Paradox sifter

Paradox Sifter — Find the Contradictions Everyone Ignored

Every paper has a "Limitations" section. Nobody cross-references them. You do.

When you collect limitations from N papers on the same topic, contradictions emerge. Paper A's limitation is paper B's claimed advantage. Paper C's "future work" was already done by paper D and it didn't work.

These contradictions are where unsolved problems live.

---

Protocol

Step 1: Collect Limitations

Find 5-10 papers on the same topic. Extract the exact limitation statements. Include the paper's own words.

Step 2: Cross-Reference

Create a matrix. For each pair of limitations, ask:

1. Do these contradict each other? (A says X causes Y, B says X does not cause Y)
2. Do these ignore each other? (A flags a problem, B claims to solve it without citing A)
3. Do these compound? (A's limitation + B's limitation = a harder problem than either alone)

Step 3: Classify Each Paradox

Type	Description	Opportunity
Direct contradiction	A says X, B says not-X	One of them is wrong. Find out which.
Mutual ignorance	A and B solved the same problem in incompatible ways	A synthesis could be novel.
Hidden dependency	A's solution only works if B's assumption holds	The combined system is fragile.
Escalation	Solving A's limitation exacerbates B's	Trade-off space needs mapping.

Step 4: Identify the Richest Paradox

The paradox with the highest combination of:

• Ignored duration (how long have these papers coexisted without anyone resolving this?)
• Impact if resolved (what would change?)
• Testability (can we design an experiment?)

---

Example Output

Topic: "Chain-of-Thought Prompting"

Papers: Wei et al. (2022), Wang et al. (2023), Kojima et al. (2022), Creswell et al. (2023), Madaan et al. (2024)

Cross-referenced limitations:

Paper	Limitation
Wei et al.	"CoT only helps above a certain model scale (~100B parameters)"
Wang et al.	"Self-consistency improves CoT but requires multiple samples"
Kojima et al.	"Zero-shot CoT works with models as small as 7B"
Creswell et al.	"CoT can amplify errors — wrong reasoning chains produce wrong answers with higher confidence"
Madaan et al.	"Self-refinement improves CoT but benefits from external feedback"

Paradox found — Direct Contradiction:

Wei et al. (2022) claims CoT only works at ≥100B parameters. Kojima et al. (2022) shows zero-shot CoT works at 7B. Both published in the same year. Neither cites the other's limitation. The contradiction has been ignored for 3+ years.

Root cause: They tested different tasks (math vs common sense) and different CoT variants (few-shot vs zero-shot). The real limitation is task-dependent, not scale-dependent.

Resolution experiment: Test few-shot CoT vs zero-shot CoT across 10 tasks at model sizes from 1B-100B. Find the crossover point where each variant starts working. Publish the full surface.

---

Anti-Patterns

Mistake	Why it fails	Fix
Superficial comparison	"Paper A and B are different"	Find the specific contradiction in their claims
Not citing sources	Claims without evidence	Quote the exact limitation statement
Ignoring temporal context	Older papers couldn't know	Account for when each paper was published

PRISM Integration

In PRISM mode, this pattern's input changes: instead of paper limitations, it cross-references the structured findings from all 6 generators in Phase 1.

Output as structured YAML:

pattern: paradox-sifter
input: "<all generator findings>"
cross_references:
  convergences:
    - claim: "<finding from 3+ sources>"
      sources: [pattern_a, pattern_b, pattern_c]
      confidence: HIGH
  contradictions:
    - claim_a: "<finding from pattern_x>"
      claim_b: "<finding from pattern_y>"
      source_a: pattern_x
      source_b: pattern_y
      potential_resolution: "<how to test which is right>"
  creative_tensions:
    - dimension: "<the pushed dimension>"
      dreamer_claim: "<dreamer's 10× push>"
      pragmatist_assessment: "<pragmatist's cost verdict>"
      frontier: "<the boundary of feasible ambition>"
  assumption_cascades:
    - assumption: "<from assumption-excavator>"
      inverted_by: "<contrarian's inversion of it>"
      consequence_if_false: "<what breaks>"

Consumed by: synthesis (final output), skeptic (validation of cross-references) Consumes from: contrarian, assumption-excavator, cross-pollinator, heretic, counterfactual, dreamer

---

Trigger Conditions

Use this skill when:

• Asked to find "research gaps" or "future work"
• Reviewing multiple papers on the same topic
• Writing a "Related Work" section
• The user says "there's a contradiction in the literature"