| name | dissect |
| description | Investigate complex claims: decompose into atomic verifiable components, resolve vague entities, verify each independently, separate confirmed facts from narrative interpretation. Use to fact-check complex claims, investigate narratives mixing fact with interpretation, or when a claim bundles multiple assertions. Trigger phrases: "investigate this claim", "fact-check this", "is this true", "decompose this narrative", "viral content check", "trace this claim", "/empire-research:dissect". Findings stay local — never post to GitHub.
|
| compatibility | Requires network access (web search and fetch). |
Complex claims combine verifiable facts with unverifiable interpretations. Effective investigation decomposes claims into atomic components, verifies each independently, and clearly distinguishes confirmed facts from narrative framing.
Scope: dissect investigates external claims (social media, sources, viral content) — multi-part assertions that bundle fact with framing.
Extract Atomic Claims
Break the statement into individual verifiable claims. Each MUST be:
- A single factual assertion
- Independently verifiable
- Free of narrative interpretation
Example:
Original: "The House Leader refusing to seat the newly-elected AZ-07 special election winner because she'd vote to release the Epstein files"
Atomic claims:
- There is a House Leader (entity exists)
- There was an AZ-07 special election (event occurred)
- Someone won that election (result exists)
- The winner has not been seated (current state)
- A refusal action occurred (specific action claim)
- Causal relationship with Epstein files (causation claim)
Classify Each Component
| Type | Description | Verifiability |
|---|
| ENTITY | Person, organization, place | Usually verifiable |
| EVENT | Something that allegedly happened | Often verifiable |
| STATE | Current condition or status | Usually verifiable |
| PROCESS | Official procedure or mechanism | Verifiable |
| CAUSATION | Claimed reason or motivation | Rarely verifiable |
| NARRATIVE | Interpretive framing | Not directly verifiable |
Identify Missing Information
Note what's conspicuously absent: unnamed entities, unspecified dates, missing procedural context, absent opposing perspectives.
Convert vague references to specific, searchable terms before searching.
- "House Leader" → current House Speaker/Majority Leader name
- "newly-elected winner" → candidate names from election results
- "Epstein files" → specific documents/investigations
For each event: when did it allegedly occur? What is normal timeline for this type of event? Are there procedural deadlines?
Identify: primary actors (taking alleged actions), secondary actors (affected), official bodies with relevant authority, potential verification sources.
Verify Foundational Facts First
Start with most basic, verifiable claims:
- Did the event occur?
- Do the entities exist?
- Are basic facts correct?
Search strategy: official sources first (.gov, electoral bodies) → cross-reference multiple news sources → look for primary documents.
Investigate Procedural Context
For any claimed action/inaction:
- What is normal procedure?
- What are the requirements?
- What is typical timeline?
- What are legitimate reasons for delays?
Examine Causation Claims
Causation requires direct evidence — "X happened" + "Y exists" does not confirm "X because Y."
Direct evidence: quoted statements from alleged actor, official statements or press releases, video/audio of relevant statements.
Indirect evidence: other explanations for observed facts, standard reasons for similar situations, procedural explanations.
Context: previous positions by involved parties, historical precedents, timeline compatibility.
Priority order:
- Official government records / databases
- Direct statements from involved parties
- Court documents or legal filings
- Contemporary news reports (multiple outlets)
- Analysis or opinion pieces (noted as such)
For each source, note: type (official / news / advocacy / social media), date relative to events, whether claims are attributed, presence of supporting documentation, corrections or updates issued.
Document bias without dismissing: source's typical alignment, stakeholder relationships, pattern of coverage, language choices (neutral vs. charged).
Patterns indicating narrative rather than fact:
- Causal chains without evidence ("X because Y because Z")
- Mind-reading claims ("thinks that," "wants to")
- Selective fact inclusion
- Temporal conflation (mixing time periods)
- False dichotomies
For each narrative: what facts support it? What facts complicate it? What alternative narratives explain the same facts? What facts are excluded?
VERIFIED FACTS:
- [Fact] (Source: [citation], Confidence: Certain/Probable/Possible)
DISPUTED / UNCLEAR:
- [Claim]:
- Supporting: [source]
- Contradicting: [source]
- Unable to verify: [what's missing]
CONTEXT NEEDED:
- [Procedural context]
- [Historical precedent]
NARRATIVE ELEMENTS (not directly verifiable):
- [Claim]
- Facts that support: [list]
- Facts that complicate: [list]
- Alternative explanations: [list]
Confidence levels:
| Level | Meaning |
|---|
| Certain | Multiple primary sources confirm |
| Probable | Multiple credible sources align, no contradictions |
| Possible | Some evidence supports, gaps remain |
| Unclear | Contradictory evidence or insufficient info |
| False | Contradicted by authoritative sources |
Confirmation Rush — finding one source that matches the claim and declaring it verified. Fix: require 2-3 independent sources. Trace claims back to primary sources. Check if "multiple sources" are repeating the same original.
Causation Collapse — accepting "X happened because Y" when only "X happened" and "Y exists" are verified. Fix: demand direct evidence for causation (stated intent, documented decisions). Report as "alleged motivation" when causation can't be verified.
Premature Debunking — finding one fact wrong and dismissing the entire claim. Complex claims often mix true and false elements. Fix: decompose fully, verify each component independently.
Authority Fallacy — accepting official sources uncritically. Official sources can be wrong, incomplete, outdated, or misleading. Fix: cross-reference official sources; distinguish "official position" from "verified fact."
Narrative Anchoring — starting with a hypothesis and investigating to prove it. Fix: start with specific claims as stated. Investigate each on its own terms. Actively seek disconfirming evidence.
