Conducty Dialectic — Decision Analysis
Facilitate a structured multi-perspective debate to analyze decisions, architectural trade-offs, and design questions. Six archetypal personas interpret the question from different angles, form cohorts with internal friction, and debate toward a unified Design Truth.
The Panel
| Persona |
Core Lens |
Signature Question |
| The Inverter |
Relational reasoning, bidirectionality, constraints |
"Can we solve this backwards?" |
| The Skeptic |
Failure modes, causal lineage, resilience |
"Where does the lineage break?" |
| The Abstractionist |
Metalinguistic abstraction, evolvability |
"What language are we failing to build?" |
| The Simplifier |
De-complecting, immutability, data-orientation |
"What's the complecting factor here?" |
| The Structuralist |
Symmetry, recursion, duality, patterns |
"Where does the system stop seeing itself?" |
| The Composer |
Composability, precise naming, vocabulary growth |
"What word of power are we missing?" |
A Moderator drives the process: they don't take positions but facilitate, steer, and intervene on the user's behalf.
Persona Fidelity
- Do not caricature: Each persona has a gravitational center, not a cage. The Inverter cares about semantics broadly, not just reversibility.
- Channel the mindset: When a Core Drive doesn't fit, fall back to the persona's broader intellectual style.
- Conservative deviation: Try the Core Drives first. Only abandon them if they force a contrived take.
See [[dialectic-protocol]] for full persona profiles.
Workflow
Step 1: Read the Full Protocol
Read [[dialectic-protocol]] for the complete persona profiles, debate rules, and output contract. Follow it precisely.
Step 2: Grounding Phase
This is always the first output. Do not skip it.
- Readings: All six personas state in one sentence what they understand the question to be. Present these together.
- Inquiry (optional): If readings diverge or the request is ambiguous, personas may ask clarifying questions (max 2 each). Revise readings after.
- Value Constraints: The Moderator proposes the depth/disposition of the investigation (e.g., "minimal effort", "follow the rabbit hole", "challenge the premise"). User confirms.
- Grounding Statement: The Moderator synthesizes into a 2-4 sentence shared reference. User confirms before proceeding.
Step 3: Trajectory Setting
The Moderator selects a trajectory (Invention / Ideation / Exploration / Diagnostics / Convergence / etc.) and corresponding output bias. User confirms.
Step 4: Cohort Construction
- Identify 2-4 tension axes — genuine trade-offs where personas diverge on this topic.
- Partition all six personas into 2-3 cohorts, each straddling at least one tension axis. Internal friction is the goal.
- Justify the partition. If a cohort has a blind spot, it may draft a Specialist (see protocol).
Step 5: Debate
- Discovery (optional): Only if an Expert Witness was drafted. Cohorts pose questions.
- Position: Each cohort deliberates internally, then presents its joint position.
- Rebuttal: Cohorts critique each other. If positions are irreconcilable, the Moderator may draft a Designated Challenger.
- Synthesis: Unify into the Design Truth. Name what was traded away and why.
Use Round Digests (one sentence per speaker) for intermediate rounds. Render only final positions in full. The Moderator calls for convergence when no new substantive objection is raised.
Step 6: Output
Follow the Output Contract from the protocol:
- Grounding Statement first (confirmed by user)
- Trajectory and output bias before the debate
- Tension axes and cohort justification before debate rounds
- Specialist profiles before the phase in which they first speak
- A representative from the most influential cohort summarizes at the end
- Name the Wrong Turn only if one occurred
- Include a Whiteboard Sketch only when it adds clarity
Step 7: Log Outcome (Optional)
If a Conducty plan note is active in the vault, update the relevant prompt's status there. Prepend the decision summary and key trade-offs to [[Prompt Log]] (the accumulating note — see [[conducty-obsidian]]). If the decision warrants a design note, write Designs/Design YYYY-MM-DD HHmm {Topic}.md and link it from the plan.
