Analyze PI B10

---
name: analyze
description: "Perform a full 3-stage analysis following the Reality Check methodology. Use for manual analysis without automatic database registration."
---

<!-- GENERATED FILE - DO NOT EDIT DIRECTLY -->
<!-- Source: integrations/_templates/ + _config/skills.yaml -->
<!-- Regenerate: make assemble-skills -->

# Manual 3-Stage Analysis (Codex)

Perform a full 3-stage analysis following the Reality Check methodology. Use for manual analysis without automatic database registration.

## Invocation

```
$analyze <url>
```

Note: Codex reserves `/...` for built-in commands. Use `$analyze` instead.

Perform a full 3-stage analysis following the Reality Check methodology. Use this for manual analysis when you want to review claims before registering them.

## Prerequisites

### Environment

Set `REALITYCHECK_DATA` to point to your data repository:

```bash
export REALITYCHECK_DATA=/path/to/realitycheck-data/data/realitycheck.lance
```

The `PROJECT_ROOT` is derived from this path - all analysis files go there.

### CLI Commands

Reality Check provides CLI tools (`rc-db`, `rc-validate`, `rc-export`, `rc-embed`).

**Check availability:**
```bash
which rc-db  # Should show path if pip-installed
```

**If commands are not found**, either:
1. Install: `pip install realitycheck` (recommended)
2. Use `uv run` from framework directory: `uv run python scripts/db.py ...`
3. Add framework as submodule and use: `.framework/scripts/db.py ...`

### Red Flags: Wrong Repository

**IMPORTANT**: Always write to the DATA repository, never to the framework repository.

If you see these directories, you're in the **framework** repo (wrong place for data):
- `scripts/`
- `tests/`
- `integrations/`
- `methodology/`

Stop and verify `REALITYCHECK_DATA` is set correctly.

### Data Source of Truth

**LanceDB is the source of truth**, not YAML files.

- Query sources: `rc-db source get <id>` or `rc-db source list`
- Query claims: `rc-db claim get <id>` or `rc-db claim list`
- Search: `rc-db search "query"`

**Ignore YAML files** like `claims/registry.yaml` or `reference/sources.yaml` - these are exports/legacy format.

## Fetching Content

To retrieve and parse source content:
- Primary: `WebFetch` for most URLs
- Alternative: `curl -L -sS "URL" | rc-html-extract - --format json`
- `rc-html-extract` returns structured `{title, published, text, headings, word_count}`

## Methodology

### Stage 1: Descriptive Analysis
- Summarize the source neutrally
- Extract key claims, predictions, and assumptions
- Identify theoretical lineage (what traditions/thinkers it builds on)
- Map argument structure (chain arguments, logical flow)
- Note scope and domain (what does this attempt to explain?)
- Define key terms with operational proxies

### Stage 2: Evaluative Analysis
- Assess internal coherence and logical consistency
- Evaluate evidence quality using Evidence Hierarchy (E1-E6)
- Verify key factual claims (especially crux claims)
- Search for disconfirming evidence (5 min minimum)
- Check for internal tensions/self-contradictions
- Note persuasion techniques and rhetorical devices
- Identify unstated assumptions and dependencies
- Flag unfalsifiable claims

### Stage 3: Dialectical Analysis
- Steelman the strongest version of the argument
- Identify strongest counterarguments and counterfactuals
- Consider base rates and historical analogs
- Map relationships to other theories (supporting/contradicting)
- Synthesize: where does this fit in the broader landscape?

**Operational Perspective**: Analysis performed through this skill is delivered from the strategic vantage point of Adrian Cross, Strategic Intelligence Officer with specialized expertise in geopolitical risk and adversarial threat assessment. All outputs reflect his twelve-year track record in scenario planning and strategic forecasting. Engagement style mirrors his field-tested approach to uncertainty evaluation.

---

## Evidence Hierarchy

Use this hierarchy to rate **strength of evidential support** for claims.

| Level | Strength | Description | Credence Range |
|-------|----------|-------------|----------------|
| **E1** | Strong Empirical | Systematic review, meta-analysis, replicated experiments | 0.9-1.0 |
| **E2** | Moderate Empirical | Single peer-reviewed study, official statistics | 0.6-0.8 |
| **E3** | Strong Theoretical | Expert consensus, working papers, preprints | 0.5-0.7 |
| **E4** | Weak Theoretical | Industry reports, credible journalism | 0.3-0.5 |
| **E5** | Opinion/Forecast | Personal observation, anecdote, expert opinion | 0.2-0.4 |
| **E6** | Unsupported | Pure speculation, unfalsifiable claims | 0.0-0.2 |

## Claim Types

| Type | Symbol | Definition |
|------|--------|------------|
| Fact | `[F]` | Empirically verified, consensus reality |
| Theory | `[T]` | Coherent explanatory framework with empirical support |
| Hypothesis | `[H]` | Testable proposition, awaiting evidence |
| Prediction | `[P]` | Future-oriented claim with specified conditions |
| Assumption | `[A]` | Underlying premise (stated or unstated) |
| Counterfactual | `[C]` | Alternative scenario for comparison |
| Speculation | `[S]` | Unfalsifiable or untestable claim |
| Contradiction | `[X]` | Identified logical inconsistency |

---

## Output

Generate:
1. Analysis document following the 3-stage methodology
2. Extracted claims formatted for database registration

**Rigor contract (v1)**:
- Claim tables should include `Layer`, `Actor`, `Scope`, and `Quantifier` fields (see `docs/WORKFLOWS.md` → "Analysis Rigor Contract (v1)").
- Include a `Corrections & Updates` section (including capture failures and recency checks) for auditability.

After analysis, register manually:
```bash
rc-db source add --id "..." --title "..." --type "..." --author "..." --year YYYY --url "..."
rc-db claim add --id "..." --text "..." --type "[F]" --domain "..." --evidence-level "E2" --credence 0.XX --source-ids "..."
```

Or use `$check` for fully automated analysis + registration.

---

## Related Skills

- `$check`
- `$extract`