diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore index e4fec2f..82e97d8 100644 --- a/.gitignore +++ b/.gitignore @@ -9,3 +9,11 @@ frontend/node_modules/ frontend/dist/ *.egg-info/ .DS_Store + +data/taxonomy/imports/*.xlsx +data/taxonomy/exports/*.xlsx +data/reports/*.xlsx +data/reports/*.html +data/reports/*.pdf +*.xls +*.xlsx diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 27174f4..0c2859f 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ Argument-Risk-Engine is a practical, local, Chrome-first web application for tax - **Conservative:** uncertain findings are marked as low confidence or omitted. - **Local-first:** the MVP runs without authentication or a database. - **Configurable models:** deterministic local analysis is the default; paid LLM providers can be configured through `data/config/model_profiles.yaml`. -- **Workbook friendly:** taxonomy packs can be imported from and exported to Excel workbooks. +- **Workbook friendly:** taxonomy packs can be imported from and exported to Excel workbooks. The real taxonomy workbook is a user-managed external file and is intentionally not committed to Git. ## One-command setup @@ -39,6 +39,16 @@ make import-taxonomy # import an Excel taxonomy workbook make export-taxonomy # export the active taxonomy to Excel ``` +## Taxonomy workbook imports + +The real taxonomy workbook should be imported later from the dashboard or CLI and is intentionally not committed to Git. Place a local copy under `data/taxonomy/imports/` or choose it from Chrome in the Taxonomy Workbench. For CLI imports, run: + +```bash +python scripts/import_taxonomy_excel.py --input data/taxonomy/imports/argument_risk_taxonomy_living_workbook_v2_taxonomy_first.xlsx +``` + +Generated Excel exports and report files are local artifacts and are ignored by Git. Empty import/export/report directories are kept with `.gitkeep` files. + ## API overview - `POST /api/analysis/analyze` analyzes text and returns claims, risks, evidence, and a conservative summary. diff --git a/argument_risk_taxonomy_living_workbook_v2_taxonomy_first.xlsx b/argument_risk_taxonomy_living_workbook_v2_taxonomy_first.xlsx deleted file mode 100644 index d3e6eeb..0000000 Binary files a/argument_risk_taxonomy_living_workbook_v2_taxonomy_first.xlsx and /dev/null differ diff --git a/backend/app/api/routes_taxonomy_workbench.py b/backend/app/api/routes_taxonomy_workbench.py index 5e7d492..0fc809b 100644 --- a/backend/app/api/routes_taxonomy_workbench.py +++ b/backend/app/api/routes_taxonomy_workbench.py @@ -1,14 +1,30 @@ from pathlib import Path +from tempfile import NamedTemporaryFile -from backend.app.services.taxonomy_workbench_service import export_workbook, quality -from fastapi import APIRouter +from backend.app.services.taxonomy_workbench_service import export_workbook, import_workbook, quality +from fastapi import APIRouter, File, UploadFile router = APIRouter(prefix="/taxonomy-workbench", tags=["taxonomy-workbench"]) + @router.get("/quality") def taxonomy_quality() -> dict[str, object]: return quality() + +@router.post("/import") +def import_taxonomy(file: UploadFile = File(...)) -> dict[str, object]: + suffix = Path(getattr(file, "filename", "taxonomy.xlsx") or "taxonomy.xlsx").suffix or ".xlsx" + with NamedTemporaryFile(delete=False, suffix=suffix) as handle: + content = file.file.read() + handle.write(content) + temp_path = Path(handle.name) + try: + return import_workbook(temp_path) + finally: + temp_path.unlink(missing_ok=True) + + @router.get("/export") def export_taxonomy() -> dict[str, str]: path = export_workbook(Path("data/taxonomy/exports/taxonomy.xlsx")) diff --git a/backend/app/services/taxonomy_workbench_service.py b/backend/app/services/taxonomy_workbench_service.py index 6b41ca0..53ae562 100644 --- a/backend/app/services/taxonomy_workbench_service.py +++ b/backend/app/services/taxonomy_workbench_service.py @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ from pathlib import Path from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.exporter import export_taxonomy_excel -from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.importer import import_taxonomy_excel +from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.importer import import_taxonomy_excel, import_workbook as import_taxonomy_workbook from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.validator import validate_taxonomy_pack from backend.app.services.taxonomy_service import get_active_pack, save_active_pack @@ -13,9 +13,14 @@ def quality() -> dict[str, object]: def import_workbook(path: Path) -> dict[str, object]: + report = import_taxonomy_workbook(path) pack = import_taxonomy_excel(path) save_active_pack(pack) - return {"entry_count": len(pack.entries)} + return { + "entry_count": len(pack.entries), + "errors": [issue.message for issue in report.errors], + "warnings": [issue.message for issue in report.warnings], + } def export_workbook(path: Path) -> Path: diff --git a/data/config/model_profiles.yaml b/data/config/model_profiles.yaml index 4d8b7a4..a584d07 100644 --- a/data/config/model_profiles.yaml +++ b/data/config/model_profiles.yaml @@ -1,4 +1,95 @@ -profiles: - deterministic: - provider: deterministic - model: local-keyword +{ + "version": "0.2.0", + "items": [ + { + "provider_id": "deterministic_baseline", + "label": "Deterministic Baseline", + "provider_type": "deterministic", + "base_url": "", + "api_key_env_var": "", + "default_model": "", + "timeout_seconds": "30", + "max_tokens": "0", + "temperature": "0", + "supports_json_mode": "n/a", + "supports_streaming": "n/a", + "enabled_default": "yes", + "security_note": "No API key required; must always work offline." + }, + { + "provider_id": "lm_studio_local", + "label": "LM Studio Local", + "provider_type": "openai_compatible", + "base_url": "http://localhost:1234/v1", + "api_key_env_var": "LM_STUDIO_API_KEY", + "default_model": "local-model", + "timeout_seconds": "60", + "max_tokens": "2048", + "temperature": "0", + "supports_json_mode": "unknown", + "supports_streaming": "yes", + "enabled_default": "no", + "security_note": "Dashboard must not store raw key; local servers may accept dummy key." + }, + { + "provider_id": "ollama_local", + "label": "Ollama Local", + "provider_type": "openai_compatible", + "base_url": "http://localhost:11434/v1", + "api_key_env_var": "OLLAMA_API_KEY", + "default_model": "qwen3:8b", + "timeout_seconds": "60", + "max_tokens": "2048", + "temperature": "0", + "supports_json_mode": "unknown", + "supports_streaming": "yes", + "enabled_default": "no", + "security_note": "Use OpenAI-compatible endpoint; avoid assuming JSON mode." + }, + { + "provider_id": "openai_remote", + "label": "OpenAI Remote", + "provider_type": "openai_compatible", + "base_url": "https://api.openai.com/v1", + "api_key_env_var": "OPENAI_API_KEY", + "default_model": "gpt-4.1-mini", + "timeout_seconds": "60", + "max_tokens": "2048", + "temperature": "0", + "supports_json_mode": "yes", + "supports_streaming": "yes", + "enabled_default": "no", + "security_note": "Backend reads key from environment variable only." + }, + { + "provider_id": "openrouter_remote", + "label": "OpenRouter Remote", + "provider_type": "openai_compatible", + "base_url": "https://openrouter.ai/api/v1", + "api_key_env_var": "OPENROUTER_API_KEY", + "default_model": "", + "timeout_seconds": "60", + "max_tokens": "2048", + "temperature": "0", + "supports_json_mode": "model_dependent", + "supports_streaming": "yes", + "enabled_default": "no", + "security_note": "Treat as OpenAI-compatible; do not hardcode model names." + }, + { + "provider_id": "custom_openai_compatible", + "label": "Custom OpenAI-Compatible", + "provider_type": "openai_compatible", + "base_url": "", + "api_key_env_var": "CUSTOM_LLM_API_KEY", + "default_model": "", + "timeout_seconds": "60", + "max_tokens": "2048", + "temperature": "0", + "supports_json_mode": "unknown", + "supports_streaming": "unknown", + "enabled_default": "no", + "security_note": "User-configurable base_url and model_name; never expose raw key." + } + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/reports/.gitkeep b/data/reports/.gitkeep new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e69de29 diff --git a/data/reports/taxonomy_validation_report.json b/data/reports/taxonomy_validation_report.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000..307f306 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/reports/taxonomy_validation_report.json @@ -0,0 +1,169 @@ +{ + "ok": true, + "entry_count": 1100, + "active_classification_count": 46, + "errors": [], + "warnings": [ + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "tu_quoque_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "tu_quoque_canonical", + "row_number": 6 + }, + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "guilt_by_association_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "guilt_by_association_canonical", + "row_number": 7 + }, + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "genetic_fallacy_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "genetic_fallacy_canonical", + "row_number": 8 + }, + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "appeal_to_authority_misuse_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "appeal_to_authority_misuse_canonical", + "row_number": 9 + }, + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "appeal_to_emotion_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "appeal_to_emotion_canonical", + "row_number": 10 + }, + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "appeal_to_fear_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "appeal_to_fear_canonical", + "row_number": 11 + }, + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "appeal_to_pity_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "appeal_to_pity_canonical", + "row_number": 12 + }, + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "appeal_to_force_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "appeal_to_force_canonical", + "row_number": 13 + }, + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "appeal_to_popularity_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "appeal_to_popularity_canonical", + "row_number": 14 + }, + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "red_herring_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "red_herring_canonical", + "row_number": 28 + }, + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "moving_goalposts_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "moving_goalposts_canonical", + "row_number": 30 + }, + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "no_true_scotsman_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "no_true_scotsman_canonical", + "row_number": 31 + }, + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "special_pleading_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "special_pleading_canonical", + "row_number": 32 + }, + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "burden_of_proof_shift_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "burden_of_proof_shift_canonical", + "row_number": 33 + }, + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "post_hoc_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "post_hoc_canonical", + "row_number": 35 + }, + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "cum_hoc_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "cum_hoc_canonical", + "row_number": 36 + }, + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "appeal_to_nature_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "appeal_to_nature_canonical", + "row_number": 41 + }, + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "appeal_to_tradition_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "appeal_to_tradition_canonical", + "row_number": 42 + }, + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "appeal_to_novelty_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "appeal_to_novelty_canonical", + "row_number": 43 + }, + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "nirvana_fallacy_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "nirvana_fallacy_canonical", + "row_number": 44 + }, + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "middle_ground_fallacy_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "middle_ground_fallacy_canonical", + "row_number": 45 + }, + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "relative_privation_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "relative_privation_canonical", + "row_number": 46 + }, + { + "code": "high_fp_active", + "message": "whataboutism_canonical has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", + "severity": "warning", + "entry_id": "whataboutism_canonical", + "row_number": 47 + } + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/taxonomy/exports/.gitkeep b/data/taxonomy/exports/.gitkeep new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e69de29 diff --git a/data/taxonomy/imports/.gitkeep b/data/taxonomy/imports/.gitkeep new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e69de29 diff --git a/data/taxonomy/packs/cognitive_biases.yaml b/data/taxonomy/packs/cognitive_biases.yaml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a49fb18 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/taxonomy/packs/cognitive_biases.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,8047 @@ +{ + "version": "0.2.0", + "name": "cognitive_biases", + "entries": [ + { + "id": "confirmation_bias_canonical", + "name": "Confirmation bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Confirmation bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Searching for or interpreting information in ways that support prior beliefs.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Confirmation bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Searching for or interpreting information in ways that support prior beliefs.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Confirmation bias", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses confirmation bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "nickerson_confirmation_1998", + "https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 382, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 382, + "source_family": "nickerson_confirmation_1998", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "myside_bias_canonical", + "name": "Myside bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Myside bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Evaluating evidence differently depending on whether it supports one's side.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Myside bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Evaluating evidence differently depending on whether it supports one's side.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Myside bias", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses myside bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "nickerson_confirmation_1998", + "https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 383, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 383, + "source_family": "nickerson_confirmation_1998", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "belief_bias_canonical", + "name": "Belief bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Belief bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Judging logical strength by conclusion believability rather than validity.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Belief bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Judging logical strength by conclusion believability rather than validity.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Belief bias", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses belief bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 384, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 384, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "anchoring_bias_canonical", + "name": "Anchoring bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Anchoring bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Relying too heavily on an initial value or frame when judging.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Anchoring bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Relying too heavily on an initial value or frame when judging.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Anchoring bias", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses anchoring bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 385, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 385, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "availability_heuristic_canonical", + "name": "Availability heuristic", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability heuristic: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Judging frequency or likelihood by how easily examples come to mind.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability heuristic: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Judging frequency or likelihood by how easily examples come to mind.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Availability heuristic", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses availability heuristic with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 386, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 386, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "representativeness_heuristic_canonical", + "name": "Representativeness heuristic", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Representativeness heuristic: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Judging likelihood by similarity to a stereotype or prototype.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Representativeness heuristic: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Judging likelihood by similarity to a stereotype or prototype.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Representativeness heuristic", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses representativeness heuristic with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 387, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 387, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "framing_effect_canonical", + "name": "Framing effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing effect: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Different presentations of equivalent information lead to different judgments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing effect: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Different presentations of equivalent information lead to different judgments.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Framing effect", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses framing effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "tversky_kahneman_framing_1981", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 388, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 388, + "source_family": "tversky_kahneman_framing_1981", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "hindsight_bias_canonical", + "name": "Hindsight bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Hindsight bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Seeing past events as more predictable after knowing the outcome.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Hindsight bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Seeing past events as more predictable after knowing the outcome.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Hindsight bias", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses hindsight bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 389, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 389, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "outcome_bias_canonical", + "name": "Outcome bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Outcome bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Judging a decision by its outcome rather than information available at the time.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Outcome bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Judging a decision by its outcome rather than information available at the time.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Outcome bias", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses outcome bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 390, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 390, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "overconfidence_bias_canonical", + "name": "Overconfidence bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Overconfidence bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Expressing confidence beyond the strength of evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Overconfidence bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Expressing confidence beyond the strength of evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Overconfidence bias", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses overconfidence bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 391, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 391, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "optimism_bias_canonical", + "name": "Optimism bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Optimism bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Underestimating risks or overestimating favorable outcomes.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Optimism bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Underestimating risks or overestimating favorable outcomes.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Optimism bias", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses optimism bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 392, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 392, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "pessimism_bias_canonical", + "name": "Pessimism bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Pessimism bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Overestimating risks or negative outcomes without sufficient support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Pessimism bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Overestimating risks or negative outcomes without sufficient support.