Challenge — Reference

Pattern Catalog (v1: 8 patterns)

#	Pattern	Subcommand	Error Type	Source	Mechanism
1	Gatekeeper	anchor	Premature commitment	Florian WP01 §4.5	Demand explicit pass/fail criteria for the decision BEFORE accepting it. Ask: “What must be true for this to be correct?” then check which criteria remain unverified. Blocks premature acceptance.
2	Reset	anchor	Premature commitment	Florian WP01 §4.5	Discard the current solution entirely. Re-read ONLY the original problem. Generate a fresh answer from first principles. Compare with original — divergences reveal anchoring.
3	Alternative Approaches	anchor	Premature commitment	White et al. 2023 (Vanderbilt)	Force generation of ≥2 genuine alternatives (different mechanisms, not strawmen). For each: “Why was this NOT chosen?” — if no reason exists, the original wasn’t properly evaluated.
4	Pre-mortem	anchor	Premature commitment	Klein 2007; EMNLP 2024 (Wang)	Assume the decision was implemented and FAILED. Generate 3 failure scenarios (most likely, second-order, black swan). For each: identify early warning signs and mitigation actions available NOW.
5	Proof Demand	verify	Factual errors	Florian WP01 §4.5	Extract every factual claim. For each, classify: ✅ Sourced (citation exists), ⚠️ Unsourced (stated as fact without evidence), ❌ Contradicted (evidence disagrees). Flag ⚠️/❌ as untrustworthy until verified.
6	CoVe	verify	Factual errors	Dhuliawala et al. 2023 (Meta)	4-step Chain-of-Verification: (1) state the claim, (2) write specific verification questions, (3) answer each question INDEPENDENTLY without looking at the original claim, (4) compare independent answers to original — discrepancies = errors.
7	Fact Check List	verify	Factual errors	White et al. 2023 (Vanderbilt)	Decompose response into atomic checkable assertions (one fact per line). Rate confidence: High/Medium/Low/Unknown. For Low/Unknown: write a concrete verification action (search query, doc to read, test to run). Priority-order by impact × uncertainty.
8	Socratic	framing	Framing errors	Chang 2023	6-stage questioning: (1) Definition — what do key terms actually mean? (2) Elenchus — is the definition consistent with usage? (3) Dialectic — what’s the opposite position? (4) Maieutics — what’s the real goal, stripped of framing? (5) Generalization — local issue or systemic pattern? (6) Counterfactual — if the problem didn’t exist, what changes?
9	Steelman	framing	Framing errors	Rationalist tradition	Build the STRONGEST possible counter-argument to the current framing (opposite of strawman). Use best available evidence for the counter-position. Assume it’s correct — what would that imply? Stress-test: “What must be true for the steelman to be wrong?” If no clear answer, the framing is weak.

When-To-Use Guide

Symptom	Error Type	Subcommand
AI picked one solution without exploring options	Anchoring bias	`/challenge anchor`
AI committed to approach too quickly	Premature commitment	`/challenge anchor`
Specific facts, numbers, or claims feel uncertain	Factual error	`/challenge verify`
AI cited something that can’t be verified	Hallucination	`/challenge verify`
The answer is correct but might be solving the wrong problem	Framing error	`/challenge framing`
The question itself seems wrong	Wrong problem	`/challenge framing`
High-stakes decision, want genuine debiasing in fresh context	All error types	`/challenge deep`

Challenge Report Format

All subcommand outputs MUST follow this structure:

## Challenge Report: [Pattern(s) Applied]

**Target**: [what was challenged]
**Error type**: [anchoring | factual | framing | high-stakes]

### Technique Selection

- **Family**: [anchor (premature commitment) | verify (factual errors) | framing (wrong problem)]
- **Patterns applied**: [named patterns, e.g., Gatekeeper, Pre-mortem, CoVe]
- **Why these patterns**: [what about the target triggered this selection — specific observations]
- **Patterns considered but skipped**: [and why, or "none — full protocol applied"]

### Findings

[Pattern-specific structured output — see protocol files.
For each finding include: Observation → Technique (family + pattern) → Reasoning → Confidence]

### Verdict

- **Assessment**: [Decision holds / Needs revision / Needs rejection]
- **Confidence**: [High / Medium / Low]
- **What would flip this**: [specific evidence or condition that would change the verdict]
- **Strongest counter to this verdict**: [steelman the opposite conclusion]

### Recommended Action

[Proceed as-is | Proceed with modifications: X | Reconsider: Y]

Sources

Florian WP01 §4.5 — Gatekeeper, Proof Demand, Reset (practitioner patterns)
White et al. 2023 — Vanderbilt Prompt Pattern Catalog (arxiv.org/abs/2302.11382)
Dhuliawala et al. 2023 — Chain-of-Verification (CoVe), Meta AI (arxiv.org/abs/2309.11495)
Wang et al. 2024 — Devil’s Advocate, EMNLP (arxiv.org/abs/2405.16334)
Chang 2023 — Socratic Method prompting (arxiv.org/abs/2303.08769)
Klein 2007 — Pre-mortem analysis (Harvard Business Review)