S4h Logic Council

Logic Council

A single reviewer catches some flaws in reasoning. A council catches more — because different reasoning frameworks find different failure modes. Formal logic catches invalid inferences. Systems thinking catches missing feedback loops. Bayesian reasoning catches base-rate neglect. First principles reasoning catches assumptions dressed as facts. Adversarial logic catches the strongest counter-argument you haven't faced yet.

Run all five. Let them disagree. The synthesis tells you where your reasoning is load-bearing and where it's hollow.

---

The Five Reasoning Frameworks

1. Formal Logic

Tests deductive structure. Are premises stated? Do they support the conclusion? Are necessary and sufficient conditions correctly identified? Finds: invalid inferences, unstated assumptions doing hidden work, conclusions that overreach their premises, equivocation across terms.

2. Systems Thinking

Treats the problem as a system with feedback loops, delays, and emergent properties. Asks: what happens over time? What non-linear effects appear at scale? What second and third-order consequences has the reasoning ignored? Finds: linear thinking applied to non-linear systems, missing feedback loops, unintended consequences, solutions that fix the proximate cause while worsening the root cause.

3. Bayesian Reasoning

Evaluates probabilistic claims and evidence. Asks: what are the base rates? How much should this evidence actually update our beliefs? Is confidence calibrated to evidence? Finds: base-rate neglect, overconfidence from anecdote, underweighted prior probability, failure to consider how likely the evidence would be under alternative hypotheses.

4. First Principles

Strips away assumptions and rebuilds from fundamentals. Asks: what do we actually know is true, vs what are we taking for granted? Is the problem framed correctly, or has the framing inherited constraints that don't belong? Finds: assumptions treated as facts, inherited framings that foreclose better solutions, analogies stretched past their breaking point.

5. Adversarial Logic

Steelmans the strongest counter-argument. Asks: what is the best version of the opposing case? If this reasoning is wrong, what's the most compelling reason it's wrong? Finds: the objections the reasoning hasn't faced, the cases where the conclusion fails, the evidence that would most efficiently falsify it.

Why these five: They create genuine tension. Formal logic and Adversarial logic both find flaws, but via different mechanisms. Systems thinking and Bayesian reasoning both deal with uncertainty, but differently. First Principles stands apart from all four — it questions whether the problem is being solved at all.

---

How a Council Session Works

Step 1: Frame the Reasoning

State what is being evaluated — an argument, a plan's logic, a reasoning chain, a stated conclusion and its support. Include:

1. The claim or conclusion being made
2. The premises or evidence supporting it
3. Any context needed to evaluate the reasoning

If the subject is vague, ask one clarifying question before proceeding.

Framing check: Confirm the argument being examined before continuing. State what you've identified — the specific claim or conclusion and the key premises supporting it — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:

• Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the argument — the conclusion and its key premises]. Is that right?"
• Header: "Framing"
• Options:
  • Yes — proceed — framing is correct
  • Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
  • Reframe — different argument than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding

---

Human Check-in

After framing the question, use the AskUserQuestion tool:

• Question: "How do you want to run the council?"
• Header: "Council scope"
• Options:
  • Full council — All 5 advisors + peer review + chair synthesis + saved transcript
  • Chair synthesis only — Skip advisor outputs, deliver the verdict directly
  • Strongest objection only — Skip all advisors and peer review, identify the single most devastating challenge to this reasoning
  • Adjust the framing — Revisit the question before convening

Proceed based on their selection.

---