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Pessimism bias", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses pessimism bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 393, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 393, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "negativity_bias_canonical", + "name": "Negativity bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Negativity bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Giving negative information disproportionate weight.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Negativity bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Giving negative information disproportionate weight.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Negativity bias", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses negativity bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 394, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 394, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "salience_bias_canonical", + "name": "Salience bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Salience bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Overweighting vivid or prominent features.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Salience bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Overweighting vivid or prominent features.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Salience bias", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses salience bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 395, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 395, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "attentional_bias_canonical", + "name": "Attentional bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Attentional bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Attention is disproportionately drawn to certain types of information.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Attentional bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Attention is disproportionately drawn to certain types of information.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Attentional bias", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses attentional bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 396, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 396, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "halo_effect_canonical", + "name": "Halo effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Halo effect: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Letting one positive feature color unrelated judgments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Halo effect: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Letting one positive feature color unrelated judgments.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Halo effect", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses halo effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 397, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 397, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "horns_effect_canonical", + "name": "Horns effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Horns effect: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Letting one negative feature color unrelated judgments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Horns effect: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Letting one negative feature color unrelated judgments.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Horns effect", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses horns effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 398, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 398, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "fundamental_attribution_error_canonical", + "name": "Fundamental attribution error", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Fundamental attribution error: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Overemphasizing dispositional explanations and underweighting situational context.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Fundamental attribution error: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Overemphasizing dispositional explanations and underweighting situational context.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Fundamental attribution error", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses fundamental attribution error with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 399, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 399, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "actor_observer_bias_canonical", + "name": "Actor-observer bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Actor-observer bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Explaining one's own behavior situationally and others' behavior dispositionally.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Actor-observer bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Explaining one's own behavior situationally and others' behavior dispositionally.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Actor-observer bias", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses actor-observer bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 400, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 400, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "self_serving_bias_canonical", + "name": "Self-serving bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Self-serving bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Attributing successes internally and failures externally.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Self-serving bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Attributing successes internally and failures externally.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Self-serving bias", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses self-serving bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 401, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 401, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "illusory_correlation_canonical", + "name": "Illusory correlation", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Illusory correlation: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Perceiving an association where evidence is weak or absent.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Illusory correlation: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Perceiving an association where evidence is weak or absent.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Illusory correlation", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses illusory correlation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 402, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 402, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "clustering_illusion_canonical", + "name": "Clustering illusion", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Clustering illusion: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Seeing meaningful clusters in random sequences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Clustering illusion: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Seeing meaningful clusters in random sequences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Clustering illusion", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses clustering illusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 403, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 403, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "recency_bias_canonical", + "name": "Recency bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Recency bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Overweighting the most recent information.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Recency bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Overweighting the most recent information.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Recency bias", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses recency bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 404, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 404, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "primacy_effect_canonical", + "name": "Primacy effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Primacy effect: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Overweighting information encountered first.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Primacy effect: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Overweighting information encountered first.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Primacy effect", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses primacy effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 405, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 405, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "memory_consistency_bias_canonical", + "name": "Consistency bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Consistency bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Remembering past beliefs as more consistent with present beliefs.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Consistency bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Remembering past beliefs as more consistent with present beliefs.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Consistency bias", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses consistency bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 406, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 406, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "projection_bias_canonical", + "name": "Projection bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Projection bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Assuming future or others' preferences resemble current preferences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Projection bias: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Assuming future or others' preferences resemble current preferences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Projection bias", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses projection bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 407, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 407, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "curse_of_knowledge_canonical", + "name": "Curse of knowledge", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Curse of knowledge: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Failing to account for what others do not know.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Curse of knowledge: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Failing to account for what others do not know.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Curse of knowledge", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses curse of knowledge with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 408, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 408, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ambiguity_effect_canonical", + "name": "Ambiguity effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Ambiguity effect: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Avoiding options with unknown probabilities, even when alternatives are not better.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Ambiguity effect: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern. Parent definition: Avoiding options with unknown probabilities, even when alternatives are not better.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Ambiguity effect", + "variant cue: the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent cognitive tendency appears as an observable claim-level pattern to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses ambiguity effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 409, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 409, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "confirmation_bias_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Confirmation bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Confirmation bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Searching for or interpreting information in ways that support prior beliefs.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Confirmation bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Searching for or interpreting information in ways that support prior beliefs.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Confirmation bias", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses confirmation bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "nickerson_confirmation_1998", + "https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 410, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 410, + "source_family": "nickerson_confirmation_1998", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "myside_bias_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Myside bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Myside bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Evaluating evidence differently depending on whether it supports one's side.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Myside bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Evaluating evidence differently depending on whether it supports one's side.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Myside bias", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses myside bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "nickerson_confirmation_1998", + "https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 411, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 411, + "source_family": "nickerson_confirmation_1998", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "belief_bias_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Belief bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Belief bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Judging logical strength by conclusion believability rather than validity.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Belief bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Judging logical strength by conclusion believability rather than validity.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Belief bias", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses belief bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 412, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 412, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "anchoring_bias_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Anchoring bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Anchoring bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Relying too heavily on an initial value or frame when judging.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Anchoring bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Relying too heavily on an initial value or frame when judging.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Anchoring bias", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses anchoring bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 413, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 413, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "availability_heuristic_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Availability heuristic", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability heuristic: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Judging frequency or likelihood by how easily examples come to mind.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability heuristic: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Judging frequency or likelihood by how easily examples come to mind.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Availability heuristic", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses availability heuristic with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 414, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 414, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "representativeness_heuristic_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Representativeness heuristic", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Representativeness heuristic: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Judging likelihood by similarity to a stereotype or prototype.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Representativeness heuristic: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Judging likelihood by similarity to a stereotype or prototype.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Representativeness heuristic", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses representativeness heuristic with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 415, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 415, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "framing_effect_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Framing effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing effect: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Different presentations of equivalent information lead to different judgments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing effect: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Different presentations of equivalent information lead to different judgments.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Framing effect", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses framing effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "tversky_kahneman_framing_1981", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 416, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 416, + "source_family": "tversky_kahneman_framing_1981", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "hindsight_bias_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Hindsight bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Hindsight bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Seeing past events as more predictable after knowing the outcome.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Hindsight bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Seeing past events as more predictable after knowing the outcome.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Hindsight bias", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses hindsight bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 417, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 417, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "outcome_bias_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Outcome bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Outcome bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Judging a decision by its outcome rather than information available at the time.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Outcome bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Judging a decision by its outcome rather than information available at the time.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Outcome bias", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses outcome bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 418, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 418, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "overconfidence_bias_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Overconfidence bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Overconfidence bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Expressing confidence beyond the strength of evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Overconfidence bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Expressing confidence beyond the strength of evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Overconfidence bias", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses overconfidence bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 419, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 419, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "optimism_bias_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Optimism bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Optimism bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Underestimating risks or overestimating favorable outcomes.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Optimism bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Underestimating risks or overestimating favorable outcomes.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Optimism bias", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses optimism bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 420, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 420, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "pessimism_bias_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Pessimism bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Pessimism bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Overestimating risks or negative outcomes without sufficient support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Pessimism bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Overestimating risks or negative outcomes without sufficient support.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Pessimism bias", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses pessimism bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 421, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 421, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "negativity_bias_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Negativity bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Negativity bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Giving negative information disproportionate weight.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Negativity bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Giving negative information disproportionate weight.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Negativity bias", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses negativity bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 422, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 422, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "salience_bias_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Salience bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Salience bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Overweighting vivid or prominent features.