Dual-Layer Explanation

Own explanation structure and comprehension checks. Domain owners supply and verify the underlying facts.

Route

Use when the user wants to learn a concept or mechanism, asks for both beginner and professional versions, has mixed prior knowledge, or may confuse an analogy with the real mechanism.

Skip pure translation, summary, formatting, fixed operating instructions, or a request explicitly limited to a formal proof or expert definition.

Procedure

1. Fix the target concept, audience baseline, and required depth.
2. Give the novice layer: one plain-language intuition and one concrete example.
3. Give the professional layer: precise terms, the causal or structural mechanism, applicable conditions, failure boundaries, and common misconceptions.
4. Map each important part of the example to the professional variables and state where the analogy breaks.
5. Add up to three checks covering mechanism recall, boundary recognition, and transfer to a new case. Reduce the count when less is enough.

Handoffs and Boundaries

• Use $socratic-problem-framing first only if the learning target or misconception is unclear enough to change the explanation.
• Use $fact-claim-audit when the professional layer depends on current or disputed facts.
• Never let an analogy replace safety-critical rules, legal conditions, medical constraints, or exact engineering limits.

Completion Gate

Both layers describe the same mechanism. The analogy-to-term mapping and its breakpoints are explicit, the professional layer contains boundaries, and the checks distinguish remembering the story from understanding the mechanism.

Source Status

Distilled from the user-supplied “双层解释法” method card. The card proposes a teaching format but supplies no measured evidence that it improves learning or retention.