Adversarial Deliberation

adversarial-deliberation

Purpose

Run structured attack, defense, cross-examination, and adjudication over a claim, candidate, criterion set, or current winner.

Input contract

yamlCopy code
mode_contracts:
  critic-defender-judge: &deliberation_input
    required: [target, claim_or_candidate, criteria]
    optional: [perspectives, escalation_depth]
    constraints: [target_scope_and_criteria_must_be_explicit, evidence_provenance_required]
  courtroom: *deliberation_input
  winner-stress: *deliberation_input
  resurrection-advocacy: *deliberation_input
  criteria-interrogation: *deliberation_input
  stakeholder-objection: *deliberation_input
  counter-thesis: *deliberation_input

Execution protocol

Do not perform called SOP operations inline; each loaded SOP owns its contract and thresholds.

1. You MUST load skill construct-critique to construct the strongest attack. You MUST load skill construct-defense to construct the strongest defensible case.
2. You MUST load skill surface-assumptions to expose load-bearing assumptions. You MUST load skill construct-perspective-set to construct alternate perspectives.
3. You MUST load skill cross-examine to cross-examine each exchange. You MUST load skill assess-sensitivity to perturb load-bearing choices.
4. You MUST load skill adjudicate-exchange to adjudicate against declared criteria. You MUST load skill calibrate-adversarial-confidence to update calibrated confidence. If the task shifts from balanced exchange to direct attack-surface probing, consider structured-red-team. If an exposed assumption requires focused perturbation, consider assumption-stress-test. If the surviving claim needs a decisive falsification program, falsification-first-audit may be the better next tactic. Deviation: skip defense only when the target is explicitly exploratory; skip sensitivity only when no perturbable input is declared; otherwise retain all steps.

Output contract

yamlCopy code
mode_contracts:
  critic-defender-judge: &full_deliberation_output
    produces: [attack_record, defense_record, adjudication, confidence_trace]
    delta_fields: [findings, evidence_updates, uncertainties, decisions, open_questions]
  courtroom: *full_deliberation_output
  winner-stress:
    produces: [attack_record, adjudication, confidence_trace]
    delta_fields: [findings, evidence_updates, uncertainties, decisions, open_questions]
  resurrection-advocacy: &defense_deliberation_output
    produces: [defense_record, adjudication, confidence_trace]
    delta_fields: [findings, evidence_updates, uncertainties, decisions, open_questions]
  criteria-interrogation:
    produces: [attack_record, defense_record, adjudication]
    delta_fields: [findings, evidence_updates, uncertainties, decisions, open_questions]
  stakeholder-objection: *full_deliberation_output
  counter-thesis: *defense_deliberation_output

Thresholds and quality gates

• A-class debate calibration: declared universe = all rounds and claims; numerator = rounds with evidence-linked confidence updates; batch increment = one completed exchange; stopping reason = confidence stabilizes or unresolved disagreement is explicitly reported; source references = evidence IDs and round IDs; direction/threshold reason = escalate when new evidence changes ranking, terminate only when criteria are adjudicated or a non-resolvable uncertainty is recorded.
• Every verdict must cite criteria and preserve dissent.

Failure and counterexamples

Do not treat rhetorical fluency as evidence. Mark unresolved when attack and defense share an untested assumption or criteria are absent.

Provenance map

• resolved: multiagent-debate
• resolved: critic-defender-judge
• resolved: courtroom-structured
• resolved: adversarial-escalation
• resolved: steel-manning
• resolved: resurrection-advocacy
• resolved: winner-stress-testing
• resolved: adversarial-debate-protocol
• resolved: assumption-excavation
• resolved: multi-perspective-attack
• intermediate: Pass5/adversarial-debate
• intermediate: Pass5/steelman-validation

Preserved source criteria ledger

Context checkpoint / Delta notes

Append claim, criteria, attack/defense records, dissent, confidence changes, and unresolved questions.

Mode branches

• critic-defender-judge: attack, defense, adjudication.
• courtroom: add cross-examination and explicit evidentiary ruling.
• winner-stress: perturb the current winner and record failure triggers.
• resurrection-advocacy: re-open a rejected candidate with a steelman.
• criteria-interrogation: challenge the criteria before ranking.
• stakeholder-objection: add perspective-specific objections.
• counter-thesis: require a mechanism-distinct opposing thesis.