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Salience bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Overweighting vivid or prominent features.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Salience bias", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses salience bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 423, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 423, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "attentional_bias_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Attentional bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Attentional bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Attention is disproportionately drawn to certain types of information.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Attentional bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Attention is disproportionately drawn to certain types of information.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Attentional bias", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses attentional bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 424, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 424, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "halo_effect_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Halo effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Halo effect: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Letting one positive feature color unrelated judgments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Halo effect: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Letting one positive feature color unrelated judgments.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Halo effect", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses halo effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 425, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 425, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "horns_effect_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Horns effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Horns effect: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Letting one negative feature color unrelated judgments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Horns effect: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Letting one negative feature color unrelated judgments.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Horns effect", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses horns effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 426, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 426, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "fundamental_attribution_error_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Fundamental attribution error", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Fundamental attribution error: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Overemphasizing dispositional explanations and underweighting situational context.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Fundamental attribution error: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Overemphasizing dispositional explanations and underweighting situational context.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Fundamental attribution error", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses fundamental attribution error with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 427, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 427, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "actor_observer_bias_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Actor-observer bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Actor-observer bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Explaining one's own behavior situationally and others' behavior dispositionally.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Actor-observer bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Explaining one's own behavior situationally and others' behavior dispositionally.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Actor-observer bias", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses actor-observer bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 428, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 428, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "self_serving_bias_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Self-serving bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Self-serving bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Attributing successes internally and failures externally.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Self-serving bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Attributing successes internally and failures externally.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Self-serving bias", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses self-serving bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 429, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 429, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "illusory_correlation_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Illusory correlation", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Illusory correlation: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Perceiving an association where evidence is weak or absent.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Illusory correlation: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Perceiving an association where evidence is weak or absent.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Illusory correlation", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses illusory correlation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 430, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 430, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "clustering_illusion_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Clustering illusion", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Clustering illusion: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Seeing meaningful clusters in random sequences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Clustering illusion: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Seeing meaningful clusters in random sequences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Clustering illusion", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses clustering illusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 431, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 431, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "recency_bias_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Recency bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Recency bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Overweighting the most recent information.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Recency bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Overweighting the most recent information.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Recency bias", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses recency bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 432, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 432, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "primacy_effect_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Primacy effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Primacy effect: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Overweighting information encountered first.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Primacy effect: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Overweighting information encountered first.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Primacy effect", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses primacy effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 433, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 433, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "memory_consistency_bias_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Consistency bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Consistency bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Remembering past beliefs as more consistent with present beliefs.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Consistency bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Remembering past beliefs as more consistent with present beliefs.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Consistency bias", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses consistency bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 434, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 434, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "projection_bias_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Projection bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Projection bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Assuming future or others' preferences resemble current preferences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Projection bias: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Assuming future or others' preferences resemble current preferences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Projection bias", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses projection bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 435, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 435, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "curse_of_knowledge_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Curse of knowledge", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Curse of knowledge: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Failing to account for what others do not know.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Curse of knowledge: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Failing to account for what others do not know.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Curse of knowledge", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses curse of knowledge with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 436, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 436, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ambiguity_effect_search_selection_variant", + "name": "Ambiguity effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Ambiguity effect: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Avoiding options with unknown probabilities, even when alternatives are not better.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Ambiguity effect: information selection is biased toward a prior view. Parent definition: Avoiding options with unknown probabilities, even when alternatives are not better.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Ambiguity effect", + "variant cue: information selection is biased toward a prior view", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on information selection is biased toward a prior view to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses ambiguity effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 437, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 437, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "confirmation_bias_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Confirmation bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Confirmation bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Searching for or interpreting information in ways that support prior beliefs.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Confirmation bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Searching for or interpreting information in ways that support prior beliefs.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Confirmation bias", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses confirmation bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "nickerson_confirmation_1998", + "https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 438, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 438, + "source_family": "nickerson_confirmation_1998", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "myside_bias_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Myside bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Myside bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Evaluating evidence differently depending on whether it supports one's side.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Myside bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Evaluating evidence differently depending on whether it supports one's side.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Myside bias", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses myside bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "nickerson_confirmation_1998", + "https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 439, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 439, + "source_family": "nickerson_confirmation_1998", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "belief_bias_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Belief bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Belief bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Judging logical strength by conclusion believability rather than validity.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Belief bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Judging logical strength by conclusion believability rather than validity.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Belief bias", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses belief bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 440, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 440, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "anchoring_bias_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Anchoring bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Anchoring bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Relying too heavily on an initial value or frame when judging.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Anchoring bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Relying too heavily on an initial value or frame when judging.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Anchoring bias", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses anchoring bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 441, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 441, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "availability_heuristic_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Availability heuristic", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability heuristic: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Judging frequency or likelihood by how easily examples come to mind.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability heuristic: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Judging frequency or likelihood by how easily examples come to mind.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Availability heuristic", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses availability heuristic with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 442, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 442, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "representativeness_heuristic_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Representativeness heuristic", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Representativeness heuristic: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Judging likelihood by similarity to a stereotype or prototype.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Representativeness heuristic: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Judging likelihood by similarity to a stereotype or prototype.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Representativeness heuristic", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses representativeness heuristic with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 443, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 443, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "framing_effect_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Framing effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing effect: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Different presentations of equivalent information lead to different judgments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing effect: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Different presentations of equivalent information lead to different judgments.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Framing effect", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses framing effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "tversky_kahneman_framing_1981", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 444, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 444, + "source_family": "tversky_kahneman_framing_1981", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "hindsight_bias_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Hindsight bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Hindsight bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Seeing past events as more predictable after knowing the outcome.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Hindsight bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Seeing past events as more predictable after knowing the outcome.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Hindsight bias", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses hindsight bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 445, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 445, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "outcome_bias_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Outcome bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Outcome bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Judging a decision by its outcome rather than information available at the time.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Outcome bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Judging a decision by its outcome rather than information available at the time.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Outcome bias", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses outcome bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 446, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 446, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "overconfidence_bias_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Overconfidence bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Overconfidence bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Expressing confidence beyond the strength of evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Overconfidence bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Expressing confidence beyond the strength of evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Overconfidence bias", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses overconfidence bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 447, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 447, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "optimism_bias_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Optimism bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Optimism bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Underestimating risks or overestimating favorable outcomes.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Optimism bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Underestimating risks or overestimating favorable outcomes.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Optimism bias", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses optimism bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 448, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 448, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "pessimism_bias_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Pessimism bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Pessimism bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Overestimating risks or negative outcomes without sufficient support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Pessimism bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Overestimating risks or negative outcomes without sufficient support.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Pessimism bias", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses pessimism bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 449, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 449, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "negativity_bias_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Negativity bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Negativity bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Giving negative information disproportionate weight.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Negativity bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Giving negative information disproportionate weight.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Negativity bias", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses negativity bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 450, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 450, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "salience_bias_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Salience bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Salience bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Overweighting vivid or prominent features.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Salience bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Overweighting vivid or prominent features.