN, Pass 2 says PRE-BAKED, Pass 3 says CLEAN), report the oscillation — it means the signal is genuinely ambiguous.
The Structural Fingerprints
Pre-baked theses leave characteristic marks. Not every mark proves the thesis was pre-baked, but the more marks present, the higher the probability.
Signal Category 1: Evidence Selection Asymmetry
| Signal | What to look for | Severity |
|---|
| Cherry-picked evidence | Only favorable data cited; unfavorable data absent or footnoted | High |
| Asymmetric rigor | Supporting evidence accepted at face value; opposing evidence held to impossibly high standards | High |
| Missing null case | No consideration of what the evidence would look like if the thesis were wrong | High |
| Survivorship framing | Only successful examples cited; failures in the same category ignored | Medium |
| Date-selected evidence | Time windows chosen to make the data fit; different windows would show different results | Medium |
Signal Category 2: Argumentative Structure
| Signal | What to look for | Severity |
|---|
| Conclusion appears early | The thesis is stated with confidence in paragraph 1; the rest is justification | High |
| No pivot point | The argument never genuinely entertains being wrong — no "however" that could have changed the conclusion | High |
| Motte-and-bailey | Bold claim made; when challenged, retreats to a weaker claim that no one disputes, then re-advances the bold one | High |
| Straw alternatives | Competing theses are presented in their weakest form | Medium |
| Forced linearity | Evidence presented as a logical chain, but the links only work if you already accept the conclusion | Medium |
| Rhetorical hedging as armor | "Of course there are exceptions, but..." used to dismiss counterevidence rather than engage it | Low |
Signal Category 3: Emotional and Social Tells
| Signal | What to look for | Severity |
|---|
| Identity fusion | The thesis is entangled with the person's identity, reputation, or prior public commitments | High |
| Sunk cost defense | Significant time, money, or status already invested in the conclusion being right | High |
| Audience capture | The conclusion matches exactly what the intended audience wants to hear | Medium |
| Disproportionate certainty | Confidence level far exceeds what the evidence warrants | Medium |
| Defensive reaction | Questions about the thesis trigger irritation rather than curiosity | Medium |
Signal Category 4: Process Tells
| Signal | What to look for | Severity |
|---|
| Conclusion predates research | Timeline shows the conclusion was announced or committed to before the analysis was done | Critical |
| Methodology fitted to outcome | Analytical method chosen because it produces the desired result; other valid methods would not | Critical |
| Missing methodology | No description of how evidence was gathered or how conclusions were reached | High |
| Post-hoc hypothesis | Presented as "we hypothesized X and found X" but there's no record of the hypothesis being stated before the data was collected | High |
| Unfalsifiable framing | The thesis is stated in a way that no possible evidence could disprove it | High |
The Check Procedure
Step 1: Extract the Thesis
State the core thesis being checked. What is the conclusion that might be pre-baked?
THESIS UNDER CHECK: [state it clearly]
SOURCE: [own reasoning / someone else's argument / document]
CONTEXT: [what situation produced this thesis]
If the thesis is bundled (multiple claims), unbundle and check the most load-bearing one first.
Step 2: Run the Signal Scan
Go through each signal category and check for presence:
SIGNAL SCAN RESULTS:
EVIDENCE SELECTION:
[ ] Cherry-picked evidence: [present/absent] — [evidence]
[ ] Asymmetric rigor: [present/absent] — [evidence]
[ ] Missing null case: [present/absent] — [evidence]
[ ] Survivorship framing: [present/absent] — [evidence]
[ ] Date-selected evidence: [present/absent] — [evidence]
ARGUMENTATIVE STRUCTURE:
[ ] Conclusion appears early: [present/absent] — [evidence]
[ ] No pivot point: [present/absent] — [evidence]
[ ] Motte-and-bailey: [present/absent] — [evidence]
[ ] Straw alternatives: [present/absent] — [evidence]
[ ] Forced linearity: [present/absent] — [evidence]
[ ] Rhetorical hedging as armor: [present/absent] — [evidence]
EMOTIONAL/SOCIAL:
[ ] Identity fusion: [present/absent] — [evidence]
[ ] Sunk cost defense: [present/absent] — [evidence]
[ ] Audience capture: [present/absent] — [evidence]
[ ] Disproportionate certainty: [present/absent] — [evidence]
[ ] Defensive reaction: [present/absent] — [evidence]
PROCESS:
[ ] Conclusion predates research: [present/absent] — [evidence]
[ ] Methodology fitted to outcome: [present/absent] — [evidence]
[ ] Missing methodology: [present/absent] — [evidence]
[ ] Post-hoc hypothesis: [present/absent] — [evidence]
[ ] Unfalsifiable framing: [present/absent] — [evidence]
Step 3: The Reversal Test
The most powerful single test for a pre-baked thesis.
Ask: If the evidence had pointed the other way, would the person have actually changed their conclusion?
Run this concretely:
REVERSAL TEST:
1. What evidence was used to support the thesis?
[list key evidence]
2. What would the OPPOSITE evidence look like?
[describe specifically]
3. If that opposite evidence existed, would the conclusion change?
- YES, clearly → Thesis may be genuine (passes reversal test)
- NO, they'd find other reasons → Pre-baked (fails reversal test)
- UNCLEAR → Note and continue
4. Has opposite evidence actually appeared and been dismissed?
- YES → Strong pre-bake signal
- NO → Inconclusive
Step 4: Generate Counter-Theses
If the thesis is genuine, there should be plausible alternatives that were considered and rejected on evidence. Generate them now:
COUNTER-THESES:
1. [Alternative conclusion that the same evidence could support]
- Was this considered? [yes/no/unclear]
- How was it addressed? [dismissed/engaged/ignored]
2. [Another alternative]
- Was this considered? [yes/no/unclear]
- How was it addressed? [dismissed/engaged/ignored]
3. [The null hypothesis — what if there's nothing here]
- Was this considered? [yes/no/unclear]
- How was it addressed? [dismissed/engaged/ignored]
COUNTER-THESIS TREATMENT:
- All dismissed without engagement → Strong pre-bake signal
- Some engaged seriously → Weaker signal
- Genuine engagement with best alternatives → Low signal
Step 5: The Timeline Test
Reconstruct when the conclusion was reached relative to when the evidence was gathered:
TIMELINE:
When was the conclusion first stated or committed to?
