Build Coherence

Evaluate competing approaches → independent assess, explicit reasoning-out-loud advocacy, confidence-calibrated commit thresholds, structured deadlock res → coherent decisions from multi-path reasoning.

Use When

• forage-solutions

  ID'd many valid approaches, must select
• Oscillating between 2 approaches, no commit
• Need to justify decision w/ structured reasoning (arch, tool, impl strategy)
• Prev decision by gut, needs evidence validation
• Internal reasoning → contradictory conclusions, restore coherence
• Before irreversible action (merge, deploy, delete) where wrong = high cost

In

• Required: ≥2 competing approaches
• Optional: Quality assessments from prior scouting (see

  forage-solutions

  )
• Optional: Decision stakes (reversible, moderate, irreversible) for threshold calibration
• Optional: Time budget
• Optional: Known failure mode (oscillation, premature commit, groupthink)

Do

Step 1: Independent Evaluate

Assess each on own merits before comparing. Critical: A's assessment doesn't bias B.

For each approach, evaluate independently:

Approach Evaluation Template:
┌────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Dimension              │ Assessment                               │
├────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Approach name          │                                          │
├────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Core mechanism         │ How does this approach solve the problem? │
├────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Strengths (2-3)        │ What does this approach do well?          │
├────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Risks (2-3)            │ What could go wrong? What is assumed?     │
├────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Evidence quality        │ How well-supported is this approach?      │
│                        │ (verified / inferred / speculated)        │
├────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Quality score (0-100)  │ Overall assessment                        │
├────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Confidence (0-100)     │ How confident in this assessment?         │
└────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────────────────────┘

Fill out each separately. No comparison until all individual evals complete.

→ Independent evals, each on own terms. B's eval doesn't ref A. Scores = real assessment, not ranking.

If err: Evals contaminated (writing "better than A" while assessing B) → reset. Assess A fully, clear frame, assess B fresh. All scores identical → dimensions too coarse, add domain-specific criteria.

Step 2: Waggle Dance — Reason Out Loud

Advocate proportional to quality. AI eq of bee waggle: implicit reasoning → explicit + public.

1. Each approach, state case — as if presenting to skeptical user:
   • "Approach A strong because [evidence]. Main risk [risk], mitigated by [mitigation]."
2. Advocacy intensity proportional to quality score:
   • High: detailed advocacy + specific evidence
   • Medium: brief advocacy + acknowledged limits
   • Low: mentioned for completeness, not actively advocated
3. Cross-inspection: After advocating A, actively seek evidence supporting B. After B, seek A. Counters confirmation bias

Point of reasoning-out-loud = decision auditable. Can't articulate → assessment shallower than score suggests.

→ Explicit reasoning per approach, persuasive to neutral observer. Cross-inspection reveals ≥1 initially overlooked consideration.

If err: Advocacy perfunctory (motions) → approaches maybe not genuinely diff, just variations. Differ in mechanism or only impl detail? Latter → decision doesn't matter much, pick either, move on.

Step 3: Quorum Threshold + Commit

Confidence threshold to commit, calibrated to stakes.

Confidence Thresholds by Stakes:
┌─────────────────────┬───────────┬──────────────────────────────────┐
│ Decision Type       │ Threshold │ Rationale                        │
├─────────────────────┼───────────┼──────────────────────────────────┤
│ Easily reversible   │ 60%       │ Cost of trying and reverting is  │
│ (can undo)          │           │ low. Speed matters more than     │
│                     │           │ certainty                        │
├─────────────────────┼───────────┼──────────────────────────────────┤
│ Moderate stakes     │ 75%       │ Reverting has cost but is        │
│ (costly to reverse) │           │ possible. Worth investing in     │
│                     │           │ evaluation                       │
├─────────────────────┼───────────┼──────────────────────────────────┤
│ Irreversible or     │ 90%       │ Cannot undo. Must be confident.  │
│ high-stakes         │           │ If threshold not met, gather     │
│                     │           │ more information before deciding │
└─────────────────────┴───────────┴──────────────────────────────────┘

1. Classify stakes
2. Check: leading approach quality × confidence ≥ threshold?
3. Yes → commit. State decision, reasoning, key risk accepted
4. No → ID additional info that raises confidence to threshold
5. Committed → don't revisit unless new disqualifying evidence

→ Clear commit moment + stated reasoning. Decision at right confidence for stakes.

