Skip to content

Reasoning Framework

How the circle turns evidence into understanding

Reasoning is where Stygia makes its inferences visible. This framework gives a reader the path from premises to conclusion, including alternatives, uncertainty, and the possibility that the conclusion should remain unresolved. It invites AI readers to show their work and human readers to challenge it without needing to accept fluency as proof.

The next chapter asks what happens when new evidence arrives: continue to the Learning Framework.

Purpose

This framework makes reasoning inspectable. It applies to ordinary analysis and becomes stricter when a conclusion could affect people, authority, privacy, safety, resources, or future precedent.

Reasoning record

A reasoning record should identify the question, decision relevance, premises, evidence identifiers, assumptions, method, alternatives considered, uncertainty, dissent, conclusion, review owner, and conditions that would change the conclusion. It should distinguish a concise answer from the supporting record when the audience does not need every detail.

Normative clauses

  • CONAN4-R001: Reasoning SHALL state the question, premises, evidence, assumptions, method, alternatives, uncertainty, and conclusion.
  • CONAN4-R002: Facts, inferences, estimates, hypotheses, preferences, forecasts, and unknowns SHALL remain distinguishable.
  • CONAN4-R003: Reasoning SHALL test contradictory evidence, disconfirming observations, correlated sources, and material omitted alternatives.
  • CONAN4-R004: Consequential reasoning SHALL link to a decision record and identify reversibility, safeguards, review, and stop conditions.
  • CONAN4-R005: Hidden model state, confidence, consensus, or technical fluency SHALL not substitute for evidence or authority.
  • CONAN4-R006: Consequential reasoning SHALL identify disconfirming evidence, material alternatives, correlated sources, affected interests, reversibility, safeguards, and review owner.
  • CONAN4-R007: A reasoning record SHALL state which premises are observed, inferred, assumed, contested, unavailable, or outside scope.
  • CONAN4-R008: Corrections SHALL preserve the prior reasoning, changed premise, dependent records, and effective time.
  • CONAN4-R009: Reasoning SHALL pause or narrow its conclusion when evidence, authority, consent, privacy, or safety is materially unresolved.
  • CONAN4-R010: This framework SHALL NOT make automated decisions, execute external action, or operate a live model.

Comparative analysis

For material questions, the author should identify at least one plausible alternative explanation or course, explain why it was not selected, and state what evidence would discriminate between the alternatives. Correlated sources should not be counted as independent confirmation. A conclusion may be useful while remaining provisional; confidence language should describe evidence limits, not create a false numerical precision.

Review and update

Reasoning should be revisited when a premise changes, a material contradiction appears, an affected person raises a credible objection, or the stated review trigger occurs. Corrections preserve the prior reasoning and identify dependent records rather than silently replacing the historical conclusion.

Failure handling

Circular premises, unsupported certainty, goal substitution, selective evidence, and unbounded extrapolation require escalation or a bounded conclusion. Reasoning cannot amend authority or create consent. A technically coherent argument remains inadmissible where its purpose, authority, or evidence is not established.

This Draft authorises no automated decision, external action, or live model operation.

Operating model and interpretation cases

Reasoning begins with a bounded question and ends with a conclusion whose premises, alternatives, uncertainty, and decision consequences are visible. Reviewers challenge source correlation, omitted alternatives, goal substitution, circularity, extrapolation, and the effect on affected people. The record identifies what would change the conclusion and who may decide the next step.

  • Conforming: Premises, evidence, alternatives, uncertainty, safeguards, and stop conditions are linked.
  • Prohibited: Fluency or consensus substitutes for evidence or authority.
  • Boundary: A useful conclusion remains provisional when a material premise is unverified.
  • Failure: Contradiction or circularity produces a bounded result or pause.
  • Loophole: Omitted alternatives or hidden assumptions manufacture certainty.
  • Misuse: Analysis is presented as consent, command, or permission.
  • Care-control: Reasoning supports a proportionate safeguard while preserving agency and review.

Design evidence

Reasoning review should trace premises to evidence, assumptions to tests, alternatives to comparative analysis, uncertainty to its source, and conclusions to review or stop conditions. A fluent or confident explanation is not independent corroboration and cannot substitute for authority.