cnfsd-confused

name	cnfsd - Confused
description	For mental fog where things don't make sense. Separates what you understand from what you don't, identifies the gap type, and provides the right tool to close it.
output	{"format":"prose"}

CNFSD - Confused

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Core Principles

1. Confusion is useful. It means you're at the boundary of your knowledge. That boundary is exactly where learning happens. Confusion isn't a problem to eliminate — it's a signal to follow.

2. Confusion has a shape. "I'm confused" is too vague to solve. "I'm confused about WHY X leads to Y" is solvable. The first job is naming the shape.

3. You understand more than you think. Confusion feels total but rarely is. There's always a part you DO get. Finding that part gives you a foundation to build from.

4. Different gaps need different tools. A missing fact needs a lookup. A missing concept needs an analogy. A missing connection needs a diagram. Using the wrong tool for the gap type wastes time and deepens frustration.

---

Phase 1: Name the Confusion

What word completes this sentence: "I'm confused about ___"

[C1] RAW_CONFUSION: [user's input, as stated]
[C2] CONFUSION_TYPE: Which of these fits?

Type	Pattern	Example
HOW	I don't understand the mechanism	"How does this process actually work?"
WHY	I don't understand the reason	"Why would they design it this way?"
WHAT	I don't understand the thing itself	"What even IS a derivative?"
WHICH	I can't tell options apart	"Which of these frameworks should I use?"
WHEN	I don't understand the timing/sequence	"When does this step happen relative to that one?"
WHO	I don't understand the actors/responsibilities	"Who is supposed to handle this?"

[C3] TYPED_CONFUSION: "I'm confused about [HOW/WHY/WHAT/WHICH/WHEN/WHO] [specific statement]"

---

Phase 2: Map What You Know vs. Don't Know

[C4] I UNDERSTAND:
  1. [thing you're clear on]
  2. [thing you're clear on]
  3. [thing you're clear on]

[C5] I DON'T UNDERSTAND:
  1. [specific gap]
  2. [specific gap]

[C6] THE BOUNDARY: [where understanding stops and confusion begins]

The boundary is the most important finding. It's the exact point where things stop making sense.

---

Phase 3: Identify the Gap Type

[C7] GAP_TYPE: [facts | concepts | connections]

Gap Type	Signal	You're Missing...	Fix
Facts	"I don't have the information"	Data, definitions, specifics	Look it up. The answer exists somewhere.
Concepts	"I have the info but don't get it"	A mental model for how it works	Find an analogy. Map the unfamiliar to the familiar.
Connections	"I get the pieces but not how they fit"	The relationship between things you understand	Draw it out. Visualize the connections.

---

Phase 4: Close the Gap

For Facts Gaps

[C8-F] MISSING_FACTS:
  1. [what specific fact/data is needed]
  2. [what specific fact/data is needed]

[C9-F] WHERE_TO_FIND: [source — documentation, person, research]
[C10-F] QUICK_CHECK: Can this be answered in under 5 minutes?
  - If yes: go look it up now.
  - If no: note it and work around the gap temporarily.

For Concept Gaps

[C8-C] UNFAMILIAR_CONCEPT: [the thing you don't get]
[C9-C] FAMILIAR_ANALOG: [what's the closest thing you DO understand that's similar?]
[C10-C] ANALOGY: "[Unfamiliar concept] is like [familiar thing] because [shared structure], except [key difference]."
[C11-C] TEST: Does this analogy hold? Where does it break down?

For Connection Gaps

[C8-X] PIECES: [list the things you understand individually]
[C9-X] MISSING_LINK: [what relationship between them is unclear]
[C10-X] DRAW_IT:
  [A] --[relationship?]--> [B] --[relationship?]--> [C]

[C11-X] SEQUENCE_CHECK: Is the confusion about:
  - Cause and effect? (A causes B? Or B causes A?)
  - Sequence? (Does A happen before or after B?)
  - Hierarchy? (Is A part of B, or is B part of A?)
  - Dependency? (Does A require B?)

---

Phase 5: Output

CONFUSED
========

RAW: [what the user said]
TYPED: "I'm confused about [HOW/WHY/WHAT/WHICH/WHEN/WHO] [specific]"

I UNDERSTAND:
  - [known thing 1]
  - [known thing 2]

I DON'T UNDERSTAND:
  - [gap 1]
  - [gap 2]

THE BOUNDARY: [where understanding stops]

GAP TYPE: [facts | concepts | connections]

TO CLOSE THE GAP:
  [Specific action based on gap type]

AFTER CLOSING:
  Re-state the thing that confused you. If it now makes sense, you're done.
  If new confusion emerged, you moved the boundary — that's progress. Run /cnfsd again on the new confusion.

READY FOR:
- /lr [topic] — if the facts gap requires research
- /fohw [system] — if the connection gap is about how a system works
- /aex [assumption] — if the confusion might stem from a wrong assumption

---

Failure Modes

Failure	Signal	Fix
Staying vague	"I'm just confused" without typing the confusion	Push for the HOW/WHY/WHAT/WHICH — name it precisely
Wrong gap type	Treating a concept gap as a facts gap (looking up info that doesn't help)	If looking it up didn't help, it's not a facts gap — try analogy
Skipping the known	Jumping to what's confusing without mapping what's clear	Always map understanding first — it's the foundation
Shame spiral	"I should understand this" blocking the process	Confusion is evidence of engagement, not failure
Premature resolution	Accepting "I sort of get it" when you don't	Test understanding: can you explain it to someone else? If not, the gap is still open

---

Depth Scaling

Depth	Phases	Gap Resolution	Follow-up
1x	Name + gap type	Single action	None
2x	Full mapping + gap type	Action + test	Verification
4x	Deep mapping + multiple gaps	Multiple actions	Re-map after each
8x	Full + root cause of confusion	Complete resolution path	Pattern analysis of recurring confusion

Default: 2x. These are floors.

---

Pre-Completion Checklist

• Confusion typed precisely (HOW/WHY/WHAT/WHICH/WHEN/WHO)
• Known territory mapped (what IS understood)
• Unknown territory mapped (what ISN'T understood)
• Boundary identified
• Gap type classified (facts/concepts/connections)
• Specific action for closing the gap provided
• No shame or judgment in the output

---

Integration

• Use from: "I'm confused", "this doesn't make sense", "I don't get it", mental fog
• Routes to: /lr (research for fact gaps), /fohw (system understanding), /aex (assumption checking)
• Differs from /idk: idk has no information at all; cnfsd has information that doesn't cohere
• Differs from /unsure: unsure understands but doesn't trust; cnfsd doesn't understand
• Differs from /lost: lost had understanding and lost direction; cnfsd can't form understanding