think-causal-layered-analysis

name	think-causal-layered-analysis
description	Produces a four-layer matrix (litany, system, worldview, myth) of the current 'used future' beside a reconstructed preferred future per layer, anchored by a deliberately changed deep metaphor. Use when an issue is stuck because the framing is stuck, the official account and the system explanation have been argued to exhaustion, and the real disagreement is about clashing worldviews and the unexamined story underneath. Not a single-cause diagnosis (that is think-iceberg-model) and not a forecast.
license	Apache-2.0
metadata	{"id":"thinking-framework-skills.causal-layered-analysis","family":"systems-and-consequences","evidence-tier":"C","version":"0.1.0","standard":"0.8"}

Causal Layered Analysis

Most contested issues are argued at the surface and the system level - the headline numbers and the policy fixes - long after that argument has stopped being productive, because the real disagreement lives in clashing worldviews and an unexamined story underneath. Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) reads an issue at four vertical depths and then rebuilds it. It descends through the litany (the official, visible, unquestioned account), the system (the structural and short-term causes the litany rests on), the worldview (the deeper ideological and paradigmatic assumptions, and whose worldview is privileged), and the myth/metaphor (the unconscious, emotive, civilizational story underneath, carried in a guiding metaphor). The durable move is not the descent alone. It is to treat the issue as a text with competing readings rather than one true cause, and then to move back up and reconstruct - rewrite the deep metaphor into a new one and propagate a transformed worldview, system, and litany that follow from it. The output is a four-layer matrix that holds the current "used future" reading of each layer beside a reconstructed preferred-future reading of each layer, anchored by a deliberately changed deep metaphor. Its purpose, in the originator's words, "is not in predicting the future but in creating transformative spaces for the creation of alternative futures."

When to Use

• An issue is stuck because the framing is stuck: the litany and the system explanation have been argued to exhaustion and the disagreement is really about clashing worldviews and the unexamined story underneath.
• The goal is to open up genuinely different futures, not to optimize the current one.
• The question is contested, value-laden, long-horizon, civilizational, or cultural - the kind of issue where a deep metaphor ("growth is health," "the market knows best," "users are a passive funnel") is doing more work than any number in the litany.
• You suspect the official account is privileging one worldview and hiding others, and you want to surface whose framing this is and what it conceals.

When NOT to Use

• The problem is simple, technical, or single-cause. One event, one obvious cause, a known fix. Forcing a myth/metaphor layer onto a logistics bug manufactures false profundity; a method whose deepest layer is civilizational narrative is the wrong tool for "the deploy is failing." Say it is a simple cause and stop.
• You need a single-cause diagnosis and a leverage point. That is think-iceberg-model: it descends four levels (event, pattern, structure, mental models) to find the structures and the mental models that cause a recurring problem, and pairs each level with an intervention. CLA refuses a single causal account on purpose and rebuilds upward into alternative futures instead. If you want one diagnosis and one fix, use the iceberg.
• You need a forecast, a ranking, or a decision. CLA is explicitly not predictive and not an option-evaluation method, and it can induce analysis paralysis - too much problematizing, not enough deciding. Reach for it to reframe, then leave it for the decision tool.
• You want to model alternative external futures you do not control. That is think-scenario-planning: 2x2 worlds built from critical uncertainties. CLA deconstructs the narrative and myth layer of one issue; it does not build a set of external worlds.
• You want one fresh standpoint for the whole problem. That is think-frame-creation: it abduces a single new frame. CLA rewrites four stacked layers at once and changes a civilizational myth, which a single reframe does not do.
• You want to interrogate where the problem's boundary is drawn and who is left out. That is think-boundary-critique. CLA can surface whose worldview is privileged, but its apparatus is the four-layer descent-and-rebuild, not a boundary judgment.
• The reconstruction is skipped. Run only as a downward descent, CLA collapses into a four-box depth diagram and loses the one thing that distinguishes it - the up-the-layers rewrite into an alternative future. A descent with no reconstructed myth is just a heavier iceberg; do not ship it as CLA.
• The deconstruction is presented as objective truth. The worldview and myth readings are interpretive and contestable by design. Presenting "the real myth" as a discovered fact, rather than one reading among several, betrays the method and invites confident nonsense.

