Counterfactual Probing Campaign
Core question: If key factors were different, would the conclusion still hold?
Methodology Sources
- Pearl (2000) — Structural Causal Models, Three-Step counterfactual procedure
- Lewis (1973) — Possible Worlds semantics for counterfactuals
- Tetlock & Belkin (1996) — Counterfactual thought experiments in world politics
- Fearon (1991) — Counterfactuals and hypothesis testing in political science
- Williamson (2007) — The Philosophy of Philosophy, thought experiment methodology
Strategy Routing
| Artifact Type |
Primary Strategy |
Fallback Strategy |
| hypothesis, claim |
structural-counterfactual |
necessity-sufficiency |
| research-question |
thought-experiment |
closest-worlds |
| idea, approach |
factor-removal |
closest-worlds |
| experiment-design |
necessity-sufficiency |
structural-counterfactual |
| gap |
closest-worlds |
factor-removal |
Budget Table
| Parameter |
S (Quick) |
M (Standard) |
L (Deep) |
| Factors examined |
5 |
10 |
20 |
| Counterfactual scenarios |
3 |
8 |
15 |
| Necessity tests |
3 |
6 |
12 |
| Flip-point search depth |
2 |
4 |
8 |
Tactics
- systematic-factor-ablation — Remove factors one at a time, observe conclusion stability
- minimal-change-search — Find smallest change that flips the conclusion
- causal-necessity-testing — Evaluate necessity and sufficiency of each causal claim
Context Management
Each subagent operates in isolated context. Factor enumeration precedes all counterfactual reasoning. Scenarios are constructed with minimal deviation from actuality. Fragility measurements aggregate across all tested factors.
Output
Produces CounterfactualMap containing: load-bearing factors ranked by necessity, fragility index per factor, flip-points identified, robustness assessment, and recommended sensitivity analyses.
Available Strategies
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| Strategy |
When to use |
| closest-worlds |
Strategy: Lewis Possible Worlds — find the minimal change to reality that would flip the conclusion, measuring how close the nearest world where the conclusion fails. |
| factor-removal |
Strategy: Systematic factor removal — remove factors one at a time and observe whether the conclusion remains stable, identifying which factors are load-bearing. |
| necessity-sufficiency |
Strategy: Probability of Necessity and Sufficiency (PNS/PS) — systematically evaluate whether each factor is necessary, sufficient, both, or neither for the conclusion. |
| structural-counterfactual |
Strategy: Pearl Three-Step counterfactual — Abduction (fit model to evidence), Action (intervene on factor), Prediction (derive counterfactual outcome). |
| thought-experiment |
Strategy: Williamson-style precise thought experiments — construct carefully specified counterfactual scenarios to test whether conclusions depend on contingent features. |
Available Tactics
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| Tactic |
When to use |
| causal-necessity-testing |
Tactic: Extract causal claims, evaluate probability of necessity (PN) and sufficiency (PS) for each, classify into necessity-sufficiency quadrants. |
| minimal-change-search |
Tactic: Generate candidate changes, detect flip-points where conclusion reverses, measure fragility as distance to nearest flip. |
| systematic-factor-ablation |
Tactic: List all factors, remove one at a time, assess conclusion stability, rank factors by load-bearing importance. |
Available SOPs
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP |
When to use |
| context-checkpoint |
Append research process and results to the current Phase's context file. Covers both process and results with genuine substance. Use this skill at plan-designated checkpoint points — typically after each strategy completes or at key decision nodes within a research Phase. |
| context-init |
Create a new context file for a research Phase. Called once at Phase start to initialize the file that subsequent context-checkpoint calls will append to. Use this skill whenever a new research Phase begins and a fresh context file is needed. |
| stress-test-saturation-detection |
Determines whether validation has reached saturation — no new weaknesses or failure modes being discovered. Used by all 5 campaigns as termination signal. |
| verdict-synthesis |
Synthesizes findings from a completed campaign into typed verdict reports. Produces DebateVerdict, RedTeamReport, FailureAnticipationReport, CounterfactualMap, or AdversarialStressReport depending on campaign. Also supports cross-campaign StressTestSummary. |
