mocl-modal-claim-analysis

name	mocl - Modal Claim Analysis
description	Evaluate "could/would/might" claims. Identify the type of possibility, check constraints, and assess distance from actuality.
output	{"format":"prose"}

Modal Claim Analysis

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Step 1: State the Modal Claim

Extract and classify the possibility claim.

ORIGINAL STATEMENT: [as stated]
MODAL CLAIM: [rewritten as a clear possibility statement]
MODAL OPERATOR: [could / would / might / must / can't / impossible]
POLARITY: [positive possibility / negative possibility (impossibility)]

Rules:

• "Could" implies possibility; "would" implies conditional certainty; "might" implies uncertainty
• "Can't" and "impossible" are strong claims that require strong evidence
• If the claim uses vague language, choose the most charitable interpretation
• Distinguish between "X could happen" (possibility) and "X would happen" (prediction)

---

Step 2: Identify the Type of Possibility

Not all "coulds" are equal. Classify what kind of possibility is being claimed.

POSSIBILITY TYPE:
- [ ] Logical possibility: Not self-contradictory (weakest — almost everything is logically possible)
- [ ] Physical possibility: Compatible with laws of nature
- [ ] Technical possibility: Achievable with known technology/methods
- [ ] Practical possibility: Achievable given actual resources and constraints
- [ ] Political possibility: Achievable given social/organizational realities
- [ ] Likely possibility: Not just possible but plausible or probable

CLAIMED TYPE: [which type the speaker seems to mean]
ACTUAL TYPE: [which type the evidence supports]

Rules:

• Most disagreements about "could" are actually about which type of possibility is meant
• "We could colonize Mars" — logically? Yes. Technically? Maybe. Practically? Not yet.
• The further right on the list, the stronger and more useful the possibility claim
• If claimed type and actual type differ, that gap IS the analysis

---

Step 3: Check Constraints

Identify what prevents the possibility from being actual.

CONSTRAINT ANALYSIS:
HARD CONSTRAINTS (cannot be overcome):
- [Constraint]: [Why it's a hard limit]

SOFT CONSTRAINTS (could be overcome with effort/resources):
- [Constraint]: [What would be needed to overcome it]
- Cost to overcome: [estimate]

ABSENT CONSTRAINTS (often assumed but not real):
- [Assumed constraint]: [Why it's not actually a barrier]

Rules:

• Hard constraints are physical laws, logical impossibilities, or irreversible facts
• Soft constraints are resource limits, political obstacles, skill gaps — these can change
• Many "impossibilities" are actually soft constraints disguised as hard ones
• Many "possibilities" ignore real hard constraints — check both directions

---

Step 4: Identify Enabling Conditions

What would need to be true for the possibility to become actual?

ENABLING CONDITIONS:
REQUIRED (must be present):
1. [Condition]: Currently [MET / UNMET]
2. [Condition]: Currently [MET / UNMET]
3. [Condition]: Currently [MET / UNMET]

HELPFUL (increase likelihood):
1. [Condition]: Currently [PRESENT / ABSENT]
2. [Condition]: Currently [PRESENT / ABSENT]

TRIGGER (what would set it in motion):
- [Event or action that would initiate the transition from possible to actual]

Rules:

• If all required conditions are met, the possibility is "ready" — it just needs a trigger
• If key required conditions are unmet, the possibility is remote regardless of other factors
• Count the unmet conditions — more unmet = more distant from actuality
• Check if enabling conditions are trending toward being met or away

---

Step 5: Assess Distance from Actuality

How far is this possibility from actually happening?

ACTUALITY DISTANCE:
- Current status: [ACTUAL / NEAR-ACTUAL / FEASIBLE / DISTANT / EXTREMELY REMOTE]
- Barriers remaining: [count and nature]
- Path from here to actual: [brief description of what would need to happen]
- Estimated probability of becoming actual: [percentage or range]

ASSESSMENT:
- Is the modal claim warranted? [YES / PARTIALLY / NO]
- More accurate phrasing: [how the claim should actually be stated]
- What the claim gets right: [the grain of truth]
- What the claim gets wrong: [the overreach or underreach]

Rules:

• ACTUAL = already happening
• NEAR-ACTUAL = all conditions met, just needs a trigger
• FEASIBLE = most conditions met, remaining ones are achievable
• DISTANT = several hard conditions unmet
• EXTREMELY REMOTE = logically possible but practically irrelevant
• Most "could" claims are either less possible or more possible than they sound

---

Integration

Use with:

• /pcl -> If the modal claim implies a prediction, evaluate the prediction
• /ncl -> If the claim is "we could, therefore we should," analyze the normative leap
• /cscl -> If the claim involves causal possibility, test the causal mechanism
• /fctl -> Verify factual claims about constraints and enabling conditions