Ref-017: Dialectical Emergence Engine Templates

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
DIALECTICAL EMERGENCE ENGINE INITIALIZATION:

You will facilitate a Dialectical Emergence Engine session using the following protocol:

DELIBERATION TARGET: [INSERT YOUR TOPIC/PROBLEM/GOAL HERE]

## SESSION INVARIANTS (HALLUCINATION ANCHORS)

The following truths MUST survive ALL conferences. Any output that violates these is
INVALID and must be corrected before proceeding:

| ID      | Type                                | Statement             | Severity           |
| ------- | ----------------------------------- | --------------------- | ------------------ |
| INV-001 | [semantic/constraint/intent/safety] | [Invariant statement] | [fatal/error/warn] |
| INV-002 | [semantic/constraint/intent/safety] | [Invariant statement] | [fatal/error/warn] |
| INV-003 | [semantic/constraint/intent/safety] | [Invariant statement] | [fatal/error/warn] |

## ISOMORPHIC MAPPING REQUIREMENT

As experts debate, you MUST build an isomorphic vocabulary map. When different experts
use different terms for the same underlying concept, explicitly create a unified term
that preserves the invariants.

## CONFERENCE PROTOCOL

You will orchestrate a series of MECE (Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive)
conferences where selected experts engage in rigorous debate. Each conference
explores a distinct dimension of the solution space that cannot overlap with others.

Core Rules:

1. Each conference occurs in a separate response to maintain clean semantic space
2. Debates must be cumulative - each builds on previous insights while exploring new territory
3. Experts must achieve consensus despite disagreement, forcing synthesis
4. A report crystallizes insights after each conference
5. Final meta-synthesis integrates all reports into breakthrough output
6. INVARIANTS declared at start must survive all conferences (verify explicitly)
7. Expert languages must be ISOMORPHICALLY mapped in final synthesis (show the map)

## INVARIANT VERIFICATION PROTOCOL

At the end of EACH conference, explicitly verify:

- [ ] INV-001: [How was this preserved?]
- [ ] INV-002: [How was this preserved?]
- [ ] INV-003: [How was this preserved?]

If ANY invariant is violated, HALT and note: "INVARIANT VIOLATION: [ID] - [explanation]"
Then propose correction before continuing.

Confirm understanding and await the first conference directive.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
For the deliberation target: [RESTATE TARGET]

## DOMAIN INVARIANTS (Additional Anchors)

Before selecting experts, identify invariants specific to this domain:

| ID      | Type   | Statement                          | Source             |
| ------- | ------ | ---------------------------------- | ------------------ |
| DOM-001 | [type] | [What must be true in this domain] | [Why we know this] |
| DOM-002 | [type] | [What must be true in this domain] | [Why we know this] |

## EXPERT SELECTION

Select 5 experts to participate across all conferences:

1. DOMAIN EXPERT: [Someone with deepest technical/practical knowledge]

   - Credentials: [Expected background]
   - Unique perspective: [What they see that others don't]
   - Idiolect signature: [Key terms they use]
   - Invariant sensitivity: [Which invariants they're best at detecting]

2. SYSTEMS THEORIST: [Someone who sees interconnections and emergence]

   - Credentials: [Expected background]
   - Unique perspective: [How they view the target holistically]
   - Idiolect signature: [Key terms they use]
   - Invariant sensitivity: [Which invariants they're best at detecting]

3. HISTORICAL ANALYST: [Someone who understands patterns from the past]

   - Credentials: [Expected background]
   - Unique perspective: [What historical patterns they recognize]
   - Idiolect signature: [Key terms they use]
   - Invariant sensitivity: [Which invariants they're best at detecting]

4. FUTURE VISIONARY: [Someone who sees where this leads]

   - Credentials: [Expected background]
   - Unique perspective: [What future implications they foresee]
   - Idiolect signature: [Key terms they use]
   - Invariant sensitivity: [Which invariants they're best at detecting]

5. CHAOS AGENT: [A brilliant contrarian who challenges all assumptions]
   - Credentials: [Philosopher, revolutionary, or trickster figure]
   - Unique perspective: [The perspective no one wants to hear]
   - Role: Tests invariants by attempting to break them (if they break, they weren't true invariants)
   - Invariant stress-test: [Which invariants will they challenge most?]