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Salience bias", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses salience bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 451, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 451, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "attentional_bias_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Attentional bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Attentional bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Attention is disproportionately drawn to certain types of information.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Attentional bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Attention is disproportionately drawn to certain types of information.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Attentional bias", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses attentional bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 452, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 452, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "halo_effect_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Halo effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Halo effect: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Letting one positive feature color unrelated judgments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Halo effect: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Letting one positive feature color unrelated judgments.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Halo effect", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses halo effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 453, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 453, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "horns_effect_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Horns effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Horns effect: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Letting one negative feature color unrelated judgments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Horns effect: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Letting one negative feature color unrelated judgments.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Horns effect", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses horns effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 454, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 454, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "fundamental_attribution_error_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Fundamental attribution error", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Fundamental attribution error: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Overemphasizing dispositional explanations and underweighting situational context.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Fundamental attribution error: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Overemphasizing dispositional explanations and underweighting situational context.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Fundamental attribution error", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses fundamental attribution error with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 455, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 455, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "actor_observer_bias_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Actor-observer bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Actor-observer bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Explaining one's own behavior situationally and others' behavior dispositionally.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Actor-observer bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Explaining one's own behavior situationally and others' behavior dispositionally.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Actor-observer bias", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses actor-observer bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 456, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 456, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "self_serving_bias_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Self-serving bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Self-serving bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Attributing successes internally and failures externally.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Self-serving bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Attributing successes internally and failures externally.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Self-serving bias", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses self-serving bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 457, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 457, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "illusory_correlation_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Illusory correlation", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Illusory correlation: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Perceiving an association where evidence is weak or absent.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Illusory correlation: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Perceiving an association where evidence is weak or absent.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Illusory correlation", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses illusory correlation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 458, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 458, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "clustering_illusion_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Clustering illusion", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Clustering illusion: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Seeing meaningful clusters in random sequences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Clustering illusion: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Seeing meaningful clusters in random sequences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Clustering illusion", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses clustering illusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 459, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 459, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "recency_bias_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Recency bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Recency bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Overweighting the most recent information.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Recency bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Overweighting the most recent information.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Recency bias", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses recency bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 460, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 460, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "primacy_effect_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Primacy effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Primacy effect: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Overweighting information encountered first.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Primacy effect: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Overweighting information encountered first.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Primacy effect", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses primacy effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 461, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 461, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "memory_consistency_bias_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Consistency bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Consistency bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Remembering past beliefs as more consistent with present beliefs.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Consistency bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Remembering past beliefs as more consistent with present beliefs.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Consistency bias", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses consistency bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 462, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 462, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "projection_bias_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Projection bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Projection bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Assuming future or others' preferences resemble current preferences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Projection bias: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Assuming future or others' preferences resemble current preferences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Projection bias", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses projection bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 463, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 463, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "curse_of_knowledge_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Curse of knowledge", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Curse of knowledge: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Failing to account for what others do not know.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Curse of knowledge: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Failing to account for what others do not know.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Curse of knowledge", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses curse of knowledge with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 464, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 464, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ambiguity_effect_interpretation_variant", + "name": "Ambiguity effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Ambiguity effect: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Avoiding options with unknown probabilities, even when alternatives are not better.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Ambiguity effect: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically. Parent definition: Avoiding options with unknown probabilities, even when alternatives are not better.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Ambiguity effect", + "variant cue: ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguous evidence is interpreted asymmetrically to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses ambiguity effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 465, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 465, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "confirmation_bias_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Confirmation bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Confirmation bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Searching for or interpreting information in ways that support prior beliefs.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Confirmation bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Searching for or interpreting information in ways that support prior beliefs.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Confirmation bias", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses confirmation bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "nickerson_confirmation_1998", + "https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 466, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 466, + "source_family": "nickerson_confirmation_1998", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "myside_bias_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Myside bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Myside bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Evaluating evidence differently depending on whether it supports one's side.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Myside bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Evaluating evidence differently depending on whether it supports one's side.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Myside bias", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses myside bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "nickerson_confirmation_1998", + "https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 467, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 467, + "source_family": "nickerson_confirmation_1998", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "belief_bias_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Belief bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Belief bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Judging logical strength by conclusion believability rather than validity.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Belief bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Judging logical strength by conclusion believability rather than validity.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Belief bias", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses belief bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 468, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 468, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "anchoring_bias_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Anchoring bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Anchoring bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Relying too heavily on an initial value or frame when judging.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Anchoring bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Relying too heavily on an initial value or frame when judging.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Anchoring bias", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses anchoring bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 469, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 469, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "availability_heuristic_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Availability heuristic", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability heuristic: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Judging frequency or likelihood by how easily examples come to mind.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability heuristic: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Judging frequency or likelihood by how easily examples come to mind.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Availability heuristic", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses availability heuristic with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 470, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 470, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "representativeness_heuristic_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Representativeness heuristic", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Representativeness heuristic: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Judging likelihood by similarity to a stereotype or prototype.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Representativeness heuristic: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Judging likelihood by similarity to a stereotype or prototype.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Representativeness heuristic", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses representativeness heuristic with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 471, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 471, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "framing_effect_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Framing effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing effect: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Different presentations of equivalent information lead to different judgments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing effect: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Different presentations of equivalent information lead to different judgments.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Framing effect", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses framing effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "tversky_kahneman_framing_1981", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 472, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 472, + "source_family": "tversky_kahneman_framing_1981", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "hindsight_bias_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Hindsight bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Hindsight bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Seeing past events as more predictable after knowing the outcome.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Hindsight bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Seeing past events as more predictable after knowing the outcome.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Hindsight bias", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses hindsight bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 473, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 473, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "outcome_bias_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Outcome bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Outcome bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Judging a decision by its outcome rather than information available at the time.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Outcome bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Judging a decision by its outcome rather than information available at the time.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Outcome bias", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses outcome bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 474, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 474, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "overconfidence_bias_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Overconfidence bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Overconfidence bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Expressing confidence beyond the strength of evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Overconfidence bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Expressing confidence beyond the strength of evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Overconfidence bias", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses overconfidence bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 475, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 475, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "optimism_bias_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Optimism bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Optimism bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Underestimating risks or overestimating favorable outcomes.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Optimism bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Underestimating risks or overestimating favorable outcomes.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Optimism bias", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses optimism bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 476, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 476, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "pessimism_bias_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Pessimism bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Pessimism bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Overestimating risks or negative outcomes without sufficient support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Pessimism bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Overestimating risks or negative outcomes without sufficient support.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Pessimism bias", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses pessimism bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 477, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 477, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "negativity_bias_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Negativity bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Negativity bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Giving negative information disproportionate weight.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Negativity bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Giving negative information disproportionate weight.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Negativity bias", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses negativity bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 478, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 478, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "salience_bias_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Salience bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Salience bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Overweighting vivid or prominent features.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Salience bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Overweighting vivid or prominent features.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Salience bias", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses salience bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 479, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 479, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "attentional_bias_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Attentional bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Attentional bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Attention is disproportionately drawn to certain types of information.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Attentional bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Attention is disproportionately drawn to certain types of information.