dissect

name	dissect
description	Investigate complex claims: decompose into atomic verifiable components, resolve vague entities, verify each independently, separate confirmed facts from narrative interpretation. Use to fact-check complex claims, investigate narratives mixing fact with interpretation, or when a claim bundles multiple assertions. Trigger phrases: "investigate this claim", "fact-check this", "is this true", "decompose this narrative", "viral content check", "trace this claim", "/empire-research:dissect". Findings stay local — never post to GitHub.
compatibility	Requires network access (web search and fetch).

Complex claims combine verifiable facts with unverifiable interpretations. Effective investigation decomposes claims into atomic components, verifies each independently, and clearly distinguishes confirmed facts from narrative framing.

Scope: dissect investigates external claims (social media, sources, viral content) — multi-part assertions that bundle fact with framing.

Extract Atomic Claims

Break the statement into individual verifiable claims. Each MUST be:

• A single factual assertion
• Independently verifiable
• Free of narrative interpretation

Example: Original: "The House Leader refusing to seat the newly-elected AZ-07 special election winner because she'd vote to release the Epstein files"

Atomic claims:

1. There is a House Leader (entity exists)
2. There was an AZ-07 special election (event occurred)
3. Someone won that election (result exists)
4. The winner has not been seated (current state)
5. A refusal action occurred (specific action claim)
6. Causal relationship with Epstein files (causation claim)

Classify Each Component

Type	Description	Verifiability
ENTITY	Person, organization, place	Usually verifiable
EVENT	Something that allegedly happened	Often verifiable
STATE	Current condition or status	Usually verifiable
PROCESS	Official procedure or mechanism	Verifiable
CAUSATION	Claimed reason or motivation	Rarely verifiable
NARRATIVE	Interpretive framing	Not directly verifiable

Identify Missing Information

Note what's conspicuously absent: unnamed entities, unspecified dates, missing procedural context, absent opposing perspectives.

Convert vague references to specific, searchable terms before searching.

• "House Leader" → current House Speaker/Majority Leader name
• "newly-elected winner" → candidate names from election results
• "Epstein files" → specific documents/investigations

For each event: when did it allegedly occur? What is normal timeline for this type of event? Are there procedural deadlines?

Identify: primary actors (taking alleged actions), secondary actors (affected), official bodies with relevant authority, potential verification sources.

Verify Foundational Facts First

Start with most basic, verifiable claims:

1. Did the event occur?
2. Do the entities exist?
3. Are basic facts correct?

Search strategy: official sources first (.gov, electoral bodies) → cross-reference multiple news sources → look for primary documents.

Investigate Procedural Context

For any claimed action/inaction:

1. What is normal procedure?
2. What are the requirements?
3. What is typical timeline?
4. What are legitimate reasons for delays?

Examine Causation Claims

Causation requires direct evidence — "X happened" + "Y exists" does not confirm "X because Y."

Direct evidence: quoted statements from alleged actor, official statements or press releases, video/audio of relevant statements.

Indirect evidence: other explanations for observed facts, standard reasons for similar situations, procedural explanations.

Context: previous positions by involved parties, historical precedents, timeline compatibility.

Priority order:

1. Official government records / databases
2. Direct statements from involved parties
3. Court documents or legal filings
4. Contemporary news reports (multiple outlets)
5. Analysis or opinion pieces (noted as such)

For each source, note: type (official / news / advocacy / social media), date relative to events, whether claims are attributed, presence of supporting documentation, corrections or updates issued.

Document bias without dismissing: source's typical alignment, stakeholder relationships, pattern of coverage, language choices (neutral vs. charged).

Patterns indicating narrative rather than fact:

• Causal chains without evidence ("X because Y because Z")
• Mind-reading claims ("thinks that," "wants to")
• Selective fact inclusion
• Temporal conflation (mixing time periods)
• False dichotomies

For each narrative: what facts support it? What facts complicate it? What alternative narratives explain the same facts? What facts are excluded?

VERIFIED FACTS:
- [Fact] (Source: [citation], Confidence: Certain/Probable/Possible)

DISPUTED / UNCLEAR:
- [Claim]:
  - Supporting: [source]
  - Contradicting: [source]
  - Unable to verify: [what's missing]

CONTEXT NEEDED:
- [Procedural context]
- [Historical precedent]

NARRATIVE ELEMENTS (not directly verifiable):
- [Claim]
  - Facts that support: [list]
  - Facts that complicate: [list]
  - Alternative explanations: [list]

Confidence levels:

Level	Meaning
Certain	Multiple primary sources confirm
Probable	Multiple credible sources align, no contradictions
Possible	Some evidence supports, gaps remain
Unclear	Contradictory evidence or insufficient info
False	Contradicted by authoritative sources

Confirmation Rush — finding one source that matches the claim and declaring it verified. Fix: require 2-3 independent sources. Trace claims back to primary sources. Check if "multiple sources" are repeating the same original.

Causation Collapse — accepting "X happened because Y" when only "X happened" and "Y exists" are verified. Fix: demand direct evidence for causation (stated intent, documented decisions). Report as "alleged motivation" when causation can't be verified.

Premature Debunking — finding one fact wrong and dismissing the entire claim. Complex claims often mix true and false elements. Fix: decompose fully, verify each component independently.

Authority Fallacy — accepting official sources uncritically. Official sources can be wrong, incomplete, outdated, or misleading. Fix: cross-reference official sources; distinguish "official position" from "verified fact."

Narrative Anchoring — starting with a hypothesis and investigating to prove it. Fix: start with specific claims as stated. Investigate each on its own terms. Actively seek disconfirming evidence.