Counter-Thesis Construction

Purpose: Build the most compelling counter-thesis to the convergence winner — not to overturn the decision, but to ensure it can withstand the strongest possible intellectual challenge and to surface any synthesis opportunities.

When to use:

• When the decision needs maximum intellectual rigor
• When the problem domain is complex with legitimate competing views
• When synthesis between thesis and antithesis might produce a superior option
• When the decision will face external scrutiny

Budget

State Ledger

thesis: <the convergence decision>
antithesis: <constructed counter-argument>
debate_rounds: []
synthesis_attempted: false
synthesis_result: null
final_verdict: null  # THESIS_STANDS | ANTITHESIS_WINS | SYNTHESIS_FOUND

Available Tactics

Available SOPs

• advocate-construction — build the counter-thesis case
• critic-attack — attack from both thesis and antithesis sides
• judge-verdict — render verdict on thesis vs antithesis
• steel-manning-synthesis — attempt synthesis of thesis and antithesis

Execution Guidance

1. Articulate the thesis (convergence decision) clearly
2. Construct the strongest antithesis using advocate-construction
3. Deploy adversarial-debate-protocol: thesis advocates vs antithesis advocates
4. After debate, attempt synthesis — is there a superior option combining both?
5. Judge renders final verdict with explicit reasoning

Output Format

strategy: counter-thesis-construction
thesis: <decision>
antithesis: <counter-argument>
antithesis_strength: <1-10>
debate_rounds: <count>
synthesis_found: true | false
synthesis: <if found>
verdict: THESIS_STANDS | ANTITHESIS_WINS | SYNTHESIS_FOUND
reasoning: <key evidence>
conditions: []