evidence-tournament

name	evidence-tournament
description	Tactic: Evidence gathering, cross-examination, and quality judgment. External evidence is collected, presented, challenged, and scored for relevance and reliability.
type	tactic
strategies	["courtroom-structured","critic-defender-judge"]
dependencies	{"sops":["cross-examination","debate-critic","debate-defender","debate-judge","evidence-scout"]}

Evidence Tournament Tactic

Structured evidence competition — gather, present, cross-examine, and judge evidence quality.

Orchestration

1. evidence-scout searches for evidence supporting the artifact's claims
2. evidence-scout searches for evidence opposing the artifact's claims
3. debate-critic presents opposing evidence as structured arguments
4. debate-defender presents supporting evidence as counter-arguments
5. cross-examination probes both evidence sets:
   • Source reliability assessment
   • Relevance to specific claims
   • Recency and applicability
   • Potential confounds or alternative interpretations
6. debate-judge scores each piece of evidence and produces tournament bracket result

Evidence Quality Criteria

• Relevance: Direct bearing on the claim (0.0–1.0)
• Reliability: Source credibility and methodology (0.0–1.0)
• Recency: Temporal applicability (0.0–1.0)
• Specificity: How precisely it addresses the claim (0.0–1.0)

Subagents Dispatched

• evidence-scout × 2 (pro and con evidence gathering)
• debate-critic (opposing evidence presentation)
• debate-defender (supporting evidence presentation)
• cross-examination (evidence probing)
• debate-judge (evidence scoring and verdict)

Termination Conditions

• All claims have been evidenced and cross-examined
• Evidence search budget exhausted (2/5/10 searches)
• No further relevant evidence discoverable
• Judge has scored all evidence pairs

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-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.