dse

name	dse
description	Evaluate strategies based on the logical soundness of their derivation.
output	{"format":"prose"}

Deductive Strategy Evaluation

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Overview

Evaluate strategies based on the logical soundness of their derivation. Determines whether a strategy is logically valid (conclusions follow), sound (premises true AND inferences valid), complete (no gaps), and necessary vs sufficient.

Strategies that pass deductive evaluation have the highest confidence because their correctness follows from the problem definition itself.

Steps

Step 1: Check Logical Validity

For each inference step in the strategy's derivation:

Step	Premise(s)	Inference	Conclusion	Valid?
1	[what's assumed]	[rule applied]	[what follows]	Y/N
2

Validity check: Does the conclusion NECESSARILY follow from the premises using the stated inference rule?

• If yes → Valid step
• If no → Identify the gap: what additional premise would make it valid?

Step 2: Check Soundness

For each premise used in the derivation:

Premise	Type	Truth Status	Evidence
[premise]	axiom/observation/assumption/definition	true/uncertain/false	[source]

Soundness = validity + true premises. A valid argument with false premises produces unreliable conclusions.

Step 3: Identify Weaknesses

Categorize each weakness found:

Weakness	Type	Impact	Fixable?
[weakness]	invalid step / uncertain premise / missing step / scope error	strategy collapses / weakened / unaffected	Y/N

Weakness types:

• Invalid inference: Conclusion doesn't follow from premises
• Uncertain premise: Premise truth is unknown or debated
• Missing step: Gap in reasoning chain
• Scope error: Conclusion is broader than premises support
• Equivocation: Same term used with different meanings
• Circular reasoning: Conclusion is also a premise

Step 4: Assess Necessity Level

How strong is the connection between strategy and success?

Level	Description	Test
Necessary and sufficient	This is the ONLY strategy that works, AND it guarantees success	No alternative exists AND no failure mode exists
Sufficient	This strategy guarantees success, but alternatives exist	Will work, others might too
Necessary	Must include this, but it alone isn't enough	Required but not complete
Contributory	Increases probability of success but doesn't guarantee	Helps but not decisive
Irrelevant	No logical connection to success	Doesn't help

Step 5: Assign Proof Level

Based on Steps 1-4:

Proof Level	Criteria
Level 4 — Proven	All steps valid, all premises true, no gaps, necessary and sufficient
Level 3 — Strong	All steps valid, most premises true, minor gaps, sufficient
Level 2 — Supported	Most steps valid, key premises plausible, some gaps, contributory
Level 1 — Suggestive	Logic is reasonable, premises uncertain, significant gaps
Level 0 — Unproven	Logic has errors, premises unverified, or major gaps

Step 6: Provide Upgrade Path

For strategies below Level 4, specify what would raise them:

UPGRADE PATH:
Current level: [X]
To reach Level [X+1]:
1. [specific action] — fixes: [weakness] — cost: [effort]
2. [specific action] — fixes: [weakness] — cost: [effort]

Most cost-effective upgrade: [which action gives most level-improvement per effort]

Step 7: Report

DEDUCTIVE STRATEGY EVALUATION:
Strategy: [what was evaluated]

Validity: [N] of [N] steps valid
Soundness: [N] of [N] premises verified
Completeness: [no gaps / minor gaps / significant gaps]
Necessity level: [necessary and sufficient / sufficient / necessary / contributory]

Proof level: [0-4] — [label]

Weaknesses:
| # | Weakness | Type | Impact | Fix |
|---|----------|------|--------|-----|
| 1 | [weakness] | [type] | [impact] | [fix] |

Upgrade path: [what would raise the proof level]
Overall confidence: [high / moderate / low — with justification]

When to Use

• After deductive strategy discovery (/dsd)
• Before committing to a strategy
• When comparing strategies on logical strength
• When identifying weakest points in strategy reasoning
• → INVOKE: /dsd (deductive strategy discovery) to derive the strategy first
• → INVOKE: /dari (deductive adversarial review) for adversarial testing

Verification

• Every inference step explicitly checked for validity
• Every premise categorized and assessed for truth
• Weaknesses prioritized by impact
• Proof level assigned with explicit justification
• Upgrade path provided for sub-Level 4 strategies