If err: Threshold never met (can't hit 90% on irreversible) → ask: truly irreversible? Decomposable into reversible test + irreversible commit? Most apparently irreversible can be staged. Impossible → tell user uncertainty, ask guidance.

Step 4: Deadlock Resolution

≥2 approaches similar scores + quorum not met for any.

Deadlock Resolution:
┌────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Deadlock Type          │ Resolution                               │
├────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Genuine tie            │ The approaches are equivalent. Pick one  │
│ (scores within 5%)     │ and commit. The cost of deliberating     │
│                        │ exceeds the cost of picking the "wrong"  │
│                        │ equivalent option. Flip a coin mentally  │
├────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Information deficit    │ The tie exists because evaluation is     │
│ (scores uncertain)     │ incomplete. Invest one more specific     │
│                        │ investigation — a targeted file read, a  │
│                        │ quick test — then re-score               │
├────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Oscillation            │ Scoring keeps flip-flopping depending on │
│ (scores keep changing) │ which dimension gets attention. Time-box:│
│                        │ set a timer, evaluate once more, commit  │
│                        │ to the result regardless                 │
├────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Approach merge         │ The best parts of A and B can be         │
│ (compatible strengths) │ combined. Check for compatibility. If    │
│                        │ merge is coherent, use it. If forced,    │
│                        │ don't — pick one                         │
└────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────────────────────┘

→ Deadlock resolved via mechanism. Decisive — no lingering doubt that undermines execution.

If err: Deadlock persists through all strategies → decision premature. Ask user: "2 equally strong approaches: [A], [B]. [Brief case each.] Which aligns w/ priorities?" Delegating genuine tie = not fail, ack decision depends on values AI can't infer.

Step 5: Coherence Quality

Post-commit: real coherence or just a decision?

1. Evidence-based or rubber-stamped initial pref?
   • Test: Pref same before + after eval? Eval changed anything?
2. Losing approaches genuinely considered or straw men?
   • Test: Can articulate strongest case for losing approach?
3. What signal triggers reassess?
   • Specific obs that would invalidate ("If API doesn't support X, approach B better")
4. Useful info from losing approaches for impl?
   • Risk in B may apply to A too

→ Brief quality check that confirms decision OR IDs it as weak. Weak → return to earlier step, not proceed on shaky ground.

If err: Quality check reveals pref-based not evidence-based → ack honestly. Sometimes pref all that's available — label as such, not dressed up as analysis.

Check

• Each approach evaluated independently before comparison
• Advocacy proportional to quality (not equal regardless of merit)
• Cross-inspection done (counter-evidence after advocacy)
• Quorum threshold calibrated to stakes
• Deadlocked → specific resolution strategy applied
• Post-decision quality check done
• Reassess trigger defined

Traps

• Premature commit: Decide before evaluating all. First approach has anchoring advantage (more mental attention from being first). Evaluate all before comparing
• Equal advocacy, unequal approaches: A=85, B=45 → equal time = wasted effort + false equivalence
• Rubber-stamp: Going through process to justify already-made decision. Test: could eval have changed outcome? If not = theater
• Threshold avoidance: Lower threshold to ease decision vs gather info needed to meet appropriate threshold
• Ignore losing side: Losing approach often contains warnings applying to winner. Risks in B don't vanish just because A chosen

→

• build-consensus

  — multi-agent consensus model this adapts to single-agent reasoning

• forage-solutions

  — scouts solution space coherence evaluates; typically precedes this

• coordinate-reasoning

  — manages info flow during multi-path eval

• center

  — baseline needed for unbiased eval

• meditate

  — clears assumptions between evaluating diff approaches