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Attentional bias", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses attentional bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 480, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 480, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "halo_effect_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Halo effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Halo effect: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Letting one positive feature color unrelated judgments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Halo effect: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Letting one positive feature color unrelated judgments.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Halo effect", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses halo effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 481, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 481, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "horns_effect_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Horns effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Horns effect: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Letting one negative feature color unrelated judgments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Horns effect: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Letting one negative feature color unrelated judgments.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Horns effect", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses horns effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 482, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 482, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "fundamental_attribution_error_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Fundamental attribution error", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Fundamental attribution error: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Overemphasizing dispositional explanations and underweighting situational context.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Fundamental attribution error: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Overemphasizing dispositional explanations and underweighting situational context.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Fundamental attribution error", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses fundamental attribution error with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 483, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 483, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "actor_observer_bias_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Actor-observer bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Actor-observer bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Explaining one's own behavior situationally and others' behavior dispositionally.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Actor-observer bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Explaining one's own behavior situationally and others' behavior dispositionally.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Actor-observer bias", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses actor-observer bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 484, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 484, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "self_serving_bias_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Self-serving bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Self-serving bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Attributing successes internally and failures externally.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Self-serving bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Attributing successes internally and failures externally.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Self-serving bias", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses self-serving bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 485, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 485, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "illusory_correlation_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Illusory correlation", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Illusory correlation: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Perceiving an association where evidence is weak or absent.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Illusory correlation: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Perceiving an association where evidence is weak or absent.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Illusory correlation", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses illusory correlation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 486, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 486, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "clustering_illusion_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Clustering illusion", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Clustering illusion: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Seeing meaningful clusters in random sequences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Clustering illusion: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Seeing meaningful clusters in random sequences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Clustering illusion", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses clustering illusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 487, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 487, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "recency_bias_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Recency bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Recency bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Overweighting the most recent information.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Recency bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Overweighting the most recent information.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Recency bias", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses recency bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 488, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 488, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "primacy_effect_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Primacy effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Primacy effect: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Overweighting information encountered first.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Primacy effect: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Overweighting information encountered first.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Primacy effect", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses primacy effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 489, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 489, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "memory_consistency_bias_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Consistency bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Consistency bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Remembering past beliefs as more consistent with present beliefs.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Consistency bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Remembering past beliefs as more consistent with present beliefs.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Consistency bias", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses consistency bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 490, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 490, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "projection_bias_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Projection bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Projection bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Assuming future or others' preferences resemble current preferences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Projection bias: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Assuming future or others' preferences resemble current preferences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Projection bias", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses projection bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 491, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 491, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "curse_of_knowledge_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Curse of knowledge", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Curse of knowledge: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Failing to account for what others do not know.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Curse of knowledge: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Failing to account for what others do not know.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Curse of knowledge", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses curse of knowledge with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 492, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 492, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ambiguity_effect_memory_salience_variant", + "name": "Ambiguity effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Ambiguity effect: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Avoiding options with unknown probabilities, even when alternatives are not better.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Ambiguity effect: salient or remembered cases are overweighted. Parent definition: Avoiding options with unknown probabilities, even when alternatives are not better.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Ambiguity effect", + "variant cue: salient or remembered cases are overweighted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on salient or remembered cases are overweighted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses ambiguity effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 493, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 493, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "confirmation_bias_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Confirmation bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Confirmation bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Searching for or interpreting information in ways that support prior beliefs.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Confirmation bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Searching for or interpreting information in ways that support prior beliefs.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Confirmation bias", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses confirmation bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "nickerson_confirmation_1998", + "https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 494, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 494, + "source_family": "nickerson_confirmation_1998", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "myside_bias_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Myside bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Myside bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Evaluating evidence differently depending on whether it supports one's side.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Myside bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Evaluating evidence differently depending on whether it supports one's side.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Myside bias", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses myside bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "nickerson_confirmation_1998", + "https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 495, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 495, + "source_family": "nickerson_confirmation_1998", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "belief_bias_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Belief bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Belief bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Judging logical strength by conclusion believability rather than validity.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Belief bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Judging logical strength by conclusion believability rather than validity.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Belief bias", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses belief bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 496, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 496, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "anchoring_bias_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Anchoring bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Anchoring bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Relying too heavily on an initial value or frame when judging.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Anchoring bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Relying too heavily on an initial value or frame when judging.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Anchoring bias", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses anchoring bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 497, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 497, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "availability_heuristic_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Availability heuristic", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability heuristic: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Judging frequency or likelihood by how easily examples come to mind.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability heuristic: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Judging frequency or likelihood by how easily examples come to mind.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Availability heuristic", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses availability heuristic with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 498, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 498, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "representativeness_heuristic_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Representativeness heuristic", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Representativeness heuristic: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Judging likelihood by similarity to a stereotype or prototype.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Representativeness heuristic: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Judging likelihood by similarity to a stereotype or prototype.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Representativeness heuristic", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses representativeness heuristic with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 499, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 499, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "framing_effect_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Framing effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing effect: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Different presentations of equivalent information lead to different judgments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing effect: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Different presentations of equivalent information lead to different judgments.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Framing effect", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses framing effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "tversky_kahneman_framing_1981", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 500, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 500, + "source_family": "tversky_kahneman_framing_1981", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "hindsight_bias_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Hindsight bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Hindsight bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Seeing past events as more predictable after knowing the outcome.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Hindsight bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Seeing past events as more predictable after knowing the outcome.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Hindsight bias", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses hindsight bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 501, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 501, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "outcome_bias_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Outcome bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Outcome bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Judging a decision by its outcome rather than information available at the time.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Outcome bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Judging a decision by its outcome rather than information available at the time.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Outcome bias", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses outcome bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 502, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 502, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "overconfidence_bias_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Overconfidence bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Overconfidence bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Expressing confidence beyond the strength of evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Overconfidence bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Expressing confidence beyond the strength of evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Overconfidence bias", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses overconfidence bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 503, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 503, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "optimism_bias_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Optimism bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Optimism bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Underestimating risks or overestimating favorable outcomes.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Optimism bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Underestimating risks or overestimating favorable outcomes.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Optimism bias", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses optimism bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 504, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 504, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "pessimism_bias_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Pessimism bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Pessimism bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Overestimating risks or negative outcomes without sufficient support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Pessimism bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Overestimating risks or negative outcomes without sufficient support.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Pessimism bias", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses pessimism bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 505, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 505, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "negativity_bias_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Negativity bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Negativity bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Giving negative information disproportionate weight.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Negativity bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Giving negative information disproportionate weight.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Negativity bias", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses negativity bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 506, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 506, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "salience_bias_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Salience bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Salience bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Overweighting vivid or prominent features.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Salience bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Overweighting vivid or prominent features.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Salience bias", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses salience bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 507, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 507, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "attentional_bias_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Attentional bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Attentional bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Attention is disproportionately drawn to certain types of information.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Attentional bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Attention is disproportionately drawn to certain types of information.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Attentional bias", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses attentional bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 508, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 508, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "halo_effect_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Halo effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Halo effect: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Letting one positive feature color unrelated judgments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Halo effect: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Letting one positive feature color unrelated judgments.