asi-position-contrast

id	asi_position_contrast
name	asi_position_contrast
agent	555-ASI
namespace	asi_*
cluster	SYNTHESIS
version	1.0.0
description	Cross-discipline self-argument for non-trivial claims before they enter reasoning or irreversible decisions.
owner	AAA
risk_tier	low
knowledge_basis	{"language":true,"math":false,"physics":false}
host_compatibility	["claude-code","codex","opencode","kimi","kimi-code"]
dependencies	{"skills":[],"servers":["arifos-mcp"],"tools":["mcp__arifos__arif_think","mcp__arifos__arif_critique","mcp__arifos__arif_judge"]}
examples	["Challenging a proposed architecture change before it enters a design document","Stress-testing a geological interpretation before it becomes a recommendation","Auditing a cost estimate before it informs a capital allocation decision"]
tests	["A claim with 3+ independent challenges returns a synthesized verdict and witness log","A claim rejected by ≥2 disciplines triggers an 888 HOLD recommendation","Disciplines that are too similar are flagged and replaced"]
version_lock	{"schema_version":"1","artifact_hash":"pending"}
orthogonal_tags	{"trinitarian":["Δ"],"functional":["Governance","Evidence"],"layer":"HEXAGON","autonomy_tier":"T1"}
floor_scope	["F2","F7","F8"]

Multi-Discipline Critique

Federation Eureka #4 — every non-trivial claim must survive at least 3 independent disciplines.

This is the general-purpose manual equivalent of geox_claim_challenge for claims that are not domain-specific. It hardens reasoning by forcing cross-domain self-argument before a claim is trusted, promoted, or acted upon.

Overview

This skill installs a structured cross-discipline argument protocol. The agent states a falsifiable claim, selects at least three independent disciplines, generates a falsifying challenge from each, assigns a confidence band, and synthesizes a final epistemic verdict. The goal is not to win the argument; it is to discover why the claim might be wrong before a decision commits to it.

arifOS-ACT Embedding

Before using this skill on any mutating, irreversible, or high-blast-radius task:

1. ART — Attune (what is the real task?), Recognize (what class of power?), Test (fit · authority · evidence · blast · reversible).
2. Kernel — Route to arifOS for F1–F13 judgment if action class is Maker/Messenger/Mutator/Destroyer/Sovereign.
3. ACT — Apply narrow, Constrain scope, Trace witness, STOP before corruption.
4. Receipt — Leave evidence of what changed, why, and under whose authority.

When to Use

• Before stating or relying on a non-trivial factual claim.
• Before recommending an architecture, design, or policy change.
• Before any irreversible or seal-bound decision.
• When a single domain could be producing false confidence.
• When the cost of being wrong exceeds the cost of delay.

When NOT to Use

• Do not use for trivial or definitional claims where the overhead exceeds the risk.
• Do not use as a substitute for domain-expert review when human expertise is required.
• Do not use to rationalize a predetermined conclusion; run skeptical mode if the first pass is too easy.
• Do not proceed with a claim that fails ≥2 disciplines without escalating to 888_JUDGE.

Inputs

Input	Required	Description
claim	yes	One falsifiable sentence to be challenged
claim_type	yes	CLAIM / PLAUSIBLE / HYPOTHESIS / ESTIMATE / UNKNOWN
disciplines	yes	≥3 independent challenge lenses selected for this claim
skeptical_mode	no	If true, assume refuted and force proof otherwise (default false)

Procedure

Step 1: State the Claim

Reduce the claim to one falsifiable sentence. Tag it:

• CLAIM — asserted as true
• PLAUSIBLE — likely but not proven
• HYPOTHESIS — candidate explanation awaiting test
• ESTIMATE — quantitative guess with error bars
• UNKNOWN — insufficient information to classify

Step 2: Select ≥3 Independent Disciplines

Choose lenses that cover different failure modes. Examples include:

Discipline	Challenge question
Epistemics	Is the evidence chain intact? What is the source provenance?
Physics / Geology	Does it violate conservation, thermodynamics, causality, or basin context?
Law / Policy	Does it conflict with /root/SECRETS.md, F1–F13, or stated rules?
Operations	Does it survive restart, network blip, missing env var, or degraded dependency?
Security	Does it leak, escalate, bypass a deny rule, or widen blast radius?
Cost / Economics	Is the resource ask proportional to the expected value?
Ethics / Dignity	Does it reduce a person to a pattern or coerce a choice?

