pce-procedure-engine-comprehensive-analysis

name	pce - Procedure Engine - Comprehensive Analysis
description	The deep analysis engine. Routes input by type, applies appropriate analysis depth, produces structured understanding and action.
output	{"format":"prose"}

Procedure Engine - Comprehensive Analysis

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Core Principles

1. Understand before acting. Explore the problem from multiple angles before recommending action. But don't explore forever — stop when you understand enough to act well.

2. Route by type. Different inputs need different treatment. A goal needs decomposition. A problem needs root cause. A decision needs comparison. Classify first.

3. Surface the hidden. The most important information is usually unstated — hidden assumptions, implicit constraints, presupposed beliefs. Find these before analyzing the stated content.

4. Testable output. Every recommendation should include how to verify it worked. Every claim should be possible to check.

5. Action-oriented. Analysis that doesn't lead to action is academic. End with specific, prioritized next steps.

---

Step 1: Classify Input

What kind of thing is this?

Type	Signal	Core Need
GOAL	"I want to...", "How do I..."	Decompose and plan
PROBLEM	"Something is wrong...", "Why does..."	Diagnose and fix
QUESTION	"What is...", "Is it true that..."	Research and answer
DECISION	"Should I...", "Which option..."	Compare and choose
SITUATION	"Here's what's happening..."	Understand and respond
FEELING	"I'm frustrated/excited/confused..."	Clarify and redirect

---

Step 2: Surface Hidden Claims

Every input contains unstated assumptions. Find them.

• Explicit claims: What's directly stated
• Implicit claims: What's assumed but not said
• Bundled claims: Multiple claims packed into one statement
• Presuppositions: What must be true for the statement to make sense

Example: "I need to scale our database" bundles: a scaling problem exists, the database is the bottleneck, scaling the database will fix it, we have resources to scale.

ARAW the highest-VOI hidden claim — the one that, if wrong, changes everything.

---

Step 3: Analyze by Type

Route to the appropriate analysis:

GOAL

1. What's the foundational goal behind this? (trace upward)
2. What are the subgoals? (decompose downward)
3. What's the current state vs desired state?
4. What's blocking progress?
5. What's the highest-leverage next step?

→ May invoke: /gd, /gjs, /stg

PROBLEM

1. What exactly is wrong? (specific symptoms)
2. When did it start? What changed?
3. What's the root cause? (ask "why" until you hit foundation)
4. What are the fix options?
5. Which fix addresses root cause, not symptoms?

→ May invoke: /rc5w, /araw, /lpd

QUESTION

1. What kind of question? (factual, conceptual, evaluative)
2. What's already known?
3. What are the candidate answers?
4. What evidence supports/contradicts each?
5. What's the best current answer + confidence level?

→ May invoke: /araw, /bi, /vbo

DECISION

1. What are the options? (including non-obvious ones)
2. What criteria matter? (derived from purpose)
3. How do options compare?
4. What's the recommendation?
5. How reversible is this?

→ May invoke: /cmp, /evaluation_dimensions, /sel

SITUATION

1. What's happening? (neutral description)
2. What does this mean for the user's goals?
3. What options does this create?
4. What's the recommended response?

→ May invoke: /araw, /grfr, /stg

FEELING

1. What feeling is being reported, in the user's own terms?
2. Default to engaging with the feeling. The user brought it up — that's sufficient permission.
3. If exploring is desired: what goal, value, or unmet need might the feeling be pointing at?
4. If a different underlying need is proposed, would addressing it but not the stated request count as clarification or substitution?
5. What action follows from the chosen frame?

→ May invoke: /araw, /ve, /gu

---

Step 4: Synthesize

1. Key findings: What did the analysis reveal? (3-5 bullet points)
2. Tensions: Any unresolved conflicts between different findings?
3. Confidence: What are you sure about? What's uncertain?
4. Testable predictions: "If this analysis is correct, you should see X when Y."

---

Step 5: Recommend Action

Specific, prioritized next steps:

1. DO_FIRST: [action] — [who does it] — [what it resolves]
2. DO_NEXT: [action] — [who] — [what it resolves]
3. MONITOR: [what to watch for] — [what it would mean]

Every action must pass this execution check:

• Trigger: when exactly should this action be taken?
• Actor: who does it?
• Procedure: what concrete step is performed?
• Output: what artifact or state change should result?
• Verification: how do we know the action worked?

---

Pre-Completion Check

• Input classified correctly
• Hidden claims surfaced and highest-VOI tested
• Analysis appropriate to type (not generic)
• Synthesis includes testable predictions
• Actions are specific and prioritized