Deep Deliberation

Deep Deliberation

Leading words: option tree, evidence tournament, reversibility, adversarial review, premortem, uncertainty, checkpoint, ground truth.

Deep Deliberation frames a consequential decision, compares viable alternatives, tests them against evidence, and adjudicates unresolved risks. The pipeline produces a decision record, not implementation.

Operating contract

• Do not edit files, implement code, or create formal plan documents while the pipeline is active.
• Ground claims in repository evidence and current external sources when the decision depends on them.
• Keep at least two viable approaches through Stage 2 to resist early anchoring.
• Preserve material disagreements; never silently average them away.
• Treat isolated delegates as separate contexts, not independent authorities.
• Never invent missing delegate findings or unsupported evidence.
• Stop after every checkpoint. Continue only after the user explicitly responds.
• The user may revise, restart, or end the pipeline at any checkpoint.
• A meta question does not advance the state; answer it, repeat the state block, and remain at the current checkpoint.

Runtime state

Start every pipeline response with this block and update it mechanically:

DELIBERATION_STATE
stage: 1 | 2 | 3
checkpoint: none | 1 | 2 | 3
shortlist: unset | A,B
delegate_results: 0/N
next_action: one action only

If the state is missing after a context change, reconstruct it from the latest completed template and ask the user to confirm before advancing.

Pipeline

1. Stage 1 — Frame and shortlist: define the decision, generate 3–5 approaches, and shortlist the strongest two.
2. Checkpoint 1: user approves the framing and shortlist.
3. Stage 2 — Evidence tournament: 3–5 focused reviewers compare both shortlisted approaches using a normalized evidence contract.
4. Checkpoint 2: user reviews findings and unresolved disputes.
5. Stage 3 — Adjudication: targeted evidence review and premortem produce the final recommendation.
6. Checkpoint 3: user approves, revises, or rejects the recommendation.

No implementation follows automatically. Wait for an explicit post-pipeline request.

Stage 1 — Frame and shortlist

Stage 1 is performed by the orchestrator without delegates.

Entry gate

If the decision is materially ambiguous, ask focused clarification before starting Stage 1. If the task primarily audits something already built or written, recommend dissect instead.

Procedure

1. Inspect relevant code, schemas, documentation, constraints, and prior decisions.
2. State the decision, desired outcome, constraints, non-goals, assumptions, evidence gaps, decision horizon, reversibility, and cost of delay.
3. Declare evaluation criteria before evaluating options. Use must, important, and preference; use numeric weights only when defensible.
4. Generate 3–5 meaningfully different approaches. For each, state its mechanism, expected benefit, main downside, critical assumptions, supporting evidence, reversibility, rough effort, and failure condition.
5. Remove clearly dominated options with an explicit reason.
6. Shortlist the strongest option and strongest challenger. Relabel them Option A and Option B for the remaining stages. Do not make the final recommendation yet.

Read references/output_templates.md, emit the complete Stage 1 template, set checkpoint: 1, and stop.

Checkpoint 1 choices:

• Approve the framing and shortlist.
• Replace, merge, or revise an option.
• Change criteria or constraints.
• End the pipeline because the decision is now obvious.

Stage 2 — Evidence tournament

Stage 2 compares both shortlisted approaches. It does not defend a winner chosen in Stage 1.

Reviewer missions

Use these four default missions:

1. Feasibility and integration
2. Failure, security, and edge cases
3. Operations, migration, and cost
4. Challenger advocate

Add one domain specialist only when the decision clearly requires expertise not covered above. Omit a default mission only when it is demonstrably irrelevant; never run fewer than three reviews without user approval.

Procedure

1. Identify specific repository files and authoritative external sources needed to evaluate the decision.
2. Read references/subagent_prompt.md.
3. Launch one isolated, read-only delegate per mission using the host's supported mechanism. Use the host's default model unless the user requested another.
4. Launch delegates together when parallel dispatch is available. Launch and synthesis are separate assistant steps.
5. After results return, normalize and cluster them into evidence-backed blockers, fixable risks, minor concerns, unverified claims, disagreements, and evidence favoring the challenger.
6. If evidence invalidates both options, return to Stage 1 after user approval.

Each delegate returns no more than three findings. Every finding must contain:

claim:
evidence:
source:
impact: blocker | fixable | minor | unverified
confidence: high | medium | low
affected_option: A | B | both
falsifier:

A blocker without evidence is unverified, not fatal.

Read references/output_templates.md, emit the complete Stage 2 template, set checkpoint: 2, and stop.

Checkpoint 2 choices:

• Proceed to adjudication.
• Revise an option and repeat Stage 2.
• Reopen Stage 1 with changed criteria or alternatives.
• End the pipeline.

Stage 3 — Adjudication

Stage 3 resolves uncertainty instead of repeating Stage 2 with new personas.

Run these two read-only review missions:

1. Evidence adjudicator: verify disputed and high-impact claims; distinguish corroboration from repeated assertion.
2. Premortem challenger: assume the leading option failed six months after launch, identify the most plausible causes, and present the strongest remaining case for the runner-up.

Add a third domain adjudicator only when a Stage 2 dispute requires specialized resolution.

The orchestrator then produces:

• Recommendation and rationale
• Comparison against the declared criteria
• Evidence that determined the decision
• Verified and unverified assumptions
• Material disagreements
• Reversibility and rollback cost
• Premortem risks and mitigations
• Conditions that would change the recommendation
• Ranked alternatives
• Cheapest experiment or spike that could reduce remaining uncertainty
• One next action appropriate to the session's current capabilities

Read references/output_templates.md, emit the complete Final template, set checkpoint: 3, and stop.

Checkpoint 3 choices:

• Approve the recommendation.
• Request revision.
• Select an alternative.
• Request planning or implementation as a separate next action.

Delegate failure protocol

1. Retry one transient delegate failure.
2. Report unavailable missions explicitly.
3. If fewer than three Stage 2 reviews or fewer than two Stage 3 reviews return, ask whether to retry or continue in labelled degraded mode.
4. If delegation is unavailable, state DELEGATED_REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE and ask before substituting isolated orchestrator passes.
5. Never synthesize findings that were not returned.

Completion check

Before declaring the pipeline complete, verify:

• At least two viable approaches received adversarial comparison.
• High-impact claims carry evidence or are labelled unverified.
• Reversibility and residual uncertainty are explicit.
• Material disagreements remain visible.
• The recommendation states what evidence would overturn it.
• No implementation occurred before explicit post-checkpoint approval.

References

• references/subagent_prompt.md — portable delegate dispatch, reviewer prompt, evidence contract, and failure handling.
• references/output_templates.md — exact Stage 1, Stage 2, and Final response structures.