Analogy Structure Mapping

---
name: analogy-structure-mapping
description: "Identifies the deep structural correspondence between two situations — genuine isomorphism vs superficial similarity. Triggers: 'does this analogy hold', 'map the structure', 'is this really like that', 'structural similarity', 'test the comparison'."
---

# Analogy Structure Mapping

Analogies are persuasive but often wrong. The surface similarity that makes a comparison
feel apt can obscure structural differences that make it invalid. This skill maps the deep
structure of both situations and checks correspondence element by element — distinguishing
genuine isomorphism (same structure, different content) from superficial similarity (same
surface, different structure).

---

## Your Process

**Step 1: State the Two Situations**
Write Situation A and Situation B clearly. State the analogy as claimed: "A is like B
because..."

**Framing check:** Confirm the specific analogy before continuing. State what you've identified — the two situations being compared and the analogical claim linking them — in one sentence, then use `AskUserQuestion`:
- **Question:** "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the two situations and the claimed analogy]. Is that right?"
- **Header:** "Framing"
- **Options:**
  - **Yes — proceed** — framing is correct
  - **Adjust** — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
  - **Reframe** — different situations or analogy than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding

**Step 2: Extract Structure of Each**
For each situation independently, map: key actors, their relationships, the dynamics
(what drives change), the constraints (what limits action), and the goals (what success
looks like). Do this for each situation before comparing — comparison before extraction
introduces bias.

**Step 3: Map Elements A to B**
For each structural element in A, identify the corresponding element in B. State the
mapping explicitly: "In A, X plays the role of Y in B."

**Step 4: Classify Each Mapped Pair**
For each mapped pair: is the correspondence genuine (same structural role, same
relationship type, same dynamics) or superficial (same label or surface feature, different
structural role)?

**Step 5: Find Where the Mapping Breaks**
Every analogy breaks somewhere — this is not a failure, it is where the analysis becomes
useful. Which differences are structurally significant? Which make the analogy unreliable
for the specific prediction or decision being made?

**Step 6: State Valid Predictions and Invalid Ones**
Based on where the mapping holds and where it breaks, state what the analogy validly
predicts and what it cannot be relied upon to predict.

---

## Human Check-in

Before proceeding, use the `AskUserQuestion` tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:

- **Question:** "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
- **Header:** "Scope"
- **Options:**
  - **Full analysis** — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
  - **Key findings only** — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
  - **Structural differences only** — Where the two situations diverge, not where they align
  - **Reframe** — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing

Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.

## Output Format

**Situation A structure:** [actors / relationships / dynamics / constraints / goals]
**Situation B structure:** [actors / relationships / dynamics / constraints / goals]

**Element mapping:**

| Element in A | Corresponding element in B | Genuine / Superficial | Reason |
|-------------|---------------------------|----------------------|--------|
| | | | |
| | | | |

**Where the mapping breaks:**
> [Specific structural differences and why they matter]

**Valid predictions (analogy holds):**
> [What can be reliably inferred from B about A]

**Invalid predictions (analogy breaks):**
> [What cannot be inferred — where relying on the analogy would mislead]

---

## Notes

Genuine structural correspondence requires that the relationship between elements matches —
not just that individual elements can be paired. Two things can share every node and differ
entirely on the edges that connect them.

---

## What's Next

After delivering this output, use `AskUserQuestion` to offer the next move:

- **Question:** "Structure mapped. What's next?"
- **Header:** "Next"
- **Options:**
  - `/logic-check` — Validate that the structural mapping holds
  - `/analogy-domain-transfer` — Use the structure map to guide a domain transfer
  - `/systems-feedback-mapping` — Check if the structure reveals feedback dynamics
  - **Done** — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far