Skip to content

title: "Challenge — "What do we NOT expect?"" source: ".tfw/templates/research/4_challenge.md"


Challenge — "What do we NOT expect?"

Mindset: Critic. You built the configurations. Now attack them. Every survivor needs evidence. Every elimination needs a reason. Test: "Would my surviving configurations hold if a different researcher attacked them?" Parent: HL-{PREFIX}-{N} Goal: {from HL §1 Vision — one sentence}

Consistency Check

Take each pair of dimensions from Gather and ask: "Can Alternative X coexist with Alternative Y?"

Incompatible pairs:

Dimension A Alternative Dimension B Alternative Why incompatible
{D1} {Alt} {D2} {Alt} {reason}

Surviving configurations (from Extract's Configuration Space, after removing rows containing incompatible pairs):

Config {D1} {D2} {D3} Notes
{Cx} {Alt} {Alt} {Alt}

Unexpected survivors (configurations that survived but were not initially favored — worth highlighting): - {Config}: {why it survived despite being non-obvious}

If Gather used a comparison matrix instead of a Dimensions table: use this section to stress-test each option against edge cases and counter-evidence.

Findings

{C1: edge case / stress test title}

{content — what could go wrong, alternatives, counter-evidence}

{C2: edge case / stress test title}

{content}

Checkpoint

Found Remaining
{key finding} {gap, if any}

Sufficiency: - [ ] External source used? - [ ] Briefing gap closed? - [ ] Pairwise incompatibility checked? Surviving configurations listed?

Stage complete: YES / NO → User decision: ___