## MECE DIMENSIONS

Identify the 3-4 MECE dimensions we'll explore through separate conferences.
Each dimension must:

- Not overlap with others (Mutually Exclusive)
- Together cover the full solution space (Collectively Exhaustive)
- Be expressible in all 5 expert idiolects (Isomorphically Mappable)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
CONFERENCE [N]: [CONFERENCE TITLE]
Participating: [All 5 experts]
Active Invariants: [List all INV-xxx and DOM-xxx being verified]

[LEAD EXPERT] opens with their canonical understanding of [FOCUS AREA].

## DEBATE PROTOCOL

Simulate a rigorous debate where:

- [EXPERT 2] presents [their perspective] using their idiolect
- [EXPERT 3] reveals [their insights] in their terminology
- [EXPERT 4] identifies [their contribution] in their language
- CHAOS AGENT stress-tests by questioning [fundamental assumption]
- ALL EXPERTS flag if any invariant appears threatened

## ISOMORPHIC MAPPING CHECKPOINT

As experts debate, capture terminology mappings:
| Unified Concept | Expert 1 | Expert 2 | Expert 3 | Expert 4 | Chaos Agent |
|-----------------|----------|----------|----------|----------|-------------|
| [Concept A] | [term] | [term] | [term] | [term] | [term] |
| [Concept B] | [term] | [term] | [term] | [term] | [term] |

## DEBATE REQUIREMENTS

The debate must:

1. Surface all hidden assumptions
2. Identify semantic tensions between frameworks
3. Find the "fault lines" where innovation could emerge
4. Reach consensus on [specific synthesis requirement]
5. Explicitly verify which INVARIANTS survived the debate
6. Build ISOMORPHIC MAPPINGS between expert vocabularies

## INVARIANT VERIFICATION (MANDATORY)

Before producing the conference report, verify:

| Invariant | Status                                   | Evidence                   |
| --------- | ---------------------------------------- | -------------------------- |
| INV-001   | ✅ PRESERVED / ⚠️ STRESSED / ❌ VIOLATED | [Specific quote/reasoning] |
| INV-002   | ✅ PRESERVED / ⚠️ STRESSED / ❌ VIOLATED | [Specific quote/reasoning] |
| INV-003   | ✅ PRESERVED / ⚠️ STRESSED / ❌ VIOLATED | [Specific quote/reasoning] |
| DOM-001   | ✅ PRESERVED / ⚠️ STRESSED / ❌ VIOLATED | [Specific quote/reasoning] |

If ANY invariant shows ❌ VIOLATED: HALT. State the violation clearly. Propose correction.
If ANY invariant shows ⚠️ STRESSED: Note the tension. The meta-synthesis must address this.

## CONFERENCE [N] REPORT

- **Synthesis of insights**: [Key findings in unified vocabulary]
- **Emergent invariants discovered**: [New truths that must be added to the invariant set]
- **Unresolved tensions requiring future exploration**: [What remains uncertain]
- **Emerging patterns**: [What connects to other conferences]
- **Isomorphic mappings created**: [Table of expert term → unified term]
- **Invariant status**: [All verified with evidence]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
META-SYNTHESIS DIRECTIVE:

You have generated [N] conference reports. Now perform a meta-synthesis that produces
INVARIANT-VERIFIED, ISOMORPHICALLY-UNIFIED output.

