→Method

How does it work?

Provocation

State your post-experiential bias at maximum force. Not a hypothesis — a provocation. Overdrawn if necessary.

"The overstatement is methodologically functional."

Logical Debate

Tests internal coherence. No domain expertise required — only adversarial logical rigour. The framework must visibly change.

"Unchanged = validated, not tested."

Literature Debate

Does this construct already exist? The literature is a whetstone — not a blueprint.

"Differentiation at mechanism level, not merely outcome."

Stress-Test

Not a case that qualifies — a case that breaks. Most commonly skipped.

"A blade that cannot identify the angle at which it breaks cannot be reliably sharpened."

Necessity Check

Is this framework required? "Without this framework, researchers must reach for [X], which cannot [Y]."

"A correct restatement of existing knowledge is not a theoretical contribution."

Implication Pursuit

Follow the framework’s implications wherever they lead — without filtering for comfort or convention.

"Implications suppressed are contributions artificially narrowed."

Draft

Architecture first, then section by section. No fabricated citations.

"A well-written paper on an unexamined framework is a well-dressed error."

Peer Review

Three independent reviewers: Methodologist, Domain Expert, Generalist. Not a flattering assessment.

"A flattering review is not a peer review."

Revision

Systematic revision guided by reviewer reports, section by section.

"Revise what is required. Defend what survives."

→Methodology

How the tool defends against hallucination

Every empirical claim the sparring partner makes carries a citation tag with a link where the source is publicly available. Three citation tiers:

[Author, Year, "Title" — URL]

Confident + linked

Author, year, exact title, journal, and direct URL to the open-access source. The title is required — it's what independent verification matches against, not just the author name.

[Kuhn, 1962, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" — U. Chicago — search: scholar.google.com/...]

[CITATION — approx.]

Approximate + search link

Research area known, exact details uncertain. Includes Google Scholar search URL.

[CITATION — approx: Flynn, 1980s, IQ gains — search: ...]

[Logical inference]

Logical inference

Challenge is definitional or structural. No empirical source claimed.

[Logical inference — definitional inconsistency]

Verify independently. Citation links open the source directly where available. AI-generated references can still contain errors. Verify before academic use.