/argument-crystallization

name: argument-crystallization
description: Distill the strongest arguments from each perspective through Argument
  Delphi or Dialectical Delphi methods.
dependencies:
  tactics:
  - disagreement-mapping
  - iterative-convergence-round
  sops:
  - consensus-synthesis

Argument Crystallization

**Purpose:** Rather than converging on a single answer, crystallize the strongest possible arguments for each position. Uses Argument Delphi (focus on argument quality over agreement) and Dialectical Delphi (thesis-antithesis-synthesis) to produce the most rigorous version of each stance.

**When to use:**

• Policy deliberation requiring clear pro/con articulation
• Interdisciplinary disputes where each field has valid concerns
• Pre-decision analysis where decision-makers need best arguments
• Situations where the goal is argument quality, not agreement

Budget

| Parameter | Constraint | |-----------|-----------| | Rounds | 2–3 (refine arguments, not opinions) | | Perspectives | ≥4 independent | | Argument quality gate | Each argument must be steel-manned |

State Ledger

| Key | Type | Description | |-----|------|-------------| | question | string | The deliberation question | | perspectives | array | Contributing perspectives | | initial_arguments | array | First-round arguments | | critiques | array | Cross-perspective critiques | | refined_arguments | array | Steel-manned final arguments | | synthesis | object | Points of agreement and irreducible tensions |

Available Tactics

• **disagreement-mapping** — Identify argument clusters
• **iterative-convergence-round** — Refine arguments across rounds

Available SOPs

• judgment-collection
• cluster-analysis
• argument-extraction
• feedback-distribution
• consensus-measurement
• consensus-synthesis

Execution Guidance

1. Collect initial positions with supporting arguments 2. Cross-distribute: each perspective critiques and steel-mans others 3. Authors refine arguments incorporating strongest critiques 4. Identify points of genuine agreement vs. irreducible tensions 5. Produce crystallized argument map with quality ratings

Output Format

positions:
  - label: <position name>
    strongest_arguments: [...]
    acknowledged_weaknesses: [...]
    steel_man_version: <best possible formulation>
agreements:
  - point: <shared conclusion>
    strength: <how robust>
irreducible_tensions:
  - between: [position_a, position_b]
    nature: <empirical/value/priority>
    why_irreducible: <explanation>

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

Available Tactics

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

| Tactic | When to use | | --- | --- | | disagreement-mapping | Map disagreement structure by collecting judgments, clustering opinions, extracting arguments per cluster, and visualizing fault lines. | | iterative-convergence-round | Execute one full Delphi round — collect judgments, distribute anonymous feedback, measure consensus, decide whether to continue. |

Available SOPs

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

| SOP | When to use | | --- | --- | | consensus-synthesis | Synthesize all rounds into a final consensus report documenting agreements, dissent, and process. |

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