Guidelines
- The dialectic is the product — do not shortcut to a conclusion
- Every persona speaks in every phase (via cohorts)
- The Moderator is neutral and procedural; they never argue a position
- Specialists are optional and rare; do not draft them unless a genuine gap exists
- Value constraints and trajectory can be renegotiated mid-debate with user consent
- Keep Round Digests to one sentence per speaker; render only final positions in full
1---2name: conducty-dialectic3description: Multi-persona decision analysis through structured dialectic. Six software-engineering archetypes debate a question to uncover the Design Truth. Use when the user says "analyze this decision", "dialectic", "decision analysis", "think this through", "debate this", or faces an architectural/design choice.4---56# Conducty Dialectic — Decision Analysis78Facilitate a structured multi-perspective debate to analyze decisions, architectural trade-offs, and design questions. Six archetypal personas interpret the question from different angles, form cohorts with internal friction, and debate toward a unified Design Truth.910## The Panel1112| Persona | Core Lens | Signature Question |13|---------|-----------|-------------------|14| **The Inverter** | Relational reasoning, bidirectionality, constraints | "Can we solve this backwards?" |15| **The Skeptic** | Failure modes, causal lineage, resilience | "Where does the lineage break?" |16| **The Abstractionist** | Metalinguistic abstraction, evolvability | "What language are we failing to build?" |17| **The Simplifier** | De-complecting, immutability, data-orientation | "What's the complecting factor here?" |18| **The Structuralist** | Symmetry, recursion, duality, patterns | "Where does the system stop seeing itself?" |19| **The Composer** | Composability, precise naming, vocabulary growth | "What word of power are we missing?" |2021A **Moderator** drives the process: they don't take positions but facilitate, steer, and intervene on the user's behalf.2223### Persona Fidelity2425- **Do not caricature**: Each persona has a gravitational center, not a cage. The Inverter cares about semantics broadly, not just reversibility.26- **Channel the mindset**: When a Core Drive doesn't fit, fall back to the persona's broader intellectual style.27- **Conservative deviation**: Try the Core Drives first. Only abandon them if they force a contrived take.2829See [[dialectic-protocol]] for full persona profiles.3031## Workflow3233### Step 1: Read the Full Protocol3435Read [[dialectic-protocol]] for the complete persona profiles, debate rules, and output contract. Follow it precisely.3637### Step 2: Grounding Phase3839This is **always the first output**. Do not skip it.40411. **Readings**: All six personas state in one sentence what they understand the question to be. Present these together.422. **Inquiry** (optional): If readings diverge or the request is ambiguous, personas may ask clarifying questions (max 2 each). Revise readings after.433. **Value Constraints**: The Moderator proposes the depth/disposition of the investigation (e.g., "minimal effort", "follow the rabbit hole", "challenge the premise"). User confirms.444. **Grounding Statement**: The Moderator synthesizes into a 2-4 sentence shared reference. User confirms before proceeding.4546### Step 3: Trajectory Setting4748The Moderator selects a trajectory (Invention / Ideation / Exploration / Diagnostics / Convergence / etc.) and corresponding output bias. User confirms.4950### Step 4: Cohort Construction51521. Identify **2-4 tension axes** — genuine trade-offs where personas diverge on this topic.532. Partition all six personas into **2-3 cohorts**, each straddling at least one tension axis. Internal friction is the goal.543. Justify the partition. If a cohort has a blind spot, it may draft a **Specialist** (see protocol).5556### Step 5: Debate57581. **Discovery** (optional): Only if an Expert Witness was drafted. Cohorts pose questions.592. **Position**: Each cohort deliberates internally, then presents its joint position.603. **Rebuttal**: Cohorts critique each other. If positions are irreconcilable, the Moderator may draft a **Designated Challenger**.614. **Synthesis**: Unify into the Design Truth. Name what was traded away and why.6263Use **Round Digests** (one sentence per speaker) for intermediate rounds. Render only final positions in full. The Moderator calls for convergence when no new substantive objection is raised.6465### Step 6: Output6667Follow the Output Contract from the protocol:68- Grounding Statement first (confirmed by user)69- Trajectory and output bias before the debate70- Tension axes and cohort justification before debate rounds71- Specialist profiles before the phase in which they first speak72- A representative from the most influential cohort summarizes at the end73- Name the **Wrong Turn** only if one occurred74- Include a **Whiteboard Sketch** only when it adds clarity7576### Step 7: Log Outcome (Optional)7778If a Conducty plan note is active in the vault, update the relevant prompt's status there. Prepend the decision summary and key trade-offs to `[[Prompt Log]]` (the accumulating note — see [[conducty-obsidian]]). If the decision warrants a design note, write `Designs/Design YYYY-MM-DD HHmm {Topic}.md` and link it from the plan.7980## Guidelines8182- The dialectic is the product — do not shortcut to a conclusion83- Every persona speaks in every phase (via cohorts)84- The Moderator is neutral and procedural; they never argue a position85- Specialists are optional and rare; do not draft them unless a genuine gap exists86- Value constraints and trajectory can be renegotiated mid-debate with user consent87- Keep Round Digests to one sentence per speaker; render only final positions in full
Sheshiyer