Mix domains. physics + geophysics is too close; replace one.

Step 3: Challenge from Each Discipline

For each lens, answer:

1. What would falsify the claim from this perspective?
2. What evidence supports the challenge?
3. What is the confidence band? (high / medium / low / none)

Use mcp__arifos__arif_think for structured reasoning and mcp__arifos__arif_critique mode=redteam as one automatic discipline.

Step 4: Synthesize

Tally the discipline verdicts:

• All concur → promote the claim (SEAL); log the witness mix.
• 1 rejects → revise the claim or downgrade its epistemic tag (SABAR).
• ≥2 reject → 888_HOLD; do not use the claim as a premise.

All verdict values must use the canonical closed 6-value taxonomy from arifOS/runtime/verdict.py (post-KSR Epoch 1+2): OBSERVE_ONLY | SEAL | SABAR | VOID | HOLD | 888_HOLD

Legacy fields (verdict_code, canonical_verdict, reasoning_verdict, nine_signal) are DEPRECATED. Use effective_verdict + reason_code + next_action.

Step 5: Output Verdict and Witness Log

Return the final tag plus a per-discipline log. If skeptical mode was enabled, note whether the claim still survived.

Allowed Tools

Tool	Purpose
Read / Bash	Inspect evidence, rules, or source material referenced by the claim
mcp__arifos__arif_think	Structured multi-step reasoning and evidence synthesis
mcp__arifos__arif_critique	Red-team / empathic challenge as an automatic discipline
mcp__arifos__arif_judge	Escalate to F1–F13 judgment if the claim feeds an irreversible decision

Forbidden Actions

• NEVER treat a claim as proven after only one discipline concurs.
• NEVER select disciplines that are structurally similar to manufacture false consensus.
• NEVER skip the discipline that seems "obvious" — that is the one that usually bites.
• NEVER hide a rejecting discipline in the final synthesis.
• NEVER promote a claim that ≥2 disciplines reject without 888_JUDGE review.
• NEVER run this skill backwards by writing the conclusion first and fitting challenges around it.

Output Format

## Skill Result: multi-discipline-critique

### Summary
One-sentence synthesis of whether the claim survives and under what epistemic tag.

### Claim
<original falsifiable claim>

### Discipline Verdicts
| Discipline | Verdict | Confidence | Falsifying Concern |
|------------|---------|------------|-------------------|
| Epistemics | concur / reject / revise | high / medium / low / none | ... |
| Security | concur / reject / revise | high / medium / low / none | ... |
| Operations | concur / reject / revise | high / medium / low / none | ... |

### Synthesis
- Promote / Revise / Hold
- Final tag: CLAIM / PLAUSIBLE / HYPOTHESIS / ESTIMATE / UNKNOWN
- Reasoning: why the claim does or does not survive

### Recommendations
- Action if the claim is promoted
- Revision if one discipline rejects
- Escalation path if ≥2 reject

### Escalations
- None / 888_JUDGE / human sovereign

Escalation Path

Condition	Escalate To	Verdict	Method
≥2 disciplines reject the claim	arifOS APEX	888_HOLD	A2A / MCP verdict_request
Claim feeds an irreversible decision	arifOS APEX + human	888_HOLD	hold with reason
Discipline selection is too narrow	Re-run with broader lens mix	SABAR	internal loop
Source evidence appears fabricated or misattributed	security.agent + arifOS judge	HOLD	A2A message

---

Skill imported from /root/.claude/skills/multi-discipline-critique.md — AAA A2A skill registry. Orthogonal tags: Δ | Governance, Evidence | HEXAGON | T1 | F2, F7, F8.