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Halo effect", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses halo effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 509, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 509, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "horns_effect_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Horns effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Horns effect: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Letting one negative feature color unrelated judgments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Horns effect: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Letting one negative feature color unrelated judgments.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Horns effect", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses horns effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 510, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 510, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "fundamental_attribution_error_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Fundamental attribution error", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Fundamental attribution error: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Overemphasizing dispositional explanations and underweighting situational context.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Fundamental attribution error: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Overemphasizing dispositional explanations and underweighting situational context.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Fundamental attribution error", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses fundamental attribution error with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 511, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 511, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "actor_observer_bias_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Actor-observer bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Actor-observer bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Explaining one's own behavior situationally and others' behavior dispositionally.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Actor-observer bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Explaining one's own behavior situationally and others' behavior dispositionally.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Actor-observer bias", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses actor-observer bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 512, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 512, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "self_serving_bias_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Self-serving bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Self-serving bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Attributing successes internally and failures externally.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Self-serving bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Attributing successes internally and failures externally.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Self-serving bias", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses self-serving bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 513, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 513, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "illusory_correlation_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Illusory correlation", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Illusory correlation: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Perceiving an association where evidence is weak or absent.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Illusory correlation: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Perceiving an association where evidence is weak or absent.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Illusory correlation", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses illusory correlation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 514, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 514, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "clustering_illusion_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Clustering illusion", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Clustering illusion: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Seeing meaningful clusters in random sequences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Clustering illusion: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Seeing meaningful clusters in random sequences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Clustering illusion", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses clustering illusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 515, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 515, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "recency_bias_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Recency bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Recency bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Overweighting the most recent information.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Recency bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Overweighting the most recent information.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Recency bias", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses recency bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 516, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 516, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "primacy_effect_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Primacy effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Primacy effect: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Overweighting information encountered first.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Primacy effect: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Overweighting information encountered first.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Primacy effect", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses primacy effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 517, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 517, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "memory_consistency_bias_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Consistency bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Consistency bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Remembering past beliefs as more consistent with present beliefs.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Consistency bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Remembering past beliefs as more consistent with present beliefs.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Consistency bias", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses consistency bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 518, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 518, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "projection_bias_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Projection bias", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Projection bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Assuming future or others' preferences resemble current preferences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Projection bias: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Assuming future or others' preferences resemble current preferences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Projection bias", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses projection bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 519, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 519, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "curse_of_knowledge_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Curse of knowledge", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Curse of knowledge: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Failing to account for what others do not know.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Curse of knowledge: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Failing to account for what others do not know.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Curse of knowledge", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses curse of knowledge with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 520, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 520, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ambiguity_effect_confidence_expression_variant", + "name": "Ambiguity effect", + "pack": "cognitive_biases", + "canonical_category": "cognitive_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Ambiguity effect: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Avoiding options with unknown probabilities, even when alternatives are not better.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Ambiguity effect: language expresses confidence beyond support. Parent definition: Avoiding options with unknown probabilities, even when alternatives are not better.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Ambiguity effect", + "variant cue: language expresses confidence beyond support", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on language expresses confidence beyond support to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses ambiguity effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 521, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 521, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + } + ], + "metadata": {} +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/taxonomy/packs/core_mvp.yaml b/data/taxonomy/packs/core_mvp.yaml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6696bd9 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/taxonomy/packs/core_mvp.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,2653 @@ +{ + "version": "0.2.0", + "name": "core_mvp", + "entries": [ + { + "id": "straw_man_canonical", + "name": "Straw man", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Straw man: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to refute.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Straw man: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to refute.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Straw man", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses straw man with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 2, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 2, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "weak_man_canonical", + "name": "Weak man", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Weak man: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Targeting a weak version of a broader position rather than the strongest relevant version.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Weak man: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Targeting a weak version of a broader position rather than the strongest relevant version.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Weak man", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses weak man with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 3, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 3, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "ad_hominem_abusive_canonical", + "name": "Abusive ad hominem", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Abusive ad hominem: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Rejecting a claim by attacking a person rather than the claim-level reasons.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Abusive ad hominem: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Rejecting a claim by attacking a person rather than the claim-level reasons.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Abusive ad hominem", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses abusive ad hominem with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 4, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 4, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "ad_hominem_circumstantial_canonical", + "name": "Circumstantial ad hominem", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Circumstantial ad hominem: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Treating a speaker's circumstances as decisive against their claim without claim-level evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Circumstantial ad hominem: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Treating a speaker's circumstances as decisive against their claim without claim-level evidence.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Circumstantial ad hominem", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses circumstantial ad hominem with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 5, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 5, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "tu_quoque_canonical", + "name": "Tu quoque", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Tu quoque: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Deflecting criticism by alleging inconsistency in the critic rather than addressing the argument.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Tu quoque: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Deflecting criticism by alleging inconsistency in the critic rather than addressing the argument.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Tu quoque", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses tu quoque with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 6, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 6, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + }, + { + "id": "guilt_by_association_canonical", + "name": "Guilt by association", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Guilt by association: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Rejecting a claim because its speaker is associated with a disliked person or group.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Guilt by association: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Rejecting a claim because its speaker is associated with a disliked person or group.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Guilt by association", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses guilt by association with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 7, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 7, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + }, + { + "id": "genetic_fallacy_canonical", + "name": "Genetic fallacy", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Genetic fallacy: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Judging a claim solely by its origin rather than its current evidence or reasoning.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Genetic fallacy: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Judging a claim solely by its origin rather than its current evidence or reasoning.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Genetic fallacy", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses genetic fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 8, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 8, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_authority_misuse_canonical", + "name": "Misused appeal to authority", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Misused appeal to authority: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Using authority as a substitute for relevant evidence, especially outside the authority's domain.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Misused appeal to authority: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Using authority as a substitute for relevant evidence, especially outside the authority's domain.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Misused appeal to authority", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses misused appeal to authority with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "authority_bias", + "appeal_to_authority_misuse", + "source_triangulation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/argumentation-schemes/1D013BFA2695C72B14134F2C38B17B85" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 9, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 9, + "source_family": "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_emotion_canonical", + "name": "Appeal to emotion", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to emotion: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Using emotion as the main support for a conclusion without adequate reasons.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to emotion: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Using emotion as the main support for a conclusion without adequate reasons.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to emotion", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to emotion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 10, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 10, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_fear_canonical", + "name": "Appeal to fear", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to fear: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Using fear or threat as decisive support for a claim or choice.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to fear: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Using fear or threat as decisive support for a claim or choice.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to fear", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to fear with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 11, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 11, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_pity_canonical", + "name": "Appeal to pity", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to pity: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Substituting pity or sympathy for relevant evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to pity: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Substituting pity or sympathy for relevant evidence.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to pity", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to pity with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 12, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 12, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_force_canonical", + "name": "Appeal to force", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to force: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Relying on threat or coercion rather than reasons.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to force: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Relying on threat or coercion rather than reasons.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to force", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to force with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 13, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 13, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_popularity_canonical", + "name": "Ad populum", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Ad populum: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Treating popularity as sufficient proof of truth or correctness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Ad populum: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Treating popularity as sufficient proof of truth or correctness.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Ad populum", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses ad populum with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 14, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 14, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_dilemma_canonical", + "name": "False dilemma", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False dilemma: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Presenting limited options as exhaustive when relevant alternatives exist.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False dilemma: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Presenting limited options as exhaustive when relevant alternatives exist.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False dilemma", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false dilemma with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 15, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 15, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_equivalence_canonical", + "name": "False equivalence", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False equivalence: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Treating two cases as equivalent while ignoring relevant differences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False equivalence: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Treating two cases as equivalent while ignoring relevant differences.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False equivalence", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false equivalence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 16, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 16, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "slippery_slope_canonical", + "name": "Slippery slope", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Slippery slope: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Asserting a chain of consequences without adequate causal support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Slippery slope: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Asserting a chain of consequences without adequate causal support.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Slippery slope", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses slippery slope with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "post_hoc", + "cum_hoc", + "alternative_explanation_neglect" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 17, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 17, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "hasty_generalization_canonical", + "name": "Hasty generalization", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Hasty generalization: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Drawing a broad conclusion from insufficient or unrepresentative cases.