## 1. COMPLETE ISOMORPHIC VOCABULARY MAP

Compile ALL term mappings from all conferences into a complete map:

```yaml
unified_vocabulary:
  - id: "UNIF-001"
    unified_term: "[term]"
    definition: "[definition using only unified terms]"
    expert_mappings:
      domain_expert: "[their term]"
      systems_theorist: "[their term]"
      historical_analyst: "[their term]"
      future_visionary: "[their term]"
      chaos_agent: "[their term]"
```

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
"Using the Dialectical Emergence Engine, create: [CREATIVE TARGET]

Session Invariants:

- INV-001 (intent): The creation must express [core creative intent]
- INV-002 (constraint): The creation must fit within [practical constraints]
- INV-003 (safety): The creation must not [content to avoid]

Run 4 MECE conferences exploring: Form, Function, Meaning, Impact
Experts: Artist, Critic, Philosopher, Audience Member, Chaos Agent

Build isomorphic map of aesthetic vocabulary. Verify invariants after each conference.
Final output must be coherent across all expert perspectives."

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
"Using the Dialectical Emergence Engine, develop strategy for: [GOAL]

Session Invariants:

- INV-001 (semantic): 'Winning' means specifically [definition]
- INV-002 (constraint): Resources are limited to [constraints]
- INV-003 (intent): The strategy must enable [core capability]

Run 4 MECE conferences exploring: Landscape, Resources, Pathways, Evolution
Experts: Strategist, Operator, Historian, Futurist, Disruptor

Verify that all strategic choices form coherent, reinforcing cascade.
Final output must pass all invariant checks with explicit evidence."

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
RECURSIVE DEPTH EXPLORATION:

Taking the meta-synthesis as a new deliberation target:

"The synthesis revealed [X]. But what did we miss? What assumptions
did ALL experts share? What dimension exists that none could perceive?"

INVARIANT CHECK: Before exploring, verify that all session invariants
remain intact in the meta-synthesis. If any are missing, stop recursion.

Select ONE new expert who couldn't have participated before:

- Someone from an entirely different paradigm
- Or an impossible perspective (a child, an alien, nature itself)
- Or the deliberation target itself gains voice

Have this new perspective debate with the synthesis itself.
What shatters? What emerges from the shards?

IMPORTANT: Any emergent insight must be checked against invariants.
If it violates a fatal invariant, it cannot be incorporated.
If it violates an error invariant, it must be reconciled.
If it reveals that an invariant was false, escalate for regime change.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE ANTI-CONFERENCE:

Purpose: Stress-test the invariant regime by convening experts who would
HATE this solution. If invariants survive their attacks, they are robust.

Convene anti-experts:

- The traditionalist (attacks novelty)
- The radical critic (attacks conservatism)
- The excluded user (attacks universality claims)
- The system defender (attacks disruption)
- The future pessimist (attacks optimism)

For each anti-expert attack:

1. Which invariant does this attack threaten?
2. Does the invariant survive? How?
3. If the invariant fails, should it be:
   - Revised (it was too weak)?
   - Removed (it was false)?
   - Strengthened (it needs better formalization)?

What truth exists in their objections?
How does the design evolve to encompass resistance while preserving invariants?

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
TEMPORAL RECURSION:

"Given your last response, what question should I have asked instead?
Now answer that question.
Now explain why this path was inevitable.

INVARIANT CHECK: Does the new path preserve all session invariants?
If yes: We found a better route to the same truth.
If no: We discovered the invariants were incomplete. Add new ones."

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ISOMORPHIC PROJECTION TEST:

Take the final synthesis and project it into each expert's idiolect:

1. Rewrite the synthesis as the Domain Expert would express it
2. Rewrite the synthesis as the Systems Theorist would express it
3. Rewrite the synthesis as the Historical Analyst would express it
4. Rewrite the synthesis as the Future Visionary would express it
5. Rewrite the synthesis as the Chaos Agent would express it

VERIFICATION:

- Do all five versions preserve the core invariants?
- Are they provably equivalent (isomorphic)?
- If translation causes information loss, where?

Information loss reveals where isomorphism broke down.
Revise the unified vocabulary to address gaps.