Procedure Hierarchy

Input: $ARGUMENTS

Overview

Not all procedures are equal. There is a hierarchy:

Meta-procedures constrain HOW reasoning happens
Content procedures address WHAT to do in specific situations

Meta-procedures apply first, always, to everything. Content procedures are invoked through meta-procedures, when appropriate.

Steps

Step 1: Understand the Hierarchy Levels

Level 0 — Foundational Axioms:

ARAW (Assume Right / Assume Wrong) — the core search pattern
Universalize — extract complete structure from any input
These are not optional; they define what “thinking well” means

Level 1 — Meta-Procedures (HOW to reason):

Procedure validation (/pv) — is the procedure itself correct?
Self-audit (sa-*) — am I applying procedures properly?
Convergent validation (/cv) — are multiple methods agreeing?
Unassailable output (/uo) — is the output defensible?
Iteration (/iterate) — what needs improving?

Level 2 — Category Procedures (WHAT type of problem):

/claim, /decide, /viability, /evaluate — classify and route
/diagnose, /search, /want, /how — classify and route
These determine which content procedures to invoke

Level 3 — Content Procedures (HOW to handle specific problems):

/rca, /dcp, /cba, /ht — specific analytical tools
/pw, /stl, /de — specific production tools
These do the actual work on the actual problem

Level 4 — Ordering Procedures (WHAT sequence):

/to, /gt, /rm — determine step execution order
Applied within content procedures to sequence their steps

Level 5 — Domain Procedures (SPECIFIC context):

/sdp, /ops, /api — domain-specific knowledge
Only invoked when the problem is in that domain

Step 2: Apply Hierarchy to Input

What is the input? (claim, decision, goal, problem, output, procedure, etc.)
Which hierarchy level is being asked about?
What does the hierarchy tell us about how to handle it?

Step 3: Resolve Hierarchy Conflicts

When procedures at different levels give conflicting guidance:

Conflict	Resolution
Meta says stop, content says continue	Meta wins — stop and investigate
Category routes to X, but Y seems better	Check: did category have all info? If yes, trust routing. If no, re-route
Content procedure skips validation	Insert validation — Level 1 always applies
Domain procedure contradicts general	Domain wins within its scope, general wins outside
Two same-level procedures conflict	Escalate to next higher level for resolution

Step 4: Check Procedure Placement

For any given procedure, verify it’s at the right level:

Does it apply to ALL problems? → Level 0 or 1
Does it CLASSIFY problems? → Level 2
Does it SOLVE specific problem types? → Level 3
Does it SEQUENCE steps? → Level 4
Does it apply only in ONE domain? → Level 5

Misplacement indicators:

A Level 3 procedure trying to override Level 1 → wrong, fix the procedure
A Level 5 procedure used in all domains → promote to Level 3
A Level 1 procedure that only applies sometimes → demote to Level 2 or 3

Step 5: Report

PROCEDURE HIERARCHY ANALYSIS:
Input: [what was analyzed]
Relevant level: [which hierarchy level]

Hierarchy application:
- Level 0 (axioms): [how ARAW/U apply]
- Level 1 (meta): [which meta-procedures apply]
- Level 2 (category): [how input is classified]
- Level 3 (content): [which procedures handle it]
- Level 4 (ordering): [how steps are sequenced]
- Level 5 (domain): [domain-specific considerations]

Conflicts found: [any hierarchy conflicts and resolutions]
Misplacements found: [any procedures at wrong level]

When to Use

When unsure which procedure takes precedence
When procedures give conflicting guidance
When designing new procedures (to place them correctly)
When auditing the procedure system

Verification

All hierarchy levels considered
Meta-procedures given precedence over content
Conflicts resolved by hierarchy rules
No procedures operating above their level

ph