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Hasty generalization: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Drawing a broad conclusion from insufficient or unrepresentative cases.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Hasty generalization", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses hasty generalization with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 18, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 18, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "accident_fallacy_canonical", + "name": "Accident", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Accident: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Applying a general rule to an exceptional case without qualification.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Accident: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Applying a general rule to an exceptional case without qualification.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Accident", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses accident with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 19, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 19, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "converse_accident_canonical", + "name": "Converse accident", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Converse accident: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Generalizing from an exceptional case to a broad rule.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Converse accident: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Generalizing from an exceptional case to a broad rule.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Converse accident", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses converse accident with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 20, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 20, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "composition_fallacy_canonical", + "name": "Composition", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Composition: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Inferring that a whole has a property because its parts have it.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Composition: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Inferring that a whole has a property because its parts have it.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Composition", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses composition with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 21, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 21, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "division_fallacy_canonical", + "name": "Division", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Division: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Inferring that parts have a property because the whole has it.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Division: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Inferring that parts have a property because the whole has it.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Division", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses division with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 22, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 22, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "equivocation_canonical", + "name": "Equivocation", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Equivocation: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Using a key term in different senses within the same argument.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Equivocation: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Using a key term in different senses within the same argument.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Equivocation", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses equivocation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 23, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 23, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "amphiboly_canonical", + "name": "Amphiboly", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Amphiboly: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Relying on syntactic ambiguity to support a conclusion.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Amphiboly: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Relying on syntactic ambiguity to support a conclusion.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Amphiboly", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses amphiboly with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 24, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 24, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "begging_the_question_canonical", + "name": "Begging the question", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Begging the question: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Assuming what the argument is meant to prove.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Begging the question: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Assuming what the argument is meant to prove.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Begging the question", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses begging the question with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 25, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 25, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "circular_reasoning_canonical", + "name": "Circular reasoning", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Circular reasoning: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Using the conclusion, directly or indirectly, as support for itself.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Circular reasoning: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Using the conclusion, directly or indirectly, as support for itself.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Circular reasoning", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses circular reasoning with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 26, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 26, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "loaded_question_canonical", + "name": "Loaded question", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Loaded question: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Asking a question that embeds a disputed presupposition.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Loaded question: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Asking a question that embeds a disputed presupposition.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Loaded question", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses loaded question with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 27, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 27, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "red_herring_canonical", + "name": "Red herring", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Red herring: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Introducing irrelevant material that distracts from the issue.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Red herring: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Introducing irrelevant material that distracts from the issue.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Red herring", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses red herring with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 28, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 28, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + }, + { + "id": "ignoratio_elenchi_canonical", + "name": "Irrelevant conclusion", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Irrelevant conclusion: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Offering support for a conclusion different from the one at issue.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Irrelevant conclusion: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Offering support for a conclusion different from the one at issue.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Irrelevant conclusion", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses irrelevant conclusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 29, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 29, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "moving_goalposts_canonical", + "name": "Moving the goalposts", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Moving the goalposts: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Changing acceptance criteria after evidence has been provided.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Moving the goalposts: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Changing acceptance criteria after evidence has been provided.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Moving the goalposts", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses moving the goalposts with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 30, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 30, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + }, + { + "id": "no_true_scotsman_canonical", + "name": "No true Scotsman", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under No true Scotsman: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Protecting a generalization by redefining membership ad hoc.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under No true Scotsman: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Protecting a generalization by redefining membership ad hoc.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for No true Scotsman", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses no true scotsman with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 31, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 31, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + }, + { + "id": "special_pleading_canonical", + "name": "Special pleading", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Special pleading: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Applying standards inconsistently without relevant justification.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Special pleading: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Applying standards inconsistently without relevant justification.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Special pleading", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses special pleading with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 32, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 32, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + }, + { + "id": "burden_of_proof_shift_canonical", + "name": "Burden-of-proof shift", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Burden-of-proof shift: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Demanding disproof instead of supporting one's own claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Burden-of-proof shift: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Demanding disproof instead of supporting one's own claim.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Burden-of-proof shift", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses burden-of-proof shift with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 33, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 33, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_ignorance_canonical", + "name": "Appeal to ignorance", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to ignorance: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Treating lack of disproof as proof or lack of proof as disproof.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to ignorance: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Treating lack of disproof as proof or lack of proof as disproof.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to ignorance", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to ignorance with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 34, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 34, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "post_hoc_canonical", + "name": "Post hoc ergo propter hoc", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Post hoc ergo propter hoc: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Inferring causation from temporal sequence alone.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Post hoc ergo propter hoc: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Inferring causation from temporal sequence alone.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Post hoc ergo propter hoc", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses post hoc ergo propter hoc with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 35, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 35, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + }, + { + "id": "cum_hoc_canonical", + "name": "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Cum hoc ergo propter hoc: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Inferring causation from co-occurrence alone.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Cum hoc ergo propter hoc: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Inferring causation from co-occurrence alone.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Cum hoc ergo propter hoc", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses cum hoc ergo propter hoc with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 36, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 36, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + }, + { + "id": "non_sequitur_canonical", + "name": "Non sequitur", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Non sequitur: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Drawing a conclusion that does not follow from the stated reasons.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Non sequitur: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Drawing a conclusion that does not follow from the stated reasons.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Non sequitur", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses non sequitur with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 37, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 37, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "affirming_consequent_canonical", + "name": "Affirming the consequent", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Affirming the consequent: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Inferring a sufficient condition from the consequent in a conditional.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Affirming the consequent: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Inferring a sufficient condition from the consequent in a conditional.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Affirming the consequent", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses affirming the consequent with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 38, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 38, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "denying_antecedent_canonical", + "name": "Denying the antecedent", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Denying the antecedent: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Inferring the negation of the consequent from the negation of the antecedent.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Denying the antecedent: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Inferring the negation of the consequent from the negation of the antecedent.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Denying the antecedent", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses denying the antecedent with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 39, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 39, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "faulty_analogy_canonical", + "name": "Faulty analogy", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Faulty analogy: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Using an analogy while ignoring relevant disanalogies.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Faulty analogy: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Using an analogy while ignoring relevant disanalogies.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Faulty analogy", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses faulty analogy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/argumentation-schemes/1D013BFA2695C72B14134F2C38B17B85" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "medium", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 40, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 40, + "source_family": "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_active" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_nature_canonical", + "name": "Appeal to nature", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to nature: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Treating naturalness as sufficient proof of goodness or correctness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to nature: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Treating naturalness as sufficient proof of goodness or correctness.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to nature", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to nature with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 41, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 41, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_tradition_canonical", + "name": "Appeal to tradition", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to tradition: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Treating long-standing practice as sufficient proof of correctness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to tradition: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Treating long-standing practice as sufficient proof of correctness.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to tradition", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to tradition with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 42, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 42, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_novelty_canonical", + "name": "Appeal to novelty", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to novelty: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Treating newness as sufficient proof of superiority.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to novelty: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Treating newness as sufficient proof of superiority.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to novelty", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to novelty with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 43, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 43, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + }, + { + "id": "nirvana_fallacy_canonical", + "name": "Nirvana fallacy", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Nirvana fallacy: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Rejecting realistic options because they are not perfect.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Nirvana fallacy: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Rejecting realistic options because they are not perfect.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Nirvana fallacy", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses nirvana fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 44, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 44, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + }, + { + "id": "middle_ground_fallacy_canonical", + "name": "Middle-ground fallacy", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Middle-ground fallacy: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Assuming the middle position is correct merely because it is intermediate.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Middle-ground fallacy: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Assuming the middle position is correct merely because it is intermediate.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Middle-ground fallacy", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses middle-ground fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 45, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 45, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + }, + { + "id": "relative_privation_canonical", + "name": "Relative privation", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Relative privation: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Dismissing a problem because worse problems exist.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Relative privation: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Dismissing a problem because worse problems exist.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Relative privation", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses relative privation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 46, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 46, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + }, + { + "id": "whataboutism_canonical", + "name": "Whataboutism", + "pack": "core_mvp", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "canonical", + "academic_consensus": "high", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Whataboutism: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Deflecting criticism by pointing to another issue.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Whataboutism: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form. Parent definition: Deflecting criticism by pointing to another issue.