confounder

# Confounder Expose distinctions that disappear inside an idea. Audit conflation rather than the idea's overall quality or factual accuracy. ## Resolve the claims Use the latest `unscramble` output that covers the requested source. If none exists, say that you are using `/unscramble` to extract the source's atomic claims, then invoke it. Support every source that skill resolves, including the current conversation, pasted text, readable files, and Granola meetings. If the user added relevant material after the latest `unscramble` output, ask whether to refresh it. If the user has said `skip questions`, refresh it and continue. ## Audit the distinctions Inspect both each atomic claim and the relationships among claims. Flag a conflation when the idea combines distinct concepts in a way that erases a relevant difference, or when a conclusion relies on treating them as interchangeable. A meaningful relationship between two concepts is not by itself a conflation. Also detect these separately: - **Missing bridge:** one claim is used to support another without the connecting premise or mechanism. - **Contradiction:** claims cannot both hold under the same stated conditions. Name each problem in plain language rather than forcing it into a fixed taxonomy. Favor surfacing a plausible issue over silently missing it. Give every finding a confidence of `clear`, `likely`, or `possible`. Use external research only when domain knowledge is necessary to decide whether concepts are genuinely distinct. Cite the sources used. Do not expand this into general fact-checking. ## Resolve ambiguity When the user's intended distinction is unclear, pause before the final audit and ask one highest-leverage question at a time. Continue until a faithful repair is possible. If the user says `skip questions`, continue with provisional repairs and state the assumption behind each one. ## Repair faithfully For every finding: 1. Cite the affected claim numbers. 2. Explain what distinction was lost. 3. Separate the concepts without adding or strengthening claims. 4. Mark the repair provisional when ambiguity remains. Stop at claim-level repairs. Do not reconstruct the full idea or judge whether it is good, novel, useful, or viable. ## Final audit Return these sections: ```markdown ## Claim status 1. clear — [claim] 2. **problematic** — [claim] → Finding 1 ## Conflations ### Finding 1: [plain-language label] - **Claims:** 2, 5 - **Confidence:** likely - **Explanation:** [what was mixed and why the distinction matters] - **Repair:** [faithful separated formulation] - **Assumption:** [only when questions were skipped or ambiguity remains] ## Missing bridges [Use the same finding fields, or `None detected.`] ## Contradictions [Use the same finding fields, or `None detected.`] ``` Every extracted claim must appear exactly once in **Claim status**. Give clear claims only their status; link each problematic claim to every relevant finding. If a problem section is empty, write `None detected.`