devils-advocate

name	devils-advocate
description	Structured debate between two perspectives on a research design decision.
argument-hint	[decision] [option-A] vs [option-B]

Devil's Advocate — Structured Design Debate

When to Use

When uncertain about a design choice: DiD vs synthetic control, instrument A vs instrument B, cluster at district vs province, include control X or not.

Steps

1. State the decision clearly: what is being decided, what are the options

2. Argue FOR Option A — the strongest possible case:

   • What assumptions does it require?
   • What makes it the better choice for this specific setting?
   • What would a supportive referee say?
   • What evidence supports it?

3. Argue FOR Option B — the strongest possible case:

   • Same structure as above
   • No straw-manning — the best version of this argument

4. Present the trade-off matrix:

   Dimension	Option A	Option B
   Assumptions required
   Robustness to violations
   Data requirements
   Reviewer acceptability
   Precision

5. Recommendation (with caveats): which option is stronger and why

6. Document the decision and reasoning in pre-analysis-plan/strategy-memo.md

Important

• Ideally run with two separate Claude sessions (one per side) for genuine independence
• The goal is to surface the strongest version of each argument, not to confirm a prior
• Document the decision — future you will want to know why you chose Option A