Criteria Interrogation

Purpose: Question whether the evaluation framework used during convergence was itself valid — exposing hidden biases in criteria selection, weighting, and boundary definitions that may have predetermined the outcome.

When to use:

• When criteria were inherited rather than deliberately designed
• When different criteria would produce different winners
• When stakeholders disagree about what matters
• When the evaluation framework has not been challenged

Budget

State Ledger

criteria_under_review: []
challenges_raised: {}
alternative_framings: []
sensitivity_to_criteria_change: {}
verdict: null  # CRITERIA_SOUND | CRITERIA_BIASED | REWEIGHT

Available Tactics

Available SOPs

• assumption-extraction — surface assumptions embedded in criteria
• assumption-challenge — challenge each criterion's validity
• conclusion-sensitivity — test if outcome changes with different criteria
• perspective-assignment — assign stakeholder perspectives to criteria
• perspective-attack — attack criteria from each perspective

Execution Guidance

1. List all criteria used in convergence with their weights
2. For each criterion, apply assumption-extraction (why this criterion?)
3. Challenge each criterion's inclusion, exclusion, and weight
4. Test conclusion sensitivity: would different weights change the winner?
5. If winner changes under reasonable alternative weighting, verdict is REWEIGHT

Output Format

strategy: criteria-interrogation
criteria_reviewed: <count>
challenges:
  - criterion: <name>
    challenge: <argument>
    severity: HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW
    alternative: <proposed change>
sensitivity_result: ROBUST | FRAGILE
verdict: CRITERIA_SOUND | CRITERIA_BIASED | REWEIGHT
recommended_changes: []