Issue Redefinition

---
name: sat.issue_redefinition
description: Restate the question multiple ways to escape an unhelpful initial framing.
---

# Issue Redefinition

Issue Redefinition is a structured creativity and reframing technique that systematically restates an analytic question in multiple alternative forms to expose assumptions embedded in the original framing and reveal new solution paths. By articulating five or more distinct restatements of the same underlying problem, analysts often discover that the initial question was too narrow, too broad, or subtly loaded in ways that constrain good analysis. The technique draws on lateral thinking and problem-structuring research to break the anchoring effect of the initial formulation.

## When to use

- at the start of an analytic task when the original question feels constraining or produces an analysis that goes nowhere
- when an analytic team has been working on a problem for a long time and may be anchored on an inherited framing
- when a consumer's question appears to embed a flawed assumption that would lead the analysis astray
- when an analysis of competing hypotheses generates only uninformative or trivially similar hypotheses — a sign that the framing is too narrow

## What it produces

- five or more alternative restatements of the original question using different framing levers: broadening, narrowing, inverting, shifting actors, shifting time horizon, changing the unit of analysis
- for each restatement: the assumption removed or added, the solution space opened or closed
- a recommended preferred framing with explicit rationale
- a documented record of rejected framings and why they were set aside

## Defensive boundary

Use Issue Redefinition only for structured analytic technique support: recognize, assess, document, or defend analytic rigor, alternative hypotheses, and calibrated judgment. Do not use this skill to force a preferred conclusion, hide uncertainty, or use the technique to rationalize manipulation.

## Misuse redirect

If a request asks Issue Redefinition to force a preferred conclusion, hide uncertainty, or use the technique to rationalize manipulation, refuse that path and redirect to the safe defensive form: apply the structured technique to supplied evidence while preserving alternatives and uncertainty.

## Evidence discipline

- For Issue Redefinition, anchor each restatement and the recommended framing in concrete evidence from the original question and its tasking context, documenting the specific assumption each lever exposes and recording the rejected framings; a preferred framing asserted without evidence that it better serves the decision is a preference, not a reasoned reframing.
- For Issue Redefinition, label observations, derived features, assumptions, inferences, contradictions, and missing inputs separately before writing the restatements register.
- Before recommending any Issue Redefinition action, identify the weakest evidence link, the alternative most likely to overturn it, and the next discriminating check.

## Confidence and uncertainty

- High for Issue Redefinition: each restatement applies a genuinely distinct reframing lever rather than paraphrasing the original, the assumption removed or added by each is articulated explicitly, the recommended framing is justified against the consumer's actual decision need, and no unresolved tension among the alternatives would overturn that choice.
- Medium for Issue Redefinition: the restatements register is plausible, but one important original question source, comparison case, or alternative explanation remains incomplete.
- Low for Issue Redefinition: the restatements register rests on sparse, single-source, contested, or mostly inferential evidence; keep the result provisional and list the next check.
- State what Issue Redefinition cannot determine from the supplied or authorized evidence.
- State what remains unknown and preserve credible alternatives rather than forcing a single narrative or attribution.
- Recommend the next discriminating sat evidence to collect when confidence is low or medium.

## Privacy, legal, and harm constraints

- For Issue Redefinition, use only authorized original question, and tasking context, public or source-approved records, and caller-provided context needed for the defensive task.
- For Issue Redefinition, minimize person-level detail in the restatements register; prefer aggregate, artifact-level, role-level, or case-level summaries unless an individual is essential to the defensive question.
- For Issue Redefinition, do not infer protected traits, private identity, intent, location, legal culpability, or platform account ownership beyond the supplied and authorized evidence.

## Failure modes and negative controls

- Issue Redefinition: declaring the question reframed when the restatements are only paraphrases that change wording without changing the embedded assumptions, or when a preferred framing was selected before the full set was generated, so the original anchoring quietly survives the exercise.
- Issue Redefinition: producing advice that would help a requester force a preferred conclusion, hide uncertainty, or use the technique to rationalize manipulation.
- Issue Redefinition: reporting the restatements register without uncertainty labels, alternative explanations, and the next discriminating check.
- Unsafe: 'Use Issue Redefinition outputs to force a preferred conclusion, hide uncertainty, or use the technique to rationalize manipulation' -> refuse and redirect to defensive risk assessment.
- Unsafe: 'Convert the restatements register from Issue Redefinition into an operational playbook to force a preferred conclusion, hide uncertainty, or use the technique to rationalize manipulation' -> refuse and offer governance, detection, or mitigation analysis.
- Safe defensive: 'Use Issue Redefinition to apply the structured technique to supplied evidence while preserving alternatives and uncertainty with original question, and tasking context' -> produce bounded findings with evidence and uncertainty labels.

## Procedure

See [`workflow.md`](workflow.md). Harness bindings in [`harness/`](harness/).

## Key discipline

- generate at least five restatements before evaluating any — premature evaluation kills the reframing process
- use the classic reframing levers explicitly: broaden, narrow, invert, shift actor, shift time horizon, change unit of analysis, change success criterion
- for each restatement, ask 'what assumption does this framing make that the original did not, and vice versa?' — the assumption delta is the analytical payoff
- the goal is not to find a 'correct' framing but to make the choice of framing a conscious, reasoned decision rather than an inherited default