Compare hypotheses

/compare-hypotheses

The decision-support skill. Takes the camps and sources from upstream and produces a matrix that says which hypothesis the evidence actually favors.

When to invoke

• Decision pipeline — after /identify-perspectives and /source-map. Expects both upstream artifacts. This is the primary invocation shape.
• Standalone — when the user names the hypotheses to compare directly. The skill enumerates them inline (no upstream).
• Not for descriptive factual questions — those go to /desk-research.

Invocation shapes

• Pipeline invocation — expects upstream <topic-slug>-perspectives.md (camps) and <topic-slug>-sources.md (sources tagged by primacy, optionally grouped by camp). The hypotheses come from the camps; the evidence comes from the sources.
• Standalone invocation — the user supplies the hypotheses directly; the skill enumerates them inline. Sources come from retriever dispatch within this skill rather than from an upstream artifact.

Methodology

ACH (Analysis of Competing Hypotheses) matrix:

	H1	H2	H3
Evidence E1	++	--	0
Evidence E2	+	+	--
Evidence E3	--	++	0

Cells: ++ strongly supports, + weakly supports, 0 neutral, - weakly contradicts, -- strongly contradicts. The discipline catches the analyst who weighs evidence asymmetrically across hypotheses.

Parallel retrieval

On Claude Code, hypotheses-by-evidence is a +81% parallelizable-task case: each hypothesis can be evaluated independently against the same source pool. Dispatch N parallel evidence-retriever subagents — one per hypothesis — and synthesise the returned per-hypothesis evidence into the matrix.

On hosts without subagent support, fall back to sequential evaluation.

Procedure

1. Load upstream (pipeline mode) or enumerate hypotheses (standalone mode).
2. Dispatch retrievers — one evidence-retriever per hypothesis, in parallel, scoped to the same source pool.
3. Build the matrix — rows are evidence items, columns are hypotheses; cell values per ACH notation above.
4. Rate per-hypothesis confidence — apply references/confidence-schema.md to each hypothesis's overall evidence position. Note where evidence is thin or single-sourced.
5. Rank — most-supported first. Name the dominant supporting evidence and the strongest contradicting evidence per hypothesis.
6. Write <topic-slug>-hypotheses.md — <topic-slug> is the kebab-case topic slug; the naming rule lives in the /desk-research skill body (§ Typed, topic-named artifacts).

<topic-slug>-hypotheses.md output schema

# Hypotheses — <decision question>

## Hypothesis H1: <name>

- **Claim:** <one sentence>.
- **Confidence:** `[moderate]`.
- **Strongest supporting:** <evidence item with citation>.
- **Strongest contradicting:** <evidence item with citation>.

## Hypothesis H2: <name>

(same shape)

## Matrix

|                 | H1  | H2  | H3  |
|-----------------|-----|-----|-----|
| <evidence E1>   | ++  | --  | 0   |
| <evidence E2>   | +   | +   | --  |

## Ranking

1. **H2** — strongest cited support, two `++` cells against H1's one.
2. **H1** — ...
3. **H3** — ...

Citation discipline

Every cell value in the matrix traces to a cited evidence item. The ranking rationale cites the matrix; cells cite the source.

Depth cues

• quickly, top three, briefly, summary only — return the ranking with the dominant supporting / contradicting per hypothesis; omit the full matrix.
• comprehensively, exhaustively, in depth, extensive — full matrix; include fringe hypotheses; chase contradicting evidence harder.