Instructions

When asked to reframe a stuck, contested, value-laden issue by reading and rebuilding the story underneath it, follow these steps:

1. State the issue and confirm fit. Name the issue in one line. Confirm it is contested, value-laden, and long-horizon, and that the framing is what is stuck - not a simple technical problem. If it is single-cause or you need a decision or forecast, stop and route to the right tool (see When NOT to Use).
2. Read the litany (current). Write the official, most-visible account: the headline numbers, the accepted problem statement, the "everyone knows" framing that goes unquestioned.
3. Read the system (current). Write the structural and short-term causes the litany rests on - the policies, economics, institutions, incentives, and processes. This is the level most analysis already operates at.
4. Read the worldview (current). Surface the deeper, often unconscious ideological and paradigmatic assumptions that make the system feel natural. Ask whose worldview is being privileged and what competing worldviews are being crowded out. Hold more than one reading; do not converge on a single "true" worldview.
5. Read the myth/metaphor (current). Name the unconscious, emotive, civilizational story and the guiding metaphor underneath it all - a metaphor, not a proposition. This is the "used future": the deep story silently steering the whole stack. Mark it explicitly as one reading among several, not a discovered fact.
6. Change the deep metaphor. Deliberately rewrite the myth/metaphor into a new guiding metaphor for a preferred future. This single move is the anchor of the whole reconstruction; everything above it is rebuilt to follow from it.
7. Reconstruct upward. From the new metaphor, propagate a transformed worldview, then a reconstructed system (the structures that a changed worldview would build), then a reconstructed litany (how the issue would be talked about on the surface in that preferred future). Each reconstructed layer must follow from the new metaphor, not from the old stack.
8. Emit the four-layer matrix artifact per references/TEMPLATE.md: the four layers down the side, the current "used future" column beside the reconstructed preferred-future column, with the deliberately changed metaphor named as the anchor. Frame every deep reading as interpretive and contestable, never as objective truth, and stop at the reframe - do not pretend it is a decision.

Output Format

Use the template in references/TEMPLATE.md. The deliverable is the filled four-layer matrix - litany, system, worldview, myth/metaphor down the side; the current "used future" reading beside the reconstructed preferred-future reading across; and the deliberately changed deep metaphor named as the anchor - not a prose essay. State the deep readings as contestable interpretations, and never present "the real myth" as a discovered fact.

Quality Checklist

Before finalizing, verify:

• The issue is genuinely contested, value-laden, and long-horizon, and the framing is what is stuck - not a simple, technical, single-cause problem.
• All four layers are read for the current "used future": litany, system, worldview, and myth/metaphor, each distinct from the one above it (the myth is a metaphor, not a restated system claim).
• The worldview layer asks whose worldview is privileged and surfaces competing readings, rather than converging on one authoritative cause.
• The deep metaphor is deliberately changed, and the reconstruction is actually performed - a transformed worldview, a reconstructed system, and a reconstructed litany all follow from the new metaphor. (A descent with no reconstructed myth is not CLA.)
• The deep readings are framed as interpretive and contestable, not presented as "the real myth" discovered as fact.
• The output stops at the reframe; it does not masquerade as a forecast, a ranking, or a decision, and it does not over-complicate by inventing profundity where none exists.
• The output is the four-layer matrix artifact, not prose.
• No overclaiming: the evidence is conceptually-plausible-but-untested and transferred; claim a reframing aid that forces the descent past litany/system into worldview and myth and forces the reconstruction step a forward-only model skips, not a measured improvement in outcomes (see evidence/dossier.md).

Evidence

Tier C (governing; conceptually plausible but under-tested). CLA is a real, named, well-lineaged futures-studies method with a 25-year literature (Inayatullah 1998) and a substantial body of applied case studies across foresight, policy, health, and community settings (the CLA Reader, 2004; Bishop, Dzidic and Breen 2013), taught and used by serious institutions. As a structured way to surface and rewrite the worldview and myth beneath an issue, it is coherent and, in practitioner judgment, useful. What the record does not support: there is no controlled or comparative study measuring CLA against any other method on any outcome - not decision quality, not the novelty or usefulness of the futures it generates, not policy results. The published evaluations are illustrative, not experimental; Bishop, Dzidic and Breen explicitly "make no claims about empirical testing." Grading CLA above C by borrowing the robustness of adjacent systems-thinking tools would be exactly the transferred-evidence laundering this library exists to prevent, and CLA's distinguishing layers (the poststructuralist deconstruction and the myth reconstruction) are the least empirically examined parts of the foresight toolkit. Transfer caveat: every source is human futures-and-policy practice - workshops, case write-ups, theory; there is no study of CLA performed by or with an AI agent, and none of whether an agent-produced layered analysis improves a human's reframing. The evidence is transferred from human practice and not validated for AI-augmented use; the honest agent value is a process benefit - it forces the descent past the litany and system level into worldview and myth, and forces the reconstruction step a forward-only model skips - which does not depend on any unproven outcome claim. Full grading, sources, and caveats: evidence/dossier.md.

Examples

See references/EXAMPLE.md for a completed four-layer matrix on a real, contested decision.