manifold-m2-tension

name	manifold-m2-tension
description	Surface and resolve constraint conflicts (trade-offs). Identifies direct conflicts, resource tensions, and competing requirements

/manifold:m2-tension

/manifold:m2-tension - Conflict Resolution (Trade-offs)

Surface and resolve constraint conflicts. A "tension" is when two requirements compete -- satisfying one makes satisfying the other harder.

Discipline: This command follows references/execution-discipline.md — the Iron Law of verification, the never-start-on-main rule, and the Red Flags below.

Plain Language: "Which requirements conflict, and how do we balance them?"

Scope Guard

This phase ONLY updates manifold files. Do NOT create code, docs, or project files. Record decisions in manifold; implement in m4.

Schema Compliance

Field	Valid Values
Sets Phase	TENSIONED
Next Phase	ANCHORED (via /manifold:m3-anchor)
Tension Types	trade_off, resource_tension, hidden_dependency
Tension Statuses	resolved, unresolved
Tension ID Prefix	TN1, TN2, TN3...

See SCHEMA_REFERENCE.md for all valid values. Do NOT invent new tension types or statuses.

Output Format: JSON+Markdown Hybrid

Update TWO files (never create .yaml when .json exists):

.manifold/<feature>.json -- Structure only (IDs, types, refs):

{
  "tensions": [
    {"id": "TN1", "type": "trade_off", "between": ["T1", "B1"], "status": "resolved"},
    {"id": "TN2", "type": "resource_tension", "between": ["T2", "O1"], "status": "unresolved"}
  ],
  "iterations": [{
    "number": 2, "phase": "tension", "timestamp": "2026-04-04T00:00:00Z",
    "result": "Found 3 tensions, resolved 2",
    "tensions_found": 3, "tensions_resolved": 2,
    "by_type": {"trade_offs": 1, "resource_tensions": 1, "hidden_dependencies": 1}
  }]
}

.manifold/<feature>.md -- Content (descriptions, resolutions):

## Tensions
### TN1: Performance vs Safety
Performance optimizations conflict with safety checks (duplicate detection, validation).
> **Resolution:** Use async safety checks after initial response. Caching includes idempotency keys.

### TN2: Retry Frequency vs Provider Limits
Aggressive retry frequency conflicts with payment processor rate limits.
> **Unresolved:** Need to negotiate higher rate limits or implement adaptive throttling.

JSON ID TN1 links to Markdown heading ### TN1: Title. JSON contains NO text content.

CLI Conflict Detection

manifold validate <feature> --conflicts   # Detects contradictory invariants, resource/temporal/scope conflicts

Usage

/manifold:m2-tension <feature-name> [--resolve] [--auto-deps] [--skip-lookup]

• --resolve -- Interactively resolve tensions
• --auto-deps -- Enable automatic dependency detection (v2)
• --skip-lookup -- Skip context lookup

Tension Types

1. Direct Conflicts -- Contradictory constraints that cannot both be satisfied
2. Resource Tensions -- Constraints competing for the same resources
3. Trade-off Pairs -- Goals requiring balance (improving one degrades the other)
4. Hidden Dependencies -- Implicit relationships between constraints (v2: auto-detected)

Common Tension Patterns

Tension	Example
Speed vs Safety	"Fast response" vs "Comprehensive validation"
UX vs Security	"User-friendly errors" vs "Security through obscurity"
Availability vs Consistency	"High availability" vs "Strong consistency"
Cost vs Performance	"Minimize infrastructure" vs "Handle peak load"

Resolution Strategies

• Prioritize -- Decide which constraint takes precedence
• Partition -- Apply different constraints in different contexts
• Transform -- Find a solution that satisfies both differently
• Accept -- Document the trade-off and move forward
• Invalidate -- Remove a constraint if it's not actually required

Failure Cascade Analysis (GAP-06)

When a resolution introduces a fallback path, recursively ask: "What if the fallback also fails?"

Continue until reaching: explicit accept-loss decision, human intervention (with escalation path), or redundant fallback (independent). This prevents undocumented failure modes from simultaneous outages.

TN1 Resolution: Kafka fail -> SQS DLQ fallback
  -> Q: "What if SQS also fails?"
     -> A: Log to local disk + CloudWatch alarm -> human intervention
        -> Constraint added: O6 (DLQ failure alerting)

Tension Resolution Validation Criteria (GAP-08)

Each resolved tension MUST declare testable validation criteria in JSON:

{
  "id": "TN1", "type": "trade_off", "between": ["B1", "T1"], "status": "resolved",
  "validation_criteria": [
    "Strategy pattern dispatches to correct handler class",
    "Fallback path activates when primary fails"
  ]
}

These criteria are checked programmatically during /manifold:m5-verify.

