Assume Known

Input: $ARGUMENTS

Core Move

Take something uncertain and assume it’s already known. Settled science. Established fact. Not debatable. Then trace what we can build on top of it — and whether the “known” status is actually earned.

Useful for detecting when you’re re-litigating settled questions and when “settled” is actually fragile.

Procedure

Step 1: State What’s Known

What are we assuming is already known / established / settled?

Step 2: Force the Assumption

“This is known. It has been established. We can treat it as ground truth and build on it.”

Step 3: Trace Implications

If it’s truly known:

1. What can we build on it? — What becomes possible when we treat this as foundation?
2. What questions are CLOSED? — What no longer needs investigating?
3. What questions OPEN? — What new questions become the frontier?
4. Who established this? — What’s the provenance? How was it determined?
5. What’s the confidence level? — Known like “2+2=4” or known like “dark matter exists”?
6. When was it established? — Is the knowledge current? Could conditions have changed?

Step 4: Test the Assumption

• Is this actually well-established, or just widely believed?
• What would overturn it? Has anyone tried?
• Are there dissenting views? From credible sources?
• Is this “known” in one field but contested in another?

Step 5: Synthesize

CLAIM: [stated]
ASSUMING KNOWN:
  Build on it: [what becomes possible]
  Questions closed: [what we stop asking]
  Questions opened: [new frontier]
  Actually established?: [yes/partially/no]
KNOWLEDGE CONFIDENCE: [high/medium/low]
RISK: [what happens if this "known" thing turns out to be wrong]

When to Use

• Need to decide what to take as given vs. what to investigate
• Suspect you’re re-investigating something already settled
• Want to build forward from established ground

Integration

• Pair with /aunk for the opposite stance
• Use /aex first to surface what’s being taken as known
• Follow with /ht if the “known” status needs testing