Campaign: Counterfactual reasoning to identify load-bearing factors. Core question: If key factors were different, would the conclusion still hold? Methods: Pearl SCM Three-Step, Lewis Possible Worlds, Tetlock & Belkin, PNS/PS.
Strategy: Classic triangular debate — Critic attacks, Defender responds, Judge adjudicates. Based on Irving AI Safety via Debate with Toulmin argumentation structure.
Designs debate structure based on artifact type — selects attack vectors, assigns perspectives, determines escalation ladder, and configures round parameters.
Responds to attacks with counter-evidence and counter-arguments. Defends artifact using evidence, clarification, and rebuttal while acknowledging valid criticisms.
Strategy: Attack a beautiful unified result on the suspicion that its beauty is the bug. Distinguishes EARNED simplicity (forbids/predicts/subsumes) from DECORATIVE simplicity (re-describes/relabels/accommodates). Directly serves the Occam aesthetic by making it a falsifiable bar, not a vibe. Methods: Sober…
Tactic: Evidence gathering, cross-examination, and quality judgment. External evidence is collected, presented, challenged, and scored for relevance and reliability.
Strategy: Systematic factor removal — remove factors one at a time and observe whether the conclusion remains stable, identifying which factors are load-bearing.
Campaign: Forward-looking failure analysis combining pre-mortem rapid screening with systematic FMEA deep-dive. Core question: If this artifact fails, how will it fail? Methods: Klein Pre-Mortem 2007, AIAG-VDA FMEA 2019, IEC 60812.