1---2name: counterfactual-probing3description: Campaign: Counterfactual reasoning to identify load-bearing factors. Core question: If key factors were different, would the conclusion still hold? Methods: Pearl SCM Three-Step, Lewis Possible Worlds, Tetlock & Belkin, PNS/PS.4---56# Counterfactual Probing Campaign78Core question: **If key factors were different, would the conclusion still hold?**910## Methodology Sources1112- Pearl (2000) — Structural Causal Models, Three-Step counterfactual procedure13- Lewis (1973) — Possible Worlds semantics for counterfactuals14- Tetlock & Belkin (1996) — Counterfactual thought experiments in world politics15- Fearon (1991) — Counterfactuals and hypothesis testing in political science16- Williamson (2007) — The Philosophy of Philosophy, thought experiment methodology1718## Strategy Routing1920| Artifact Type | Primary Strategy | Fallback Strategy |21|---|---|---|22| hypothesis, claim | structural-counterfactual | necessity-sufficiency |23| research-question | thought-experiment | closest-worlds |24| idea, approach | factor-removal | closest-worlds |25| experiment-design | necessity-sufficiency | structural-counterfactual |26| gap | closest-worlds | factor-removal |2728## Budget Table2930| Parameter | S (Quick) | M (Standard) | L (Deep) |31|---|---|---|---|32| Factors examined | 5 | 10 | 20 |33| Counterfactual scenarios | 3 | 8 | 15 |34| Necessity tests | 3 | 6 | 12 |35| Flip-point search depth | 2 | 4 | 8 |3637## Tactics3839- **systematic-factor-ablation** — Remove factors one at a time, observe conclusion stability40- **minimal-change-search** — Find smallest change that flips the conclusion41- **causal-necessity-testing** — Evaluate necessity and sufficiency of each causal claim4243## Context Management4445Each subagent operates in isolated context. Factor enumeration precedes all counterfactual reasoning. Scenarios are constructed with minimal deviation from actuality. Fragility measurements aggregate across all tested factors.4647## Output4849Produces `CounterfactualMap` containing: load-bearing factors ranked by necessity, fragility index per factor, flip-points identified, robustness assessment, and recommended sensitivity analyses.5051<!-- BEGIN available-tables (generated) -->5253## Available Strategies5455Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.5657| Strategy | When to use |58| --- | --- |59| closest-worlds | Strategy: Lewis Possible Worlds — find the minimal change to reality that would flip the conclusion, measuring how close the nearest world where the conclusion fails. |60| factor-removal | Strategy: Systematic factor removal — remove factors one at a time and observe whether the conclusion remains stable, identifying which factors are load-bearing. |61| necessity-sufficiency | Strategy: Probability of Necessity and Sufficiency (PNS/PS) — systematically evaluate whether each factor is necessary, sufficient, both, or neither for the conclusion. |62| structural-counterfactual | Strategy: Pearl Three-Step counterfactual — Abduction (fit model to evidence), Action (intervene on factor), Prediction (derive counterfactual outcome). |63| thought-experiment | Strategy: Williamson-style precise thought experiments — construct carefully specified counterfactual scenarios to test whether conclusions depend on contingent features. |6465## Available Tactics6667Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.6869| Tactic | When to use |70| --- | --- |71| causal-necessity-testing | Tactic: Extract causal claims, evaluate probability of necessity (PN) and sufficiency (PS) for each, classify into necessity-sufficiency quadrants. |72| minimal-change-search | Tactic: Generate candidate changes, detect flip-points where conclusion reverses, measure fragility as distance to nearest flip. |73| systematic-factor-ablation | Tactic: List all factors, remove one at a time, assess conclusion stability, rank factors by load-bearing importance. |7475## Available SOPs7677Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.7879| SOP | When to use |80| --- | --- |81| context-checkpoint | Append research process and results to the current Phase's context file. Covers both process and results with genuine substance. Use this skill at plan-designated checkpoint points — typically after each strategy completes or at key decision nodes within a research Phase. |82| context-init | Create a new context file for a research Phase. Called once at Phase start to initialize the file that subsequent context-checkpoint calls will append to. Use this skill whenever a new research Phase begins and a fresh context file is needed. |83| stress-test-saturation-detection | Determines whether validation has reached saturation — no new weaknesses or failure modes being discovered. Used by all 5 campaigns as termination signal. |84| verdict-synthesis | Synthesizes findings from a completed campaign into typed verdict reports. Produces DebateVerdict, RedTeamReport, FailureAnticipationReport, CounterfactualMap, or AdversarialStressReport depending on campaign. Also supports cross-campaign StressTestSummary. |8586<!-- END available-tables (generated) -->
yogsoth-ai