postmortem

name	postmortem
description	Optionally test a retrospective causal

Postmortem

Purpose: Answer an explicit retrospective causal question using the already-validated outcome and evidence.

Critical Constraints

• Because proof and causal inference are different judgments, Postmortem is retrospective causal analysis, not the general learning umbrella and not a completion gate.
• It consumes immutable Validate verdict evidence and does not re-run acceptance validation because Validate already owns that proof.
• Treat causal statements as hypotheses because causal confidence must survive alternatives. Separate observed sequence, contributing conditions, counterfactuals, and unknowns.
• A correlation is not promoted to cause without evidence that discriminates plausible alternatives.
• Because the caller owns delivery decisions, do not rewrite proof, operate tracker state, change the remaining plan, or promote a rule. Return evidence to the caller.
• Empty or inconclusive analysis is valid; manufacture neither certainty nor a lesson to make the retrospective feel useful.

Workflow

1. Pin the verdict, subject evidence, and explicit causal question.
2. Reconstruct the evidence-backed timeline without importing hidden author reasoning as fact.
3. List candidate contributing conditions and at least one plausible alternative explanation.
4. Test each claim against cited evidence and a counterfactual: what should differ if the claim were false?
5. Optionally use independent judges to challenge contested causal claims.
6. Emit a report containing supported claims, rejected claims, unknowns, evidence references, and suggested experiments. Stop.

Correlation-to-cause discrimination

A fix is proven when the mechanism is demonstrated, not when symptoms stop. Promoting a claim from correlation to cause requires all three:

• a stated mechanism — the specific path by which the condition produced the outcome, in terms a reader could check against the subject;