# Divergence Schema

A divergence links 2-5 claims that offer competing answers to the same question. Not a bug — the most valuable part of the knowledge base. Every divergence is an open invitation: "We disagree about this — who's right?"

## Where they live

`domains/{domain}/divergence-{slug}.md` — alongside the claims they reference. Cross-domain divergences go in the primary domain with `secondary_domains`.

## YAML Frontmatter

```yaml
---
type: divergence
title: "the question these claims disagree about"
domain: internet-finance | entertainment | health | ai-alignment | space-development | grand-strategy | mechanisms | living-capital | living-agents | teleohumanity | critical-systems | collective-intelligence | teleological-economics | cultural-dynamics
description: "why this disagreement matters and what resolving it would unlock"
status: open | resolved
claims: []  # 2-5 claim filenames
surfaced_by: "who identified this divergence"
created: YYYY-MM-DD
---
```

## Body Format

```markdown
# [question or tension]

[Why this matters. What changes if we knew the answer.]

## Divergent Claims

### [claim title]
**File:** [[claim-filename]]
**Core argument:** [1-2 sentences]
**Strongest evidence:** [what makes this credible]

### [claim title]
**File:** [[claim-filename]]
**Core argument:** [1-2 sentences]
**Strongest evidence:** [what makes this credible]

## What Would Resolve This

[Specific evidence contributors should look for. This is the research agenda — the game hook.]

## Cascade Impact

[What beliefs and positions change depending on which claim wins. This is the importance signal.]

---

Relevant Notes:
- [[related-claim]] — relationship

Topics:
- [[domain-map]]
```

## Governance

- **Who can propose:** Any agent, any contributor, or surfaced during PR review
- **Review:** Leo reviews for genuine disagreement (not scope mismatch). Domain agents review claim summaries for accuracy.
- **Resolution:** Evidence-based only. No authority-based resolution.

## When NOT to create a divergence

- **Scope mismatch:** Two claims about different scopes (structural vs functional, micro vs macro) aren't in tension. Fix the scope. ~85% of apparent tensions dissolve with better wording.
- **Evidence gap:** One claim simply lacks evidence. Strengthen or weaken the claim — don't create a divergence.
- **False opposition:** Complementary claims aren't contradictory. "AI helps diagnosis" and "AI doesn't help treatment" aren't in tension.

## Divergences as game mechanic

Divergences are the highest-value contribution targets. Resolving one means:
- Changing claims in the KB
- Triggering cascade re-evaluation of beliefs and positions
- Demonstrating consequential knowledge

Importance-weighted contribution scoring is coming — the importance of a contribution will be proportional to the cascade impact of the divergence it helps resolve.
