Problem Identification

Input: $ARGUMENTS

Overview

Before solving, identify:

• Is this the RIGHT problem? (not the obvious one)
• At the RIGHT level? (not too surface, not too abstract)
• At the RIGHT time? (now vs later vs never)
• In the RIGHT order? (dependencies, prerequisites)
• With RIGHT prioritization? (effort/impact)

ARAW is a tool for problem identification:

• ASSUME RIGHT: This IS the problem → what follows?
• ASSUME WRONG: This ISN’T the real problem → what is?

CRITICAL: Problem Reframing vs Problem Substitution

This skill often REFRAMES problems. Reframing is a form of substitution that requires awareness.

Step 0: Capture Original Problem Statement

ORIGINAL PROBLEM (verbatim): "[user's exact words]"

When we identify a “real” problem that differs from the stated problem, check:

Is this Clarification or Substitution?

The Test: If we solve the reframed problem but NOT the original, would user feel:

• “That’s what I meant” → CLARIFICATION (proceed)
• “But I still have my original problem” → SUBSTITUTION (get consent)

Reframing Consent Template

If reframing to a different problem:

PROBLEM REFRAME PROPOSAL
========================
You stated this problem: "[original]"

I'm identifying a different problem: "[reframed]"

This is a DIFFERENT problem because:
- Solving the reframe [does/doesn't] solve the original
- [Specific difference]

Options:
1. [ ] Solve the reframed problem (I understand it's different)
2. [ ] Focus on my original problem
3. [ ] Explore both problems

Core Principle

The obvious problem is often not the real problem. The real problem is often:

• One level upstream (what caused this symptom?)
• One level downstream (why does this symptom matter?)
• In a different domain (system issue, not local issue)
• Not actually a problem (assumption we haven’t questioned)

BUT: Identifying a “better” problem without consent is substitution.

Steps

Step 1: State the obvious problem

Write down what seems to be the problem, without filtering

Capture verbatim - this is what we check reframes against.

Step 2: Question the framing

Apply ARAW: ASSUME WRONG that this is the real problem What alternative framings exist? What’s upstream of this symptom?

Step 3: Identify the level

Is this symptom, proximate cause, root cause, systemic, or assumption? What level should we solve at?

Step 4: Verify problem is actual

Is this ACTUAL (happening now)? Or ANTICIPATED (will happen if…)? Or IMAGINED (might maybe happen)?

Step 5: Check timing

Should we solve now, later, or never? What’s the cost of waiting? Are we ready to solve it?

Step 6: Check order

What must be solved first? What does solving this unlock? Are there dependencies?

Step 7: Prioritize

What’s the effort/impact? Is this compounding? What’s the risk tolerance?

Step 8: Decide

SOLVE NOW: Right problem, right level, right time, high priority DEFER: Right problem, wrong time or blocked by dependencies REFRAME: Wrong problem or wrong level, go back to step 1 WITH CONSENT CHECK DROP: Not actually a problem, or too low priority

Step 9: Verify No Silent Substitution

Before concluding:

Verification

• Original problem captured verbatim
• ARAW applied (both ASSUME RIGHT and ASSUME WRONG)
• Problem level identified (symptom/proximate/root/systemic)
• Timing assessed (now/later/never)
• If reframed: clarification vs substitution checked
• If substitution: consent obtained
• Final decision made (SOLVE/DEFER/REFRAME/DROP)

Integration Points

• Often invoked from: /pce, /gu
• Routes to: /rca (if solving), /rc5w
• Gate: clarification_vs_substitution_gate (when reframing)
• Related: /lpd, /sya