Skip to content

SPEC.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
206 lines (140 loc) · 6.73 KB

SPEC.md

File metadata and controls

206 lines (140 loc) · 6.73 KB
Raw

Structured Knowledge Document (SKD)

Specification v0.5

Purpose

A document architecture for epistemic hygiene. Separates observation from interpretation. Enables both construction and deconstruction of arguments.

Categories

All claims belong to one of four categories:

Category Definition
Hard Objectivity (HO) Observer-independent truth. Informed parties would converge. Verifiable by third party.
Framework-Dependent (FD) True within a cited system (rulebook, standard, law).
Soft Subjectivity (SS) Rational value disagreement. Honest, informed opponents can legitimately hold opposing views.
Epistemic Junk (EJ) Invalid epistemic move: tribal signaling, motive attribution, unfalsifiable claims, self-sealing logic.

FD Subtypes

Subtype Definition
FD-settled Framework with settled interpretation. Cite the framework.
FD-contested Framework exists; application disputed. Cite framework AND interpretive authority.

Critical: FD-contested without cited authority functions as SS — the author's application, not a settled fact.

Apply FD subtypes where framework application is genuinely contested. Where interpretation is settled, omit the distinction.

Examples:

  • "Exceeds 65 mph speed limit" → FD-settled
  • "Breach of contract" → FD-contested; requires "per [authority]"
  • "Exceeds EPA emission limits per the 2023 compliance audit" → FD-contested with authority cited

Chambers

An SKD contains four chambers, executed sequentially.

Chamber 1: Scope

Declare upfront:

  • Scope: What is this document trying to establish?
  • Frameworks (FD): What external systems are being invoked? Distinguish FD-settled from FD-contested.
  • Values (SS): What thresholds or priorities is the author choosing?

Immutability: Frameworks and values, once declared, cannot shift mid-argument.

Chamber 2: Hard Objectivity

Only HO claims enter this chamber. Each must satisfy:

Requirement Constraint
Externally Verifiable Confirmable by third party. Actions and statements qualify; intentions do not.
Time-Anchored Fixed to point in time: date, timestamp, or relative sequence.
Atomic Single, irreducible unit. No relational operators (but, therefore, despite, which).
Adjective-Free No evaluative or interpretive modifiers. Record "$15,000 cost," not "excessive cost."

Missing information is recorded as [Unknown] with appropriate type.

Chamber 3: Logic

Apply FD and SS from Chamber 1 to HO from Chamber 2.

The Equation:

HO + FD → Classification
HO + SS → Weighting

Constraints:

  • Chronology: Event at T2 cannot cause event at T1.
  • Causation: Requires mechanism, not just correlation.
  • Citation: Uncited FD or undeclared SS breaks the logic link.
  • Narrative imposition: Causal or transformative claims without mechanism fail.

Narrative Imposition Examples:

  • "The product launch revolutionized the industry" — transformation claim without mechanism
  • "The merger fundamentally changed company culture" — causal claim without evidence
  • "This was a turning point for the project" — transformation claim without mechanism

Legitimate alternative: Narrative framing explicitly labeled as SS. "I interpret these events as forming an arc of X" declares interpretation, not causation.

Chamber 4: Interpretation

State SS conclusions derived from Chamber 3.

Constraints:

  • Proportionality: Conclusions must match surviving evidence.
  • Flagging: Dependencies on [Unknown] must be explicit.
  • No gap-filling: Assumed intent is forbidden.

[Unknown] Granularity

Different types of missing information have different implications:

Type Definition Implication
[Unknown-source] This source doesn't say May be available elsewhere
[Unknown-general] No one knows yet Genuine uncertainty
[Unknown-contested] Sources disagree Requires adjudication
[Unknown-omitted] Knowable but excluded Potential selection bias

Flagging [Unknown-omitted] requires external knowledge. Deconstruction tool only.

Failure Modes

Failure Definition
Chamber 1 Collapse Scope undefined, FD uncited, SS undeclared, or mid-argument framework shift
Chamber 2 Contamination SS or EJ mixed with HO
Atomicity Violation Compound claims with relational operators in Chamber 2
Narrative Imposition Causal or transformative claim without mechanism
Logic Failure FD uncited, SS undeclared, or correlation treated as causation
Chamber 4 Overreach Conclusions exceed surviving evidence; gaps unflagged

Reliability Rating

Rating Criteria
High Chambers 1-4 intact; gaps flagged with appropriate type; conclusions proportional to evidence
Medium Minor contamination or unflagged gaps; core logic intact; primary conclusions supported
Low Chamber 1 collapse OR Chamber 3 failure on primary claim OR [Unknown-omitted] undermines key conclusion
Unreliable Structural failures across multiple chambers; conclusions unsupported by surviving evidence

Quick Diagnostic Flow

For any claim:

Verifiable + informed parties converge?
  → Yes → HO (test four requirements)
  → No ↓

Citable framework?
  → Yes, settled → FD-settled
  → Yes, disputed → FD-contested (cite authority)
  → No ↓

Honest, informed opponent could hold this?
  → Yes → SS (declare as value/threshold)
  → No ↓

→ EJ (reject)

EJ Markers

Reject immediately:

  • "All [group] are [trait]"
  • "You only think that because..."
  • "Everyone knows..." (uncited consensus claim)
  • Denial interpreted as proof
  • Motive substituted for argument
  • Unfalsifiable claims

Boundaries

SKD v0.5 answers: Is this argument epistemically hygienic?

It does not answer: Is this SS position well-reasoned?

Once a claim is categorized as SS, the framework's work is complete. SS quality evaluation is out of scope.

Summary

Chamber Contains Key Question
1 Scope, FD (settled/contested), SS What are we establishing and by what rules?
2 HO only What actually happened, verifiably?
3 Logic Does HO meet FD/SS thresholds? Is mechanism present?
4 Interpretation What conclusions are earned? What's [Unknown]?

Authorship Created by Don Schartman, 2025. Incorporating Separation Theory categories (HO/FD/SS/EJ).

License CC BY 4.0 — Share and adapt with attribution.