Steel-Manning

Adversarial verification of convergence decisions. This campaign subjects winners, criteria, and rejected alternatives to rigorous challenge — ensuring that final decisions survive the strongest possible counter-arguments rather than merely the weakest objections.

The campaign deploys four complementary attack vectors: resurrecting rejected candidates to test whether elimination was justified, stress-testing winners to find hidden weaknesses, interrogating the criteria framework itself, and simulating stakeholder objections for political feasibility.

Strategy Routing

| Signal | Strategy | |--------|----------| | resurrect rejected candidates / give losers a fair hearing | resurrection-advocacy | | stress-test the winner / find weaknesses in top pick | winner-stress-testing | | challenge the criteria themselves / meta-level questioning | criteria-interrogation | | simulate stakeholder objections / political feasibility | stakeholder-objection-simulation | | construct strongest counter-argument / dialectical challenge | counter-thesis-construction |

Manifest

Strategies

| Strategy | Method Lineage | |----------|---------------| | resurrection-advocacy | Devil's Advocacy, Dialectical Inquiry, Adversarial Collaboration (Kahneman) | | winner-stress-testing | Pre-mortem (Klein), Red Teaming, Failure Mode Analysis | | criteria-interrogation | Assumption-based Planning, Critical Systems Heuristics, Boundary Critique | | stakeholder-objection-simulation | Role-play, Stakeholder Analysis, Political Feasibility | | counter-thesis-construction | Dialectical Inquiry, Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis, Adversarial Debate |

Tactics

| Tactic | SOPs Used | |--------|-----------| | adversarial-debate-protocol | advocate-construction, critic-attack, judge-verdict | | assumption-excavation | assumption-extraction, assumption-challenge, conclusion-sensitivity | | multi-perspective-attack | perspective-assignment, perspective-attack, steel-manning-synthesis |

SOPs

| SOP | Input | Output | Shareable | |-----|-------|--------|-----------| | advocate-construction | rejected_candidate, context | strongest_case_for_resurrection | validation | | critic-attack | winner, advocate_case | attack_arguments], severity_ratings | validation | | judge-verdict | advocate_case, critic_attacks | verdict, reasoning, conditions | validation | | assumption-extraction | decision, evidence | assumptions], confidence_levels | — | | assumption-challenge | assumption | challenge_argument, alternative, impact_if_wrong | — | | conclusion-sensitivity | assumptions], challenges] | sensitivity_map, critical_assumptions] | — | | perspective-assignment | decision, stakeholders | perspective_briefs] | — | | perspective-attack | decision, perspective_brief | attacks], constructive_alternatives] | — | | steel-manning-synthesis | all_attacks, all_verdicts | final_verdict, surviving_concerns, modifications | — |

Budget Table (M Tier)

| Metric | Minimum | |--------|---------| | Attack perspectives | >= 3 distinct angles | | Debate rounds | >= 2 per contested decision | | Assumptions challenged | >= 5 per winner | | Final verdict | Explicit ACCEPT / REJECT / REVISE with evidence |

MCP Tools

• mcp__wiki-vault__vault_search — retrieve prior decisions and context
• mcp__wiki-vault__vault_query_graph — trace dependency chains for impact analysis
• mcp__wiki-vault__vault_add_edge — record challenge relationships

Context Management

The campaign maintains a Challenge Ledger tracking:

• Which decisions have been challenged
• Attack vectors applied to each
• Verdicts rendered and their conditions
• Surviving concerns requiring monitoring

State is passed between strategies via the ledger. Each strategy updates it upon completion.

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

Available Strategies

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

| Strategy | When to use | | --- | --- | | counter-thesis-construction | Construct the strongest possible counter-argument to the convergence decision using Dialectical Inquiry and Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis methods. | | criteria-interrogation | Challenge the evaluation criteria themselves using Assumption-based Planning, Critical Systems Heuristics, and Boundary Critique to ensure the framework is sound. | | resurrection-advocacy | Argue for rejected candidates using Devil's Advocacy, Dialectical Inquiry, and Adversarial Collaboration to ensure elimination was justified. | | stakeholder-objection-simulation | Simulate stakeholder objections through role-play and political feasibility analysis to test whether the decision survives real-world opposition. | | winner-stress-testing | Stress-test the winning candidate using Pre-mortem, Red Teaming, and Failure Mode Analysis to expose hidden weaknesses before commitment. |

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. | | convergence-multi-stakeholder-simulation | Simulates diverse stakeholder perspectives and their strongest objections/support arguments. Shared across steel-manning and consensus campaigns. | | convergence-saturation-detection | Determines when to stop iterating — coverage threshold met or marginal returns diminishing. Shared across all campaigns. | | convergence-sensitivity-analysis | Tests conclusion robustness by perturbing parameters and observing rank changes. Shared across scoring, portfolio, and steel-manning campaigns. |

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