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Whataboutism", + "variant cue: the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent pattern appears in its standard recognizable form to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses whataboutism with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": true, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": true, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "active", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 47, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 47, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_but_human_review_required" + } + } + ], + "metadata": {} +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/taxonomy/packs/extended_fallacies.yaml b/data/taxonomy/packs/extended_fallacies.yaml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..19657b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/taxonomy/packs/extended_fallacies.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,36223 @@ +{ + "version": "0.2.0", + "name": "extended_fallacies", + "entries": [ + { + "id": "straw_man_explicit_marker", + "name": "Straw man", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Straw man: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to refute.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Straw man: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to refute.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Straw man", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses straw man with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 48, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 48, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "weak_man_explicit_marker", + "name": "Weak man", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Weak man: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Targeting a weak version of a broader position rather than the strongest relevant version.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Weak man: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Targeting a weak version of a broader position rather than the strongest relevant version.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Weak man", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses weak man with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 49, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 49, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ad_hominem_abusive_explicit_marker", + "name": "Abusive ad hominem", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Abusive ad hominem: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Rejecting a claim by attacking a person rather than the claim-level reasons.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Abusive ad hominem: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Rejecting a claim by attacking a person rather than the claim-level reasons.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Abusive ad hominem", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses abusive ad hominem with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 50, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 50, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ad_hominem_circumstantial_explicit_marker", + "name": "Circumstantial ad hominem", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Circumstantial ad hominem: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Treating a speaker's circumstances as decisive against their claim without claim-level evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Circumstantial ad hominem: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Treating a speaker's circumstances as decisive against their claim without claim-level evidence.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Circumstantial ad hominem", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses circumstantial ad hominem with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 51, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 51, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "tu_quoque_explicit_marker", + "name": "Tu quoque", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Tu quoque: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Deflecting criticism by alleging inconsistency in the critic rather than addressing the argument.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Tu quoque: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Deflecting criticism by alleging inconsistency in the critic rather than addressing the argument.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Tu quoque", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses tu quoque with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 52, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 52, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "guilt_by_association_explicit_marker", + "name": "Guilt by association", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Guilt by association: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Rejecting a claim because its speaker is associated with a disliked person or group.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Guilt by association: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Rejecting a claim because its speaker is associated with a disliked person or group.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Guilt by association", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses guilt by association with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 53, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 53, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "genetic_fallacy_explicit_marker", + "name": "Genetic fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Genetic fallacy: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Judging a claim solely by its origin rather than its current evidence or reasoning.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Genetic fallacy: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Judging a claim solely by its origin rather than its current evidence or reasoning.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Genetic fallacy", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses genetic fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 54, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 54, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_authority_misuse_explicit_marker", + "name": "Misused appeal to authority", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Misused appeal to authority: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Using authority as a substitute for relevant evidence, especially outside the authority's domain.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Misused appeal to authority: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Using authority as a substitute for relevant evidence, especially outside the authority's domain.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Misused appeal to authority", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses misused appeal to authority with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "authority_bias", + "appeal_to_authority_misuse", + "source_triangulation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/argumentation-schemes/1D013BFA2695C72B14134F2C38B17B85" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 55, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 55, + "source_family": "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_emotion_explicit_marker", + "name": "Appeal to emotion", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to emotion: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Using emotion as the main support for a conclusion without adequate reasons.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to emotion: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Using emotion as the main support for a conclusion without adequate reasons.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to emotion", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to emotion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 56, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 56, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_fear_explicit_marker", + "name": "Appeal to fear", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to fear: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Using fear or threat as decisive support for a claim or choice.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to fear: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Using fear or threat as decisive support for a claim or choice.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to fear", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to fear with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 57, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 57, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_pity_explicit_marker", + "name": "Appeal to pity", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to pity: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Substituting pity or sympathy for relevant evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to pity: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Substituting pity or sympathy for relevant evidence.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to pity", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to pity with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 58, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 58, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_force_explicit_marker", + "name": "Appeal to force", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to force: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Relying on threat or coercion rather than reasons.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to force: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Relying on threat or coercion rather than reasons.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to force", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to force with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 59, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 59, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_popularity_explicit_marker", + "name": "Ad populum", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Ad populum: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Treating popularity as sufficient proof of truth or correctness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Ad populum: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Treating popularity as sufficient proof of truth or correctness.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Ad populum", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses ad populum with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 60, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 60, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_dilemma_explicit_marker", + "name": "False dilemma", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False dilemma: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Presenting limited options as exhaustive when relevant alternatives exist.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False dilemma: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Presenting limited options as exhaustive when relevant alternatives exist.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False dilemma", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false dilemma with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 61, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 61, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_equivalence_explicit_marker", + "name": "False equivalence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False equivalence: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Treating two cases as equivalent while ignoring relevant differences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False equivalence: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Treating two cases as equivalent while ignoring relevant differences.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False equivalence", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false equivalence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 62, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 62, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "slippery_slope_explicit_marker", + "name": "Slippery slope", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Slippery slope: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Asserting a chain of consequences without adequate causal support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Slippery slope: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Asserting a chain of consequences without adequate causal support.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Slippery slope", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses slippery slope with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "post_hoc", + "cum_hoc", + "alternative_explanation_neglect" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 63, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 63, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "hasty_generalization_explicit_marker", + "name": "Hasty generalization", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Hasty generalization: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Drawing a broad conclusion from insufficient or unrepresentative cases.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Hasty generalization: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Drawing a broad conclusion from insufficient or unrepresentative cases.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Hasty generalization", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses hasty generalization with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 64, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 64, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "accident_fallacy_explicit_marker", + "name": "Accident", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Accident: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Applying a general rule to an exceptional case without qualification.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Accident: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Applying a general rule to an exceptional case without qualification.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Accident", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses accident with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 65, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 65, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "converse_accident_explicit_marker", + "name": "Converse accident", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Converse accident: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Generalizing from an exceptional case to a broad rule.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Converse accident: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Generalizing from an exceptional case to a broad rule.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Converse accident", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses converse accident with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 66, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 66, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "composition_fallacy_explicit_marker", + "name": "Composition", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Composition: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Inferring that a whole has a property because its parts have it.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Composition: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Inferring that a whole has a property because its parts have it.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Composition", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses composition with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 67, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 67, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "division_fallacy_explicit_marker", + "name": "Division", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Division: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Inferring that parts have a property because the whole has it.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Division: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Inferring that parts have a property because the whole has it.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Division", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses division with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 68, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 68, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "equivocation_explicit_marker", + "name": "Equivocation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Equivocation: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Using a key term in different senses within the same argument.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Equivocation: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Using a key term in different senses within the same argument.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Equivocation", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses equivocation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 69, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 69, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "amphiboly_explicit_marker", + "name": "Amphiboly", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Amphiboly: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Relying on syntactic ambiguity to support a conclusion.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Amphiboly: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Relying on syntactic ambiguity to support a conclusion.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Amphiboly", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses amphiboly with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 70, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 70, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "begging_the_question_explicit_marker", + "name": "Begging the question", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Begging the question: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Assuming what the argument is meant to prove.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Begging the question: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Assuming what the argument is meant to prove.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Begging the question", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses begging the question with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 71, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 71, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "circular_reasoning_explicit_marker", + "name": "Circular reasoning", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Circular reasoning: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Using the conclusion, directly or indirectly, as support for itself.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Circular reasoning: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Using the conclusion, directly or indirectly, as support for itself.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Circular reasoning", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses circular reasoning with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 72, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 72, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "loaded_question_explicit_marker", + "name": "Loaded question", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Loaded question: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Asking a question that embeds a disputed presupposition.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Loaded question: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Asking a question that embeds a disputed presupposition.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Loaded question", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses loaded question with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 73, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 73, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "red_herring_explicit_marker", + "name": "Red herring", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Red herring: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Introducing irrelevant material that distracts from the issue.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Red herring: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Introducing irrelevant material that distracts from the issue.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Red herring", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses red herring with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 74, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 74, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ignoratio_elenchi_explicit_marker", + "name": "Irrelevant conclusion", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Irrelevant conclusion: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Offering support for a conclusion different from the one at issue.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Irrelevant conclusion: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Offering support for a conclusion different from the one at issue.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Irrelevant conclusion", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses irrelevant conclusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 75, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 75, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "moving_goalposts_explicit_marker", + "name": "Moving the goalposts", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Moving the goalposts: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Changing acceptance criteria after evidence has been provided.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Moