adversarial-stress-testing

name	adversarial-stress-testing
description	Campaign: Logical extreme and boundary testing via reductio ad absurdum and edge-case analysis. Core question: Does this artifact collapse under logical limits and boundary conditions? Methods: Lakatos 1976, Dutilh Novaes 2016, BVA, Flyvbjerg Critical Case, Popper.
type	campaign
produces	AdversarialStressReport
artifact-types	["gap","hypothesis","research-question","idea","approach","experiment-design","claim"]
dependencies	{"strategies":["assumption-negation","boundary-enumeration","critical-case-design","lakatos-heuristics","stress-test-validity-envelope-mapping"],"tactics":["boundary-probing","contradiction-derivation","counterexample-heuristics"],"sops":["context-checkpoint","context-init","mitigation-proposal","stress-test-saturation-detection","verdict-synthesis","weakness-classification"]}

Adversarial Stress Testing

Core Question: Does this artifact collapse under logical limits and boundary conditions?

Methodology Sources

• Lakatos (1976) — Proofs and Refutations: counterexample-driven refinement
• Dutilh Novaes (2016) — Adversarial argumentation as dialogical practice
• Clarke BVA — Boundary Value Analysis for systematic edge testing
• Flyvbjerg (2006) — Critical case methodology: most-likely/least-likely selection
• Popper (1959) — Falsificationism: seek conditions where claims break

Strategy Routing

Artifact Type	Primary Strategy	Rationale
claim, hypothesis	assumption-negation	Direct logical attack
gap, research-question	lakatos-heuristics	Counterexample refinement
idea, approach	boundary-enumeration	Parameter space testing
experiment-design	critical-case-design	Decisive test selection
any (synthesis)	validity-envelope-mapping	Comprehensive envelope

Budget Table

Resource	S	M	L
Negation derivation chains	3	6	10
Counterexamples/boundary cases	5	12	25
Parameter dimensions	3	6	10
Validity envelope dimensions	2	4	6

Tactics

• contradiction-derivation — Negate, derive, detect contradiction
• boundary-probing — Map parameter space, test extremes, find breakpoints
• counterexample-heuristics — Generate monsters, bar or incorporate

Context Management

• Persist derivation chains and counterexamples across rounds
• Track which negations produced genuine contradictions vs. benign outcomes
• Accumulate validity envelope boundaries incrementally

Output

Produces AdversarialStressReport containing: identified breakpoints, validity envelope, surviving refined claims, and confidence assessment.

Available Strategies

Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.

Strategy	When to use
assumption-negation	Classic reductio ad absurdum: negate the core claim, derive logical consequences, seek contradiction or absurdity.
boundary-enumeration	Systematic Boundary Value Analysis: identify parameter boundaries, test at and beyond limits, detect breakpoints.
critical-case-design	Flyvbjerg critical case methodology: select most-likely and least-likely cases to maximize inferential power.
lakatos-heuristics	Proofs and Refutations method: generate counterexamples, attempt monster-barring, incorporate surviving counterexamples as lemma refinements.
stress-test-validity-envelope-mapping	Map the complete validity envelope of a claim across all relevant dimensions, synthesizing breakpoints into a bounded region.

Available Tactics

Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.

Tactic	When to use
boundary-probing	Map parameter space, generate extreme values, test at boundaries, detect breakpoints, synthesize validity envelope.
contradiction-derivation	Negate a claim, derive logical consequences step by step, detect whether a genuine contradiction or absurdity emerges.
counterexample-heuristics	Generate counterexamples (monsters), attempt monster-barring, incorporate surviving counterexamples as lemma refinements (Lakatos method).

Available SOPs

Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.

SOP	When to use
context-checkpoint	Append research process and results to the current Phase's context file. Covers both process and results with genuine substance. Use this skill at plan-designated checkpoint points — typically after each strategy completes or at key decision nodes within a research Phase.
context-init	Create a new context file for a research Phase. Called once at Phase start to initialize the file that subsequent context-checkpoint calls will append to. Use this skill whenever a new research Phase begins and a fresh context file is needed.
mitigation-proposal	Proposes concrete mitigation strategies for identified weaknesses. Generates prevention, detection, and response measures with feasibility assessment.
stress-test-saturation-detection	Determines whether validation has reached saturation — no new weaknesses or failure modes being discovered. Used by all 5 campaigns as termination signal.
verdict-synthesis	Synthesizes findings from a completed campaign into typed verdict reports. Produces DebateVerdict, RedTeamReport, FailureAnticipationReport, CounterfactualMap, or AdversarialStressReport depending on campaign. Also supports cross-campaign StressTestSummary.
weakness-classification	Classifies discovered weaknesses into severity tiers (fatal/major/minor/cosmetic) with structured justification and exploitability assessment.