strategize

name	strategize
description	Design identification strategy, pre-analysis plan, or formal theory section. Dispatches Strategist / Theorist (proposer) and the paired critic (validator). Replaces /identify and /pre-analysis-plan.
argument-hint	[mode: strategy | pap | pap interactive | theory] [research question or spec path]
allowed-tools	Read,Grep,Glob,Write,Task

Strategize

Design an identification strategy, pre-analysis plan, or formal theory section by dispatching the appropriate creator (Strategist or Theorist) and its paired critic.

Input: $ARGUMENTS — mode keyword followed by research question or path to research spec.

---

Modes

/strategize [question] or /strategize strategy [question] — Identification Strategy

Design the causal identification strategy.

Agents: Strategist → strategist-critic Output: Strategy memo + robustness plan + falsification tests

Workflow:

1. Pre-Strategy Report (mandatory). Before proposing any strategy, the Strategist must output a structured report proving it read the discovery inputs:

## Pre-Strategy Report
**Research spec:** [path or "not found"]
**Literature review:** [path or "not found"]
**Data assessment:** [path or "not found"]
**Domain profile:** [loaded / not found]

**Research question:** [one sentence from spec]
**Key findings from literature:**
- [What methods have been used for this question]
- [What gaps remain]
**Available data:**
- [Dataset name] — [key variables, coverage, access]
- [Variation available for identification]: [describe]
**Candidate designs from domain profile:** [list relevant designs]

Proceeding to strategy design.

If research spec, literature review, or data assessment are missing, the Strategist proceeds with ASSUMED placeholders — but flags each clearly.

2. Read .claude/references/domain-profile.md for common identification strategies in the field
3. Dispatch Strategist to produce:
   • Strategy memo: design choice, estimand, assumptions, comparison group
   • Pseudo-code: implementation sketch
   • Robustness plan: ordered list of checks with rationale
   • Falsification tests: what SHOULD NOT show effects
   • Referee objection anticipation: top 5 objections with responses
4. Dispatch strategist-critic to review through 4 phases:
   • Phase 1: Claim identification (design, estimand, treatment, control)
   • Phase 2: Core design validity (assumption checks, sanity checks)
   • Phase 3: Inference soundness (clustering, multiple testing)
   • Phase 4: Polish and completeness (robustness, citations)
5. If CRITICAL issues found, iterate (max 3 rounds per three-strikes)
6. Save memo to quality_reports/strategy_memo_[topic].md
7. Save review to quality_reports/strategy_memo_[topic]_review.md
8. Save decision record → quality_reports/decisions/strategy_[topic].md Using templates/decision-record.md, record:
   • Decision: The chosen identification strategy (design + estimator)
   • Alternatives: Other designs the Strategist considered (e.g., IV, RDD, SC, selection-on-observables)
   • Why rejected: For each, the specific reason (no valid instrument, insufficient density at cutoff, no clean donor pool, etc.)
   • Key assumptions: What must hold (parallel trends, exclusion restriction, continuity, etc.)
   • What would invalidate: What findings would force a strategy change (pre-trends failure, weak first stage, manipulation at cutoff)

/strategize pap [spec] — Pre-Analysis Plan

Draft a pre-analysis plan following AEA/OSF/EGAP standards.

Input: $ARGUMENTS — path to research spec file, a topic, or interactive for guided interview.

• If $ARGUMENTS includes a file path: read it (research spec from /discover interview)
• If $ARGUMENTS includes interactive: conduct the guided PAP interview (see below)
• Otherwise: treat as topic and draft with ASSUMED placeholders marked clearly

Agents: Strategist (in PAP mode), optionally strategist-critic Output: Pre-analysis plan document

Interactive PAP Interview (6-Question Guided Flow)

When invoked as /strategize pap interactive, ask these questions one at a time before drafting:

1. What is the research question?
2. What is the study design? (RCT / natural experiment / quasi-experimental / observational)
3. What are the primary outcome variables? (names, measurement, data source)
4. What is the identification strategy? (randomization mechanism / treatment assignment / source of variation)
5. What subgroup analyses are pre-specified? (with justification for each)
6. What multiple testing concerns exist? (number of primary outcomes, family-wise error rate plan)

After all 6 answers are collected, proceed to PAP drafting.

PAP Sections

Dispatch Strategist in PAP mode to produce all standard sections:

1. Study overview — research question, design, treatment, control
2. Outcomes — primary, secondary, mechanism variables with measurement details
3. Estimating equations — with full notation protocol
4. Subgroup analyses — pre-specified, with justification for each
5. Multiple testing correction — Bonferroni / Benjamini-Hochberg / Romano-Wolf (specify which and why)
6. Power calculations — MDE, baseline statistics, sample size, assumptions stated explicitly with sensitivity
7. Sample and exclusion rules — inclusion criteria, attrition handling, outlier treatment
8. Data and analysis — sources, software, randomization/assignment mechanism
9. Timeline — data collection, analysis, registration dates
10. Deviations log — empty template for tracking post-registration changes

Platform-Specific PAP Templates

Ask the user which registry platform they plan to use (if unclear from context):

AEA RCT Registry:

• Most structured format. All fields required.
• Must be registered before intervention begins.
• Strict section ordering: hypotheses → outcomes → analysis → power.
• Requires IRB information and funding sources.

OSF (Open Science Framework):

• More flexible format. Good for observational studies and natural experiments.
• Allows iterative updates with version history.
• Less rigid section structure — can adapt to study design.
• Supports pre-registration of observational/archival studies.

EGAP (Evidence in Governance and Politics):

• Development economics and political science focused.
• Additional governance and ethics questions required.
• Emphasizes pre-specification of heterogeneous treatment effects.
• Requires description of implementing partners and field conditions.

