but-contrast-and-objection-handler

name	but - Contrast and Objection Handler
description	Handle 'but' statements by separating the main claim from the objection, classifying the tension type, and routing to the right resolution skill.
output	{"format":"prose"}

BUT - Contrast and Objection Handler

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Core Principles

1. "But" is a signal, not a problem. When someone says "X, but Y," they're surfacing a tension they've noticed. The tension is valuable information. Don't resolve it prematurely — classify it first.

2. Six types of "but." Not all "buts" are the same: exception, contradiction, risk, tradeoff, scope limit, and emotional resistance. Each needs different handling. Routing a tradeoff to truth-testing wastes time. Routing an emotion to logic makes it worse.

3. Sometimes the "but" IS the point. In "This plan is great, but it requires $2M we don't have," the main claim is setup. The "but" is what matters. Don't assume the first clause is always primary.

4. Both sides can be true. "We need to move fast, but we also need quality" is not a contradiction — it's a tension. Tensions need navigation, not resolution. Not everything resolves into one side winning.

5. The hidden "but." Sometimes the user's real objection isn't stated. "I think we should do X" (unstated: "but I'm worried about Y"). If the stated objection feels too mild for the user's energy, look for the hidden one.

---

Phase 1: Extraction

[B1] RAW_STATEMENT: [the full "but" statement, quoted]
[B2] CLAIM_A: [the part before "but" — stated neutrally]
[B3] CLAIM_B: [the part after "but" — stated neutrally]
[B4] PRIMARY_WEIGHT: [A is primary | B is primary | equal weight]

Primary Weight Test

Which clause carries more weight?

• If removing A leaves the statement intact → B is primary, A is setup
• If removing B leaves the statement intact → A is primary, B is qualifier
• If removing either changes meaning → equal weight (genuine tension)

---

Phase 2: Tension Classification

[B5] TENSION_TYPE: [exception | contradiction | risk | tradeoff | scope_limit | emotional_resistance]
[B6] CLASSIFICATION_EVIDENCE: [what makes it this type]

Type	Pattern	Example	Resolution Approach
Exception	A is generally true, B is a case where it's not	"This works, but not for edge case X"	Scope A; handle exception
Contradiction	A and B can't both be true	"Revenue is up, but we're losing money"	Test which is accurate
Risk	A is the plan, B is what could go wrong	"Let's launch, but what if it crashes?"	Risk assessment
Tradeoff	A and B are both desirable but compete	"I want speed, but also quality"	Tradeoff navigation
Scope limit	A is true but only within bounds	"This applies, but only in our market"	Define scope explicitly
Emotional resistance	A is logical, B is a feeling	"I know I should, but I don't want to"	Acknowledge emotion; examine source

---

Phase 3: Hidden Objection Check

[B7] HIDDEN_OBJECTION_CHECK:
  ENERGY_MATCH: [does the stated objection match the user's energy? yes/no]
  POSSIBLE_HIDDEN: [what might the real objection be?]
  EVIDENCE: [why suspect a hidden objection]

If ENERGY_MATCH is no:

[B8] LIKELY_HIDDEN_OBJECTION: [what the user might actually be worried about]
[B9] SURFACE_QUESTION: [question to surface the real objection]

---

Phase 4: Resolution Routing

Based on tension type, route to the appropriate skill:

Tension Type	Route	Why
Exception	→ /exc or direct handling	Scope the claim; handle the exception
Contradiction	→ /claim $B1	Test which claim is accurate
Risk	→ /fla or /prm	Assess risk; plan mitigation
Tradeoff	→ /decide or /vcd	Navigate the tradeoff with criteria
Scope limit	→ /dd or direct scoping	Define the boundary explicitly
Emotional resistance	→ /emotion $B1	Acknowledge and examine the feeling
Hidden objection	→ Surface first, then re-classify	Can't route until real objection is known

[B10] RECOMMENDED_ROUTE: /skill-id — [why this skill resolves this tension type]
[B11] INVOCATION: /skill-id [specific arguments]
[B12] ALTERNATIVE: /skill-id — [if first choice doesn't resolve]

---

Phase 5: Output

"BUT" ANALYSIS
==============

ORIGINAL: [quoted statement]

CLAIM A: [before "but"]
CLAIM B: [after "but"]
PRIMARY: [A | B | equal]

TENSION TYPE: [type]
EVIDENCE: [why this type]

HIDDEN OBJECTION: [none detected | possible hidden objection described]

RESOLUTION:
  APPROACH: [what to do with this tension]
  → INVOKE: /skill-id [specific invocation]
  WHY: [why this resolves the tension]

  IF BOTH TRUE (tension, not contradiction):
  NAVIGATE: [how to hold both without forcing resolution]

---

Failure Modes

Failure	Signal	Fix
Type misclassification	Tradeoff treated as contradiction	Check: can both be true simultaneously? If yes, not a contradiction
A always treated as primary	"But" clause dismissed as qualifier	Apply primary weight test — sometimes B is the point
Premature resolution	Tension resolved before classification	Classify first, resolve second
Logic for emotion	Emotional resistance addressed with reasoning	If tension type is emotional, route to /emotion, not /claim
Hidden objection missed	User's energy doesn't match stated objection	Apply energy match check
False contradiction	Both-true tension treated as one-must-be-wrong	Check for tradeoff or scope limit before assuming contradiction

---

Depth Scaling

Depth	Classification Rigor	Hidden Objection Check	Resolution Alternatives
1x	Type only	No	1 route
2x	Type + evidence	Energy match check	2 routes
4x	Type + evidence + test	Full hidden check + surfacing question	3 routes with conditions
8x	Type + evidence + test + reframe	Full check + both-true navigation	All applicable routes

Default: 2x. These are floors.

---

Pre-Completion Checklist

• Both claims extracted and stated neutrally
• Primary weight assessed (not assumed A is primary)
• Tension type classified with evidence
• Hidden objection check performed (energy match)
• Routing matches tension type (not one-size-fits-all)
• If both-true: navigation approach provided (not forced resolution)
• Invocation includes specific arguments

---

Integration

• Use from: natural language parsing of user statements
• Routes to: /claim, /decide, /fla, /emotion, /vcd, /dd depending on tension type
• Complementary: /it (processes "I think" part), /nsa (processes uncertainty)
• Differs from /claim: claim tests truth; but classifies tension type first
• Differs from /decide: decide handles decisions; but handles the broader category of tensions