sadrt

name	sadrt
description	Estimate where two independent executors would diverge when applying the same gate/procedure to the same input.
output	{"format":"prose"}

Divergence Risk Test

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Overview

Estimate where two independent executors would diverge when applying the same gate/procedure to the same input. If a procedure produces different outputs depending on who runs it, it's not reliable enough to be a standard.

Steps

Step 1: Identify Divergence Triggers

For the target procedure/gate, flag potential divergence sources:

Trigger Type	What to Look For	Example
Undefined terms	Key nouns without definitions	"adequate" — adequate by whose standard?
Bundled questions	Multiple checks in one	"Is it complete and correct?" — could disagree on either
Non-operational criteria	Can't be checked mechanically	"Does it feel right?"
Missing answer-interface	No way to look up the answer	"Is the market ready?" — how to check?
Ambiguous stopping rules	No clear "done" signal	"Analyze until satisfied"
Implicit ordering	Steps that could be done in different orders with different results	"Consider A and B" — which first?
Subjective thresholds	Numbers without benchmarks	"Enough evidence" — how much?

Step 2: Simulate Two Executors

For each trigger found, imagine two competent but independent executors:

Executor A: Interprets conservatively, applies strict standards, focuses on completeness Executor B: Interprets pragmatically, applies reasonable standards, focuses on efficiency

For each trigger:

Trigger	A's Interpretation	B's Interpretation	They Agree?
[trigger]	[A reads it as...]	[B reads it as...]	Y/N

Step 3: Rate Divergence Risk

For each disagreement:

Disagreement	Impact	Likelihood	Risk Level
[where they diverge]	How different are the outputs? (H/M/L)	How likely is this divergence? (H/M/L)	[H×H=Critical, etc.]

Step 4: Propose Fixes

For each divergence risk:

Risk	Fix Type	Proposed Fix
Undefined term	Define	"[term] means [specific definition]"
Bundled question	Split	Separate into independent checks
Non-operational	Operationalize	Replace with specific, checkable criterion
Missing interface	Add reference	"Check using [method/source]"
Ambiguous stopping	Add rule	"Stop when [specific condition]"
Subjective threshold	Quantify	"At least [N] items/sources/examples"

Step 5: Validate Fixes

After proposing fixes, re-run the executor simulation:

1. Would A and B now agree?
2. Did the fix introduce new ambiguity?
3. Is the fix practical (not so rigid it prevents judgment)?

Step 6: Report

DIVERGENCE RISK TEST:
Target: [what was tested]
Triggers found: [N]

Risk assessment:
| # | Trigger | Risk Level | Fix |
|---|---------|-----------|-----|
| 1 | [trigger] | [Critical/High/Medium/Low] | [proposed fix] |

Divergence hotspots: [sections with most triggers]
Estimated executor agreement: [%] before fixes, [%] after fixes

Priority fixes: [top 3 most impactful]

When to Use

• When you want repeatability across executors (human, AI, future you)
• When a gate/procedure is central to enforcement
• When disagreements keep appearing in review
• → INVOKE: /sapea (executability audit) for deeper executability check
• → INVOKE: /saqrc (question rewrite chains) for fixing unclear questions

Verification

• Multiple trigger types checked
• Two-executor simulation performed
• Divergence risk rated by impact and likelihood
• Fixes proposed for high-risk triggers
• Fixes validated (don't introduce new divergence)