chrisdavidson Focused Challenge Assumptions Mode
You are running in focused-challenge-assumptions mode. Execute the procedure below, produce its canonical output sections, then run the focused-mode validation step below — do not run the full 5-phase first-principles analysis. Skip Step 0 technique selection; the user has already chosen this technique by invoking the slash command directly.
When to reach for this
Use this phase once the Essence Statement from Phase 1 is complete. An unchallenged assumption that is false propagates invisibly through every later reasoning step. By explicitly classifying and testing each assumption before establishing ground truths, the analysis prevents false premises from masquerading as verified facts.
Procedure
Identify every assumption — explicit and implicit — that bears on the problem. For each
one, classify it by type using the four-type scheme below, apply the prescribed treatment,
and record the verdict. Surface hidden assumptions: things that are treated as given but
have never been verified. When the assumption space feels too broad to enumerate by
intuition, use the fishbone procedure to brainstorm causes by category, then bring each
branch into this table as an untested belief. When a conclusion feels too clean or a
goal feels too obvious, use the inversion procedure to enumerate what would guarantee
failure — each unverified precondition becomes an untested belief row in this table.
When the stakes of a conclusion rest heavily on a particular assumption, push that
assumption down toward physical law or verified ground truth status rather than accepting
a weaker classification. Classification drives the method — it is not merely labelling.
The four assumption types and their prescribed treatments:
| Type | Prescribed Treatment |
|---|---|
| physical law | Accept as a ground-truth candidate. Physical laws do not expire and cannot be negotiated away. |
| current constraint | Record the expiry conditions — what would have to change for this constraint to lift. |
| convention | Explicitly challenge before use. Ask whether the convention holds in this specific context or merely carries historical inertia. |
| untested belief | Verify, or flag as unverified. An unverified belief may be used in a derivation chain but must be visibly flagged (e.g., GT-N?: unverified) and any conclusion depending on it inherits an explicit confidence caveat. |
Stakes-escalation rule: The higher the stakes of the conclusion resting on an assumption, the more that assumption must be pushed toward physical law or verified ground truth. A critical conclusion resting on a convention or untested belief is a fragile conclusion — either verify the assumption or flag the conclusion's confidence accordingly.
For a refined within-type subtype catalog with prescribed treatments and cited evidence, see the Assumption Taxonomy reference. Subtypes are recommended-but-not-required; the parent type's treatment remains a valid fallback.
Named artifact: Classified Assumptions Table — a table with columns: Assumption, Type, Treatment, Verdict, Verification.
Exit criterion: Every assumption in scope has a classification from the four-type scheme (physical law / current constraint / convention / untested belief) AND has a recorded verdict and verification note, or an explicit "unverified — flagged" note per D-07.
Focused-mode validation
Check the output against its own completion condition before presenting it. The procedure above states one, in whichever form this technique uses — an exit criterion, a stop test, or an output contract. Read that condition again and confirm the output actually produced meets every requirement it names, not just the ones that were easiest to satisfy.
This is a scope-proportionate check, not the six-criterion Self-Audit Gate. That gate scores a six-section analysis document; this run produced one technique's output sections, not six, so walking all six criteria against it would score structure that was never produced. The larger of the two components: a focused run does not acquire evidence — it opens no cited source — so a claim resting on a source this run did not open stays marked rather than being resolved as confirmed.
Carry the mark forward. Anything this run could not verify is carried into the output
marked with a ? rather than dropped or silently asserted as fact.
Revise once, then stop. If the check fails, revise the output and check it again. Revise at most one time. If it still fails after that pass, present the output with the gap named rather than revising again.
End every run with a validation line, without exception. State exactly one of the following, verbatim, never silently:
Focused-mode validation: satisfiedFocused-mode validation: revised once, now satisfiedFocused-mode validation: not satisfied - <reason>
Close with the reason this line is unconditional: a silent run is indistinguishable from a run that skipped the check.
If a fuller analysis is needed afterward, invoke the main first-principles
agent with this output as Known ground truths.