[date/stage or "unknown"]
When was the evidence gathered or analysis done?
[date/stage or "unknown"]
ORDER:
- Conclusion AFTER analysis → Normal reasoning
- Conclusion BEFORE analysis → Pre-baked
- Conclusion SIMULTANEOUS with analysis → Suspect (common in motivated reasoning)
- Cannot determine → Note; check for other signals
Step 6: Assess and Verdict
PRE-BAKE ASSESSMENT:
Signals present: [count] of [total checked]
Critical signals present: [list any]
Reversal test: [passed / failed / unclear]
Counter-thesis treatment: [engaged / dismissed / ignored]
Timeline: [normal / pre-baked / suspect / unknown]
VERDICT: [one of the following]
CLEAN — No significant pre-bake signals. The reasoning appears to have been
genuinely open-ended. The thesis may still be wrong, but it wasn't rigged.
SUSPECT — Multiple signals present but no critical ones. The thesis may have
been influenced by prior beliefs but the analysis contains genuine engagement
with alternatives. Recommend: stress-test the weakest links.
PRE-BAKED — Critical signals present and/or reversal test failed. The
conclusion was likely chosen before the analysis. The evidence was selected
to fit. Recommend: restart the analysis with genuine openness to alternatives,
or acknowledge the thesis is a position rather than a finding.
RIGGED — Process tells confirm the conclusion predated the research AND the
methodology was fitted to produce the desired outcome. This is not analysis —
it is advocacy wearing the costume of analysis. Recommend: discard and redo,
or reframe honestly as advocacy.
Step 7: What To Do About It
Based on the verdict:
If CLEAN: No action needed on the reasoning process. If you want to strengthen the thesis further: → INVOKE: /araw $ARGUMENTS
If SUSPECT: Identify the 2-3 weakest points and stress-test them:
- What evidence would you need to see to abandon this thesis?
- Have you looked for that evidence as hard as you looked for supporting evidence?
- → INVOKE: /aex $ARGUMENTS to surface hidden assumptions
If PRE-BAKED: The thesis needs to be re-examined from scratch:
- Separate what you KNOW from what you WANT to be true
- → INVOKE: /sdc $ARGUMENTS for self-deception check
- → INVOKE: /se $ARGUMENTS to enumerate genuine alternatives
- Re-run the original analysis with a commitment to follow the evidence
If RIGGED: The analysis should be treated as advocacy, not research:
- If it's your own work: acknowledge the conclusion was chosen, not discovered. This doesn't make it wrong — but it means the "analysis" doesn't provide independent evidence for it
- If it's someone else's work: treat it as a persuasion document, not an analytical one. Evaluate the thesis on its merits, ignoring the rigged evidence
- → INVOKE: /claim $ARGUMENTS to test the thesis properly
Quick Check (Abbreviated)
For fast screening:
QUICK PRE-BAKE CHECK: [thesis]
Three questions:
1. Could any evidence have changed this conclusion? [yes/no]
2. Were the best counter-arguments engaged or dismissed? [engaged/dismissed]
3. Did the conclusion exist before the analysis? [before/after/unknown]
Score: [0-3 "no/dismissed/before" answers]
- 0: Likely clean
- 1: Worth a closer look
- 2-3: Likely pre-baked — run full check
Common Pre-Bake Patterns
The Consultant's Pre-Bake
Client hints at desired conclusion → consultant "discovers" it through "analysis" → client gets validation they paid for. Tell: Recommendation matches the brief too perfectly.
The Confirmation Research
Person googles to confirm what they already believe → finds supporting evidence (the internet has evidence for everything) → feels validated. Tell: Only one search direction was tried.
The Strategic Plan Pre-Bake
Leadership decides direction → commissions analysis → analysis confirms direction → presented as "data-driven." Tell: No scenario in the analysis leads to a different recommendation.
The Expert's Pre-Bake
Expert has a framework → new situation arises → framework is applied → conclusion matches framework. Not always wrong, but the expert rarely concludes "my framework doesn't apply here." Tell: The framework has never produced a surprising conclusion.
The Sunk Cost Pre-Bake
Significant investment already made → analysis of whether to continue → analysis says continue. Tell: The option to cut losses was never seriously modeled.
Quality Checklist
Before completing:
Integration
- Use from: /claim (check if a "supported" claim was pre-baked), /evaluate (check if an assessment was conclusion-first), /decide (check if the "analysis" already had a winner)
- Routes to: /araw (test a clean thesis), /sdc (deeper self-deception check), /aex (surface hidden assumptions), /se (enumerate alternatives), /claim (test thesis properly if rigged)
- Differs from: /sdc (sdc checks for self-deception broadly; pbtc specifically checks if a conclusion predated its evidence), /ht (ht tests hypotheses; pbtc checks whether the hypothesis-testing was genuine), /aex (aex surfaces assumptions; pbtc checks if the conclusion was assumed from the start)
- Complementary: /ecal (epistemic calibration — was confidence warranted?), /sid (situation identification — are you seeing what's actually there?)
