Search Paradigm Extensions and Procedure Candidates
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Overview
Many activities not traditionally framed as “search” can be productively reinterpreted through the search lens. This procedure:
- Extends the search paradigm to non-obvious domains
- Identifies which search methods should become procedures
- Prioritizes by “intelligence reduction” — which structures do all the work
Steps
Step 1: Reframe as Search
Take the input domain/activity and ask:
- What is being “found”? (the target)
- What is the space being searched? (the possibilities)
- What guides the search? (the heuristic)
- What stops the search? (the termination criterion)
- What makes one result better than another? (the objective function)
Non-obvious search domains:
- Writing = searching language space for sequences that achieve goals
- Therapy = searching belief/behavior space for healthier configurations
- Dating = searching person space for compatible partners
- Career = searching role space for fulfilling positions
- Design = searching artifact space for solutions that satisfy constraints
- Diagnosis = searching cause space for explanations that fit symptoms
- Negotiation = searching agreement space for mutually acceptable terms
- Teaching = searching explanation space for ones the student understands
- Leadership = searching action space for moves that align the group
- Law = searching precedent space for cases that support your argument
Step 2: Evaluate Search Reframing Quality
For the input’s reframing, assess:
| Criterion | Score (1-5) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Does the search frame reveal hidden structure? | ||
| Does it suggest new methods? | ||
| Does it clarify what “progress” means? | ||
| Does it identify what makes the problem hard? | ||
| Does it connect to methods from other domains? |
If total score ≥ 15: The search reframing is highly productive If total score 10-14: Useful but partial — some aspects don’t map cleanly If total score < 10: The search frame doesn’t add much here
Step 3: Identify Intelligence-Reducing Structures
The most valuable procedures are those that reduce the intelligence needed to succeed:
-
What makes this search hard without structure?
- Space too large → Need pruning / heuristics
- No gradient → Need random exploration + selection
- Deceptive landscape → Need diversity / restarts
- Dynamic target → Need adaptive methods
- Multi-objective → Need Pareto methods
-
What structure would make it easier?
- Decomposition (break into sub-searches)
- Ordering (search promising regions first)
- Caching (remember what you’ve tried)
- Abstraction (search at higher level first)
- Constraint propagation (eliminate before searching)
-
How much intelligence does the structure replace?
- High: Turns expert task into mechanical task
- Medium: Guides novice to competent performance
- Low: Reminds expert of steps they’d do anyway
Step 4: Procedure Candidacy Assessment
For each identified structure, evaluate whether it should become a formal procedure:
| Factor | Weight | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Frequency of use (how often needed) | 3x | 1-5 |
| Intelligence reduction (how much easier) | 3x | 1-5 |
| Transferability (works across domains) | 2x | 1-5 |
| Teachability (can be written as steps) | 2x | 1-5 |
| Current gap (no existing procedure covers it) | 1x | 1-5 |
Weighted score ≥ 40: Strong procedure candidate Weighted score 25-39: Worth developing if resources available Weighted score < 25: Not worth formalizing
Step 5: Design Procedure Skeleton
For top candidates:
- Name and abbreviation
- One-line description
- Input: what it takes
- Output: what it produces
- Steps: high-level (3-7 steps)
- Key insight: what makes this procedure valuable vs ad hoc
Step 6: Report
SEARCH PARADIGM EXTENSION:
Domain: [input domain]
Search reframing: Searching [space] for [target] using [heuristic]
Reframing quality: [score/25]
Intelligence-reducing structures found:
1. [structure] — reduces [difficulty] by [mechanism]
Procedure candidates:
| Name | Score | Key Insight |
|------|-------|-------------|
| [name] | [score/55] | [one line] |
Top recommendation: [which to develop first and why]
When to Use
- Exploring whether a domain can benefit from search-based thinking
- Looking for new procedures to develop
- Trying to understand what makes a problem hard
- → INVOKE: /smc (search methods catalog) for the full method inventory
Verification
- Domain reframed as search (all 5 components identified)
- Reframing quality assessed honestly
- Intelligence-reducing structures identified
- Procedure candidates scored
- Top candidates have skeleton designs