hyperresearch-7-source-tensions

name

hyperresearch-7-source-tensions

description

Step 7 of the hyperresearch V8 pipeline. Extracts explicit expert disagreements from the corpus into research/temp/source-tensions.json, including orphan tensions that didn't surface as loci. Reads full source bodies of top 8-12 sources (not summaries) to find tensions that hide in nuance. The Source Tensions section in step 10's draft is the single highest-leverage move for insight scores. Invoked via Skill tool from the entry skill (full tier only).

Step 7 — Source tension extraction

Tier gate: SKIP for light tier. Only full tier runs this step.

Goal: extract explicit expert disagreements from the corpus and comparisons into a structured artifact that step 10 MUST include as a dedicated section. This is the single highest-leverage move for the insight dimension.

Why this step exists: step 6's comparisons.md captures cross-locus tensions — places where depth investigators disagree. But the richest disagreements often live in the width corpus itself: Source A says X, Source B says Y, and neither the loci analysts nor the depth investigators elevated this as a locus because it cut across multiple topics. These "orphan tensions" are invisible to locus-driven analysis but are exactly what distinguishes an expert synthesis from a competent survey.

---

Recover state

Read these inputs:

• research/scaffold.md — vault_tag
• research/comparisons.md — cross-locus tensions
• research/temp/contradiction-graph.json (if step 3 ran)
• Survey vault: $HPR search "" --tag <vault_tag> -j for the 15–20 highest-quality non-deprecated sources

---

Procedure

1. Re-read comparisons.md. Each tension there is already a candidate source tension. Extract: the two positions, the strongest evidence for each, your preliminary reading of which side has the better case.

2. Scan the width corpus for orphan tensions. For the 15–20 highest-quality non-deprecated sources, then read the full body of the top 8–12 sources most likely to contain disagreements — use $HPR note show <id1> <id2> ... -j in batches. Tensions hide in nuance that summaries flatten: a source's "however" clause, a footnote caveat, a methodological critique buried in a discussion section. You cannot extract tensions you haven't read. Look for:

   • Sources that explicitly disagree with each other (different conclusions from similar evidence)
   • Sources that use competing theoretical frameworks to explain the same phenomenon
   • Sources where one side cites data the other side ignores
   • Government/institutional positions that conflict with academic findings
   • Industry claims that contradict independent research
   • Historical consensus that recent evidence challenges

3. If research/temp/contradiction-graph.json exists, read it. Any high-relevance fight cluster that was NOT promoted to a locus is a prime orphan-tension candidate. It was important enough for the contradiction graph but wasn't investigated in depth — these deserve standalone treatment in the draft.

4. Select 3–7 source tensions. Combine comparisons.md tensions with orphan tensions. Rank by:

   • Decision relevance: does resolving this tension change the report's recommendation?
   • Evidence quality: are both sides grounded in real evidence (not just opinion)?
   • Reader value: would an expert reader find this tension illuminating?

   Drop tensions that are: trivially resolved (one side is clearly wrong), definitional (the disagreement is about word meaning, not substance), or orthogonal to the research query.

5. For each tension, pre-commit to a resolution. Do NOT leave tensions open. For each:

   • Name it in 5–10 words (e.g., "NHTSA's 'no defect' vs. NTSB's 'design failure'")
   • State Side A's strongest case with evidence (quote or cite specific sources)
   • State Side B's strongest case with evidence
   • Commit to a reading: which side has the better evidence, or is there a synthesis? Name the load-bearing reason.

6. Write research/temp/source-tensions.json:

   {
     "tensions": [
       {
         "name": "short descriptive name",
         "side_a": {
           "position": "one-sentence claim",
           "evidence": "strongest evidence with source note ids",
           "proponents": ["source-note-id-1", "source-note-id-2"]
         },
         "side_b": {
           "position": "one-sentence claim",
           "evidence": "strongest evidence with source note ids",
           "proponents": ["source-note-id-3"]
         },
         "resolution": "one-paragraph committed reading with load-bearing reason",
         "origin": "comparisons|contradiction-graph|orphan-scan",
         "decision_relevance": "high|medium"
       }
     ]
   }
   

This artifact feeds directly into step 10's mandatory Source Tensions section. Every tension named here becomes a subsection in the final report.

---

Exit criterion

• research/temp/source-tensions.json exists with 3–7 tensions
• Each tension has both sides with proponents, a committed resolution, and decision_relevance

---

Next step

Return to the entry skill (hyperresearch). Invoke step 8:

Skill(skill: "hyperresearch-8-corpus-critic")