ascfa-assume-solution-can-be-found-a-priori

name	ascfa - Assume Solution Can Be Found A Priori
description	Force the assumption that the solution can be derived from first principles — no experiments, no search, just reasoning. What does that require? When is this warranted?
output	{"format":"prose"}

Assume Solution Can Be Found A Priori

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Core Move

Assume: the answer can be derived purely from reasoning, without empirical investigation. The solution follows from what we already know if we think correctly.

This is the strongest findability claim. Useful when you suspect the answer is "already there" if you reason properly.

---

Procedure

Step 1: State the Problem

Precisely state the problem from the input.

Step 2: Force the Assumption

"The solution can be derived from first principles and existing knowledge. No new data is needed."

Step 3: Trace Implications

If solvable a priori:

1. What principles apply? — What axioms, laws, definitions, or known truths bear on this?
2. What's the derivation path? — Sketch the logical chain from known to solution.
3. What knowledge is required? — What must the reasoner already know?
4. Where does the derivation get stuck? — What step is hardest? What's the crux inference?
5. Has someone already derived it? — If it's a priori solvable, has a philosopher, mathematician, or theorist already done it?
6. What's the elegant form? — A priori solutions often have a clean, compact form. What would that look like?

Step 4: Test the Assumption

• Is this genuinely an a priori question, or does it require empirical input?
• Are there hidden empirical premises disguised as "obvious"?
• Could the a priori answer be wrong because reality doesn't match the model?
• Is this a case where intuition feels a priori but isn't (e.g., physics questions that seem logical but need experiment)?

Step 5: Synthesize

PROBLEM: [stated]
ASSUMING A PRIORI SOLVABLE:
  Principles: [what we reason from]
  Derivation sketch: [logical chain]
  Crux step: [hardest inference]
  Elegant form: [what the answer looks like]
A PRIORI CONFIDENCE: [high/medium/low]
  If low: what empirical input is actually needed?
NEXT MOVE: [complete the derivation / identify missing empirical input]

---

When to Use

• Suspect the answer follows from logic alone
• Want to identify what can be known without experimentation
• Need to separate the derivable from the empirical

Integration

• Compare with /ascf (findable by search) to see which approach fits
• Follow with /ht if empirical testing turns out to be needed