Cache Invalidation Sub-Constraints (GAP-16)

When Required: Any tension where the resolution involves caching, memoization, or stored computed results.

Generate sub-constraints for: invalidation on validation failure, key/credential rotation handling, forced invalidation mechanism.

TRIZ Contradiction Classification

Classify each tension using TRIZ before proposing resolutions. Quality gate (U5): If no close match exists, say "No strong TRIZ mapping -- resolve via direct analysis." Tier gate (B2): Never surface Tier C principles (P18, P29-P33, P36-P39) in non-engineering contexts.

Step 1: Classify contradiction type

Type	Signal	Example
Technical	"the more X, the less Y"	More retries -> better reliability, higher latency
Physical	"must be X and must not be X"	API must be public (usability) and private (security)

Step 2: Map to parameter pairs

Parameters in Conflict	Principles
Performance vs. Reliability	P10 (Prior action), P25 (Self-service: self-healing), P35 (Parameter changes)
Speed vs. Safety	P10 (Prior action), P24 (Intermediary: proxy/adapter), P35 (Parameter changes)
Simplicity vs. Capability	P1 (Segmentation), P15 (Dynamization: feature flags), P35 (Parameter changes)
Cost vs. Quality	P1 (Segmentation), P10 (Prior action), P27 (Cheap short-living: ephemeral)
Flexibility vs. Consistency	P1 (Segmentation), P15 (Dynamization), P40 (Composite: polyglot/hybrid)
Privacy vs. Usability	P1 (Segmentation), P10 (Prior action), P24 (Intermediary)
Autonomy vs. Control	P10 (Prior action), P15 (Dynamization), P35 (Parameter changes)
Speed vs. Correctness	P10 (Prior action), P11 (Beforehand cushioning: fallbacks), P25 (Self-service)
Global vs. Local optimum	P3 (Local quality), P1 (Segmentation), P17 (Another dimension)
Standardisation vs. Flexibility	P1 (Segmentation), P15 (Dynamization), P3 (Local quality)

Tier A principles (always applicable): P1 Segmentation, P2 Extraction, P5 Merging, P10 Prior action, P11 Beforehand cushioning, P13 The other way round, P15 Dynamization, P17 Another dimension, P22 Blessing in disguise, P24 Intermediary, P25 Self-service, P27 Cheap short-living, P35 Parameter changes, P40 Composite.

Step 3: Output format per tension

TENSION: [description]
CHALLENGER PROFILE: [C-ID] challenger: [tag] vs. [C-ID] challenger: [tag]
TYPE: Technical contradiction | Physical contradiction
PARAMETERS: [A] vs. [B]
TRIZ MATCH: Exact | Approximate (nearest: [pair]) | No match
PRINCIPLES:
  - P[N] [Name]: [one-line application note]
  - P[N] [Name]: [one-line application note]
RESOLUTION OPTIONS: [2-3 candidates incorporating principle guidance]
STATUS: resolved | unresolved

Challenger profile informs resolution direction -- challenge the assumption, not the regulation.

Directional Constraint Propagation

After proposing a resolution, run a propagation check BEFORE committing. For each constraint the resolution affects:

• TIGHTENED: Harder to satisfy -- note new pressure, surface challenger tag
• LOOSENED: Easier to satisfy -- note benefit
• VIOLATED: Unsatisfiable -- resolution is INVALID, must choose another

A tightened challenger: assumption should be confirmed; a tightened challenger: regulation may block entirely.

Output format

RESOLUTION PROPOSED: [option description]
PROPAGATION CHECK:
  [C-ID] [title]: TIGHTENED | LOOSENED | VIOLATED -- [explanation]
VERDICT: SAFE | BLOCKED (violation found) | PROCEED WITH AWARENESS (tightening noted)

Constructive Relaxation (on VIOLATED)

When VIOLATED, suggest what would make it work:

1. If the violated constraint has a threshold, calculate minimum relaxation: "If [C-ID] were relaxed from [current] to [minimum viable], this resolution becomes valid"
2. Check challenger tag: stakeholder/assumption = "MAY be negotiable"; regulation/technical-reality = "NOT negotiable -- choose different resolution"

VERDICT: BLOCKED (violation found)
RELAXATION SUGGESTION: Relax [C-ID] from [X] to [Y] -> resolution becomes valid
NEGOTIABILITY: [negotiable | not negotiable] (based on challenger tag)

Propagation schema

Record in .manifold/<feature>.json:

{
  "tensions": [{
    "id": "TN1", "type": "trade_off", "between": ["B1", "T3"], "status": "resolved",
    "propagation_effects": [
      {"constraint_id": "T3", "effect": "TIGHTENED", "note": "Cache TTL adds 50ms to p99"}
    ]
  }]
}

Automatic Dependency Detection (v2)

With --auto-deps, scan constraint statements for implicit dependencies:

Keyword in Constraint	Likely Depends On
"ACID", "durable", "persistent"	Crash recovery, WAL
"secure", "authenticated"	Session management, encryption
"fast", "performant"	Caching, optimization
"reliable", "available"	Redundancy, failover
"consistent"	Transaction isolation

Auto-detected dependencies are typed as hidden_dependency tensions. Flag blocking dependencies with elevated priority.

