Tier 4

dse

Deductive Strategy Evaluation

Input: $ARGUMENTS


Overview

Evaluate strategies based on the logical soundness of their derivation. Determines whether a strategy is logically valid (conclusions follow), sound (premises true AND inferences valid), complete (no gaps), and necessary vs sufficient.

Strategies that pass deductive evaluation have the highest confidence because their correctness follows from the problem definition itself.

Steps

Step 1: Check Logical Validity

For each inference step in the strategy’s derivation:

StepPremise(s)InferenceConclusionValid?
1[what’s assumed][rule applied][what follows]Y/N
2

Validity check: Does the conclusion NECESSARILY follow from the premises using the stated inference rule?

  • If yes → Valid step
  • If no → Identify the gap: what additional premise would make it valid?

Step 2: Check Soundness

For each premise used in the derivation:

PremiseTypeTruth StatusEvidence
[premise]axiom/observation/assumption/definitiontrue/uncertain/false[source]

Soundness = validity + true premises. A valid argument with false premises produces unreliable conclusions.

Step 3: Identify Weaknesses

Categorize each weakness found:

WeaknessTypeImpactFixable?
[weakness]invalid step / uncertain premise / missing step / scope errorstrategy collapses / weakened / unaffectedY/N

Weakness types:

  • Invalid inference: Conclusion doesn’t follow from premises
  • Uncertain premise: Premise truth is unknown or debated
  • Missing step: Gap in reasoning chain
  • Scope error: Conclusion is broader than premises support
  • Equivocation: Same term used with different meanings
  • Circular reasoning: Conclusion is also a premise

Step 4: Assess Necessity Level

How strong is the connection between strategy and success?

LevelDescriptionTest
Necessary and sufficientThis is the ONLY strategy that works, AND it guarantees successNo alternative exists AND no failure mode exists
SufficientThis strategy guarantees success, but alternatives existWill work, others might too
NecessaryMust include this, but it alone isn’t enoughRequired but not complete
ContributoryIncreases probability of success but doesn’t guaranteeHelps but not decisive
IrrelevantNo logical connection to successDoesn’t help

Step 5: Assign Proof Level

Based on Steps 1-4:

Proof LevelCriteria
Level 4 — ProvenAll steps valid, all premises true, no gaps, necessary and sufficient
Level 3 — StrongAll steps valid, most premises true, minor gaps, sufficient
Level 2 — SupportedMost steps valid, key premises plausible, some gaps, contributory
Level 1 — SuggestiveLogic is reasonable, premises uncertain, significant gaps
Level 0 — UnprovenLogic has errors, premises unverified, or major gaps

Step 6: Provide Upgrade Path

For strategies below Level 4, specify what would raise them:

UPGRADE PATH:
Current level: [X]
To reach Level [X+1]:
1. [specific action] — fixes: [weakness] — cost: [effort]
2. [specific action] — fixes: [weakness] — cost: [effort]

Most cost-effective upgrade: [which action gives most level-improvement per effort]

Step 7: Report

DEDUCTIVE STRATEGY EVALUATION:
Strategy: [what was evaluated]

Validity: [N] of [N] steps valid
Soundness: [N] of [N] premises verified
Completeness: [no gaps / minor gaps / significant gaps]
Necessity level: [necessary and sufficient / sufficient / necessary / contributory]

Proof level: [0-4] — [label]

Weaknesses:
| # | Weakness | Type | Impact | Fix |
|---|----------|------|--------|-----|
| 1 | [weakness] | [type] | [impact] | [fix] |

Upgrade path: [what would raise the proof level]
Overall confidence: [high / moderate / low — with justification]

When to Use

  • After deductive strategy discovery (/dsd)
  • Before committing to a strategy
  • When comparing strategies on logical strength
  • When identifying weakest points in strategy reasoning
  • → INVOKE: /dsd (deductive strategy discovery) to derive the strategy first
  • → INVOKE: /dari (deductive adversarial review) for adversarial testing

Verification

  • Every inference step explicitly checked for validity
  • Every premise categorized and assessed for truth
  • Weaknesses prioritized by impact
  • Proof level assigned with explicit justification
  • Upgrade path provided for sub-Level 4 strategies