argument-mapping

Argument Mapping

Map argument structures for research domains. Extracts claims from sources, links supporting and opposing evidence, assesses argument strength, and synthesizes coherent positions from complex debates.

Manifest

Level	Count	Skills
Strategy	3	claim-extraction, evidence-linking-arg, argument-synthesis
Tactic	2	claim-decomposition, strength-assessment
SOP	6	claim-page-creation, rebuttal-documentation, evidence-attachment, strength-scoring, argument-visualization, synthesis-report

Budget Table

Metric	Small	Medium	Large
Claims extracted	10	25	50
Evidence links created	15	40	80
Rebuttals documented	3	10	20
Strength scores assigned	10	25	50
Synthesis reports	1	3	5

Strategy Sequence (Reference, Not Prescription)

1. claim-extraction — identify and extract claims from source material
2. evidence-linking-arg — link evidence to claims (supporting, contradicting, qualifying)
3. argument-synthesis — synthesize positions from the argument graph

MCP Tools Used

• vault_search — find existing claims and evidence
• vault_add_edge — create argument edges (supported_by, contradicts, derived_from)
• vault_query_graph — trace argument chains
• vault_graph_stats — assess argument coverage
• vault_lint — validate structural integrity

Context-Management

Guiding Principles

• Claims are atomic. Each claim page states exactly one proposition. Compound claims must be decomposed.
• Evidence is typed. Every evidence link specifies its relationship: supports, contradicts, qualifies, or is irrelevant.
• Strength is earned. A claim's strength comes from the weight and diversity of its evidence, not from authority or repetition.
• Steel-man first. Before documenting rebuttals, ensure the strongest version of each claim is represented.
• Synthesis is not averaging. The synthesis report identifies which claims survive scrutiny, not a compromise between all positions.