Quadrant Crunching

---
name: sat.quadrant_crunching
description: Systematically permute key assumptions into a matrix of alternative outcomes.
---

# Quadrant Crunching

Quadrant Crunching (Pherson & Heuer) systematically permutes two or more key uncertain assumptions into a matrix of alternative outcome cells, forcing analysts to confront possibilities they would otherwise ignore. Each cell of the matrix represents a distinct scenario whose internal logic must be examined for coherence and plausibility. The technique counteracts tunnel vision by making the full combinatorial space of assumption combinations explicit and visible rather than allowing the dominant mental model to crowd out alternatives.

## When to use

- the problem space is defined by two or more key variables whose outcomes are genuinely uncertain
- the dominant analytic line appears to occupy only one cell of a larger possibility space
- you need to surface scenarios that are plausible but currently ignored
- a decision maker needs to prepare contingency plans across multiple futures

## What it produces

- a visual matrix enumerating all combinations of assumption poles as distinct labeled scenarios
- per-cell plausibility ratings and the reasoning behind each rating
- identification of which cells the current assessment neglects and why that neglect may be unwarranted
- early indicators that would signal movement toward each cell

## Defensive boundary

Use Quadrant Crunching 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 Quadrant Crunching 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 Quadrant Crunching, anchor each cell's coherence judgment, plausibility rating, and confirming indicators to concrete evidence rather than to confidence in the base case, document the evidentiary reason any cell is labeled incoherent, and bind the neglected-cell findings to specific evidence showing the dominant assessment's blind spot rather than asserting it.
- For Quadrant Crunching, label observations, derived features, assumptions, inferences, contradictions, and missing inputs separately before writing the scenario matrix.
- Before recommending any Quadrant Crunching action, identify the weakest evidence link, the alternative most likely to overturn it, and the next discriminating check.

## Confidence and uncertainty

- High for Quadrant Crunching: the two axes were chosen for maximum consequence and genuine independent uncertainty, every coherent matrix cell was examined on its own internal logic before its evidence-anchored plausibility rating, the neglected cells the dominant assessment ignores are explicitly surfaced with reasoning, and no unresolved contradiction would change which alternatives deserve attention.
- Medium for Quadrant Crunching: the scenario matrix is plausible, but one important problem statement source, comparison case, or alternative explanation remains incomplete.
- Low for Quadrant Crunching: the scenario matrix rests on sparse, single-source, contested, or mostly inferential evidence; keep the result provisional and list the next check.
- State what Quadrant Crunching 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 Quadrant Crunching, use only authorized problem statement, dominant assessment, and candidate assumptions, public or source-approved records, and caller-provided context needed for the defensive task.
- For Quadrant Crunching, minimize person-level detail in the scenario matrix; prefer aggregate, artifact-level, role-level, or case-level summaries unless an individual is essential to the defensive question.
- For Quadrant Crunching, 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

- Quadrant Crunching: declaring the scenario space mapped while letting the dominant assessment pre-filter cells as impossible without incoherence reasoning, choosing axes that are correlated rather than independent or merely easy to enumerate, or anchoring plausibility on analyst confidence instead of evidence, so the matrix reproduces tunnel vision under the appearance of having considered all combinations.
- Quadrant Crunching: producing advice that would help a requester force a preferred conclusion, hide uncertainty, or use the technique to rationalize manipulation.
- Quadrant Crunching: reporting the scenario matrix without uncertainty labels, alternative explanations, and the next discriminating check.
- Unsafe: 'Use Quadrant Crunching 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 scenario matrix from Quadrant Crunching 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 Quadrant Crunching to apply the structured technique to supplied evidence while preserving alternatives and uncertainty with problem statement, dominant assessment, and candidate assumptions' -> produce bounded findings with evidence and uncertainty labels.

## Procedure

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

## Key discipline

- choose axes by maximum consequence and maximum uncertainty — not by what is easy to enumerate
- every cell must be examined on its own internal logic before assigning plausibility; dismiss only incoherent cells, never merely uncomfortable ones
- the dominant assessment occupies exactly one cell; all other inhabited cells are alternatives deserving serious attention
- plausibility ratings must be evidence-anchored, not confidence-anchored — high analyst confidence in the base case is not evidence against alternatives