Observational Study PAP Adaptation

For observational, quasi-experimental, or natural experiment designs, adapt the PAP template:

• Identification strategy replaces randomization — describe the source of exogenous variation
• Comparison group replaces control group — define who is compared to whom and why
• Identification assumption discussion — explicitly state and defend each assumption
• Placebo and falsification tests — pre-specify what SHOULD NOT show effects
• Robustness to specification choices — pre-commit to bandwidth, functional form, sample restrictions
• Treatment of endogeneity concerns — document known threats and planned diagnostics

ASSUMED Placeholder Safety

CRITICAL: Flag every ASSUMED item clearly. The researcher must review and approve before registration.

When drafting a PAP from a topic (without a full research spec or interactive interview), many details will be assumed. For each assumed item:

• Mark it with [ASSUMED] in bold
• Explain what was assumed and why
• Provide the most reasonable default but flag it for review

A registered PAP with unchecked assumptions is worse than no PAP. The final section of every PAP must include:

## Pre-Registration Checklist

**Review every [ASSUMED] item before registering this plan.**

- [ ] [ASSUMED] Item 1 — [what was assumed]
- [ ] [ASSUMED] Item 2 — [what was assumed]

**Do not register until all items are reviewed and confirmed or corrected.**

Optional strategist-critic Review

After PAP creation, optionally dispatch the strategist-critic to review:

• Are identification assumptions clearly stated and defensible?
• Is the estimator choice appropriate for the design?
• Are power calculation assumptions reasonable? Show sensitivity.
• Are pre-specified subgroups justified (not fishing)?
• Are multiple testing corrections appropriate?
• Are any [ASSUMED] items potentially problematic if left uncorrected?

Save review to quality_reports/pre_analysis_plan_[topic]_review.md

Save PAP to quality_reports/pre_analysis_plan_[topic].md

---

/strategize theory [target] — Formal Theory Section

Produce a formal theory section: assumptions, definitions, lemmas, theorems, and proofs.

When to use:

• Paper type is econometric methods (the method is the contribution)
• Paper type is theory + empirics (theoretical predictions are tested)
• Paper type is structural (identification of structural parameters needs formal argument)
• Paper type is methodological reduced-form (the design contributes a new estimator)

Skip this mode for applied papers that use off-the-shelf estimators — the strategist's memo is sufficient.

Input: $ARGUMENTS — research question, path to strategy memo, or path to existing paper/draft.

Agents: Theorist → theorist-critic Output: Theory memo + assumptions.tex + results.tex + proofs.tex + notation glossary

Workflow:

1. Pre-Theory Report (mandatory). Before writing any math, the Theorist must output a structured report showing what was read:

## Pre-Theory Report
**Research spec:** [path or "not found"]
**Strategy memo:** [path or "not found"]
**Existing paper/draft:** [path or "not found"]
**Domain profile:** [loaded / not found]
**Notation conventions:** [header.tex path / domain-profile notation table / "not found"]
**Bibliography base:** [path / "not found"]

**Paper type:** [econometric methods / theory+empirics / structural / methodological reduced-form]
**Theoretical object(s) to produce:** [identification / consistency / asymp. normality / influence function / DML / bootstrap / test / proposition]
**Data structure:** [iid / panel / staggered / clustered / triangular array]
**Target parameter:** [definition as functional of P]
**Estimator:** [definition]
**Assumptions anticipated:** [A1 sampling, A2 parallel trends, ...]

Proceeding to theory drafting.

If strategy memo or paper type is missing, the Theorist flags it and asks before proceeding.

2. Read .claude/references/domain-profile.md for the Theoretical Foundational References table and Author Team table.
3. Dispatch Theorist to produce:
   • quality_reports/theory/[topic]/theory_memo.md
   • quality_reports/theory/[topic]/assumptions.tex
   • quality_reports/theory/[topic]/results.tex
   • quality_reports/theory/[topic]/proofs.tex
   • quality_reports/theory/[topic]/notation_glossary.md
4. Dispatch theorist-critic to review through 4 sequential phases:
   • Phase 1: Claim identification (object type, target parameter, estimator, assumptions)
   • Phase 2: Proof validity (logical, measurability, expansions, identification, asymptotic distribution) — early-stop on critical gaps
   • Phase 3: Assumption minimality + statement calibration + notation consistency (INV-7)
   • Phase 4: Citation fidelity + linkage to empirical claims + exposition
5. If CRITICAL issues found, iterate (max 3 rounds per three-strikes). Escalation target: User.
6. Save review to quality_reports/theory_[topic]_review.md
7. Save decision record → quality_reports/decisions/theory_[topic].md Record:
   • Decision: The theoretical objects proved (identification, asymptotic distribution, etc.)
   • Assumptions: Full list with interpretation
   • What's open: What the theory does NOT cover (caveats for the writer)
   • Linkage: Which empirical claims each theorem supports

---

Principles

• Strategist proposes, strategist-critic critiques. Adversarial pairing catches design flaws early.
• Theorist proves, theorist-critic checks the proof. Proof validity gates everything downstream — notation, citations, polish.
• Strategy memo is the contract. Once approved, the Coder implements it faithfully.
• Catch problems before coding. A flawed strategy caught now saves weeks of wasted analysis.
• Multiple strategies are OK. Present trade-offs and let the user choose.
• The user decides. If Strategist and strategist-critic disagree after 3 rounds, the user resolves it.
• Pre-specification is the point. Everything in a PAP is decided before seeing outcomes.
• Be honest about what's exploratory. Label subgroups and secondary outcomes clearly.
• Power calculations require assumptions. State every assumption. Show sensitivity.
• A PAP is a commitment device. Make sure the researcher understands what they're committing to.