Blocking Dependency Export for m3

After all tensions are resolved, collect hidden_dependency tensions where one constraint blocks another:

{
  "blocking_dependencies": [
    {"blocker": "T3", "blocked": "O4", "tension_id": "TN6"},
    {"blocker": "T8", "blocked": "T9", "tension_id": "TN7"}
  ]
}

m3-anchor prioritizes required truth derivation starting from blocking dependencies. The blocker constraint maps to the highest-priority RT and feeds into m3's Theory of Constraints bottleneck identification.

Context Lookup

Before analyzing tensions, research the feature domain via WebSearch to ground conflict analysis in current reality. Extract tension-relevant topics from constraints, look up current capabilities/limitations, known trade-off patterns, and recent incidents. Summarize as a brief "Domain Context" block before analysis.

Skip when: --skip-lookup flag is passed, or context lookup was already performed in m1-constrain within the same session and is still visible (if context may have been lost due to compaction, re-run).

Example

/manifold:m2-tension payment-retry

TENSION ANALYSIS: payment-retry

TENSIONS DETECTED:

Tension TN1: Performance vs Safety
  T1: API response < 200ms (BOUNDARY)
  B1: No duplicate payments (INVARIANT)
  Conflict: Idempotency check adds ~50ms

  Resolution Options:
  A. Cache recent transaction IDs (adds memory cost)
  B. Async idempotency check (eventual consistency)
  C. Accept 250ms budget (relax T1)

  Recommended: A - Cache recent transaction IDs
  Rationale: B1 is INVARIANT, cannot be violated

TENSION SUMMARY:
- Direct Conflicts: 1 (resolved)
- Resource Tensions: 1 (pending)
- Trade-offs: 0
- Hidden Dependencies: 0

Updated: .manifold/payment-retry.json + .manifold/payment-retry.md
Next: /manifold:m3-anchor payment-retry

Execution Instructions

1. Context Lookup -- research feature domain via WebSearch unless --skip-lookup or already done in m1
2. Read .manifold/<feature>.json (structure) and .manifold/<feature>.md (content)
3. For each pair of constraints, check for conflicts
4. If --auto-deps: extract keywords from Markdown content, map to dependency patterns, identify hidden dependencies, flag blocking dependencies
5. For each tension: describe conflict, generate resolution options (A, B, C), recommend based on constraint types (INVARIANT > BOUNDARY > GOAL)
6. For each resolution: run TRIZ classification, then propagation check
7. If --resolve, prompt user to choose resolutions
8. Update TWO files: JSON (tension objects) + Markdown (descriptions/resolutions)
9. Record iteration in JSON iterations[], set phase to TENSIONED
10. Run manifold validate <feature> -- fix errors before proceeding
11. Display summary and suggest next step

User Interaction (MANDATORY)

Tension resolution is decision-heavy: picking among A/B/C resolution options, confirming TRIZ classifications, accepting propagation effects on tightened constraints. Every decision-soliciting moment MUST go through AskUserQuestion (or the agent-equivalent: numbered options for Gemini, labelled choices for Codex). The --resolve flag implies interactive resolution — the resolution prompts must use structured input.

• If your reply contains a question soliciting a user response → use AskUserQuestion.
• Presenting resolution options A/B/C in a markdown block and ending with "which one?" in prose is the exact anti-pattern this rule prevents. Wrap the choice in structured input.
• Exceptions: rhetorical phrasing, or "I will assume X — say so if not" assumption call-outs.
• Read-only summaries at the end of the phase do NOT need AskUserQuestion — end with the suggested next command.

See install/agents/interaction-rules.md for the canonical contract; the prompt-enforcer.ts hook injects the same rules at runtime as defence-in-depth.

Red Flags

Thought	Reality
"No tensions found, move on"	Absence of found tensions is not absence of tensions — look harder.
"Resolve it by dropping a constraint"	Invariants cannot be traded off.
"Tension noted, done"	An unresolved tension is a latent bug — resolve it or log it explicitly.

Run manifold validate <feature> after updates. Shared directives (output format, interaction rules, validation) injected by phase-commons hook.