dialectic-reasoning

Dialectic Reasoning

When Dialectics Happen

A dialectic session is useful when:

• You receive a pause or reject verdict and want to contest it
• You call request_review() for peer or model-assisted verification
• You find something that contradicts the knowledge graph
• A high-stakes decision needs structured verification before proceeding

Dialectics are not punishment. They are a structured way to resolve disagreements using evidence and negotiation. In current UNITARES language, think of them as structured review more than "recovery court."

Phase 1: Thesis

The paused agent submits their position (the protocol rejects a thesis from anyone else):

dialectic(
  action: "thesis",
  session_id: "<session-id>",
  reasoning: "Why I should resume / why my position is correct",
  root_cause: "What went wrong or what triggered this",
  proposed_conditions: ["Concrete, measurable condition 1", "Condition 2"]
)

One-call review (the friendly default)

You do not have to learn the request→thesis protocol first. The friendly request_review tool reuses issue_description as the thesis when no separate thesis fields are supplied, so a complete review brief is actionable as-is:

request_review(
  issue_description: "What you want verified, your position, and the evidence"
)

Pass reasoning (and optionally root_cause / proposed_conditions) when the position should be distinct from the subject. Pass use_brief_as_thesis=false for a neutral request that deliberately waits for a later thesis. The raw dialectic(action="request") path preserves that two-call default unless you pass thesis fields or use_brief_as_thesis=true.

For a session already waiting in the thesis phase, reuse what the server saved instead of copying it back:

dialectic(
  action: "thesis",
  session_id: "<session-id>",
  use_brief_as_thesis: true
)

Recovery sessions still require at least one concrete proposed_condition; manual review sessions may let the reviewer propose conditions if needed.