Competing Hypothesis Construction

Construct multiple competing hypotheses for the same phenomenon: actively counter confirmation bias, maintain epistemic openness by building genuinely different explanations in parallel, and design decisive predictions that can distinguish them.

When to Use

• The researcher already has a "preferred hypothesis" and needs to actively challenge it
• The phenomenon has multiple plausible explanations, and premature convergence would lead in the wrong direction
• You need to show reviewers or funders that alternative explanations have been considered
• When designing experiments, you need to determine which variable best discriminates between competing explanations

Not applicable: the phenomenon has overwhelming evidence supporting a single explanation → directly use deductive-hypothesis-generation to refine that explanation.

Thinking Framework

Avoid confirmation bias by generating genuinely different explanations, then find discriminating predictions

The core logic of competing hypothesis construction:

1. Force diversity: competing hypotheses must be genuinely different at the mechanism level, not variants of the same mechanism
2. Symmetric treatment: each hypothesis is treated with equal seriousness; the preferred hypothesis is not allowed special treatment
3. Discriminating predictions: find decisive predictions that distinguish the hypotheses — what result supports H1 but contradicts H2, and vice versa
4. Matrix comparison: reveal structural differences between hypotheses through a systematic matrix

Quality criteria for competing hypotheses:

• Genuinely competing: two hypotheses give different causal explanations for the same phenomenon (not weaker/stronger versions of the same explanation)
• Mutual exclusivity: there exists at least one observable result that can support one while contradicting the other
• Comparability: both hypotheses have clear testable predictions

Budget Gate

| Tier | Competing hypotheses | Discriminating predictions | Comparison matrix | Falsifiability | |------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | S | ≥2 genuinely competing hypotheses | ≥1 discriminating prediction | simplified version (2×2) | 1 falsification scenario per hypothesis | | M | ≥3 competing hypotheses | ≥2 discriminating predictions | full matrix (hypotheses × predictions) | full falsification per hypothesis | | L | ≥4 competing hypotheses | ≥3 discriminating predictions | full matrix + experiment design suggestions | full falsifiability audit |

Default Reference Flow

1. Call the competing-hypothesis-generation SOP (via the competing-hypothesis-matrix tactic): force generation of hypotheses that are genuinely different at the mechanism level
2. Call the discriminating-prediction-design SOP: design discriminating predictions for each pair of competing hypotheses
3. Call the hypothesis-comparison-matrix SOP: build a hypotheses × predictions comparison matrix to reveal structural differences
4. Call the falsifiability-check SOP: generate a falsification scenario for each hypothesis

context-checkpoint

Record after each round:

• Competing hypothesis list (core mechanism statement for each hypothesis)
• Mechanism difference analysis (at what level the hypotheses are genuinely different)
• Discriminating prediction list (which pair of hypotheses each prediction can distinguish)
• Comparison matrix (hypotheses × predictions, annotated support/contradict/neutral)
• Recommended decisive experiment directions

<!-- BEGIN available-tables (generated) -->

Available Tactics

Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.

| Tactic | When to use | | --- | --- | | competing-hypothesis-matrix | Tactic: Multi-hypothesis management — generate competing hypotheses, design discriminating predictions, build a structured comparison matrix |

Available SOPs

Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.

| SOP | When to use | | --- | --- | | falsifiability-check | SOP: check whether a hypothesis meets the falsifiability criterion |

<!-- END available-tables (generated) -->