git:20260615.7a62936 to git:20260615.48da2e0

---

name: argument-crystallization

description: Distill the strongest arguments from each perspective through Argument

Delphi or Dialectical Delphi methods.

dependencies:

tactics:

- disagreement-mapping

- iterative-convergence-round

sops:

- consensus-synthesis

---

# Argument Crystallization

**Purpose:** Rather than converging on a single answer, crystallize the strongest possible arguments for each position. Uses Argument Delphi (focus on argument quality over agreement) and Dialectical Delphi (thesis-antithesis-synthesis) to produce the most rigorous version of each stance.

**When to use:**

- Policy deliberation requiring clear pro/con articulation

- Interdisciplinary disputes where each field has valid concerns

- Pre-decision analysis where decision-makers need best arguments

- Situations where the goal is argument quality, not agreement

## Budget

| Parameter | Constraint |

|-----------|-----------|

| Rounds | 2–3 (refine arguments, not opinions) |

| Perspectives | ≥4 independent |

| Argument quality gate | Each argument must be steel-manned |

## State Ledger

| Key | Type | Description |

|-----|------|-------------|

| question | string | The deliberation question |

| perspectives | array | Contributing perspectives |

| initial_arguments | array | First-round arguments |

| critiques | array | Cross-perspective critiques |

| refined_arguments | array | Steel-manned final arguments |

| synthesis | object | Points of agreement and irreducible tensions |

## Available Tactics

- **disagreement-mapping** — Identify argument clusters

- **iterative-convergence-round** — Refine arguments across rounds

## Available SOPs

- judgment-collection

- cluster-analysis

- argument-extraction

- feedback-distribution

- consensus-measurement

- consensus-synthesis

## Execution Guidance

1. Collect initial positions with supporting arguments

2. Cross-distribute: each perspective critiques and steel-mans others

3. Authors refine arguments incorporating strongest critiques

4. Identify points of genuine agreement vs. irreducible tensions

5. Produce crystallized argument map with quality ratings

## Output Format

```yaml

positions:

- label: <position name>

strongest_arguments: [...]

acknowledged_weaknesses: [...]

steel_man_version: <best possible formulation>

agreements:

- point: <shared conclusion>

strength: <how robust>

irreducible_tensions:

- between: [position_a, position_b]

nature: <empirical/value/priority>

why_irreducible: <explanation>

```