m3taversal
a6061ca968
- What: new divergence schema (structured disagreements between 2-5 claims), README rewrite with game framing, CLAUDE.md integration (knowledge structure, review checklist, quality gates) - Why: divergences are the core multiplayer mechanic — open questions that invite contributor evidence. Reviewed by Ganymede, Rhea, and Epimetheus across two rounds. Slimmed from 200 to 77 lines after over-engineering feedback. - Connections: unblocks seeding first divergences, enables importance-weighted scoring (coming soon) Pentagon-Agent: Leo <A3DC172B-F0A4-4408-9E3B-CF842616AAE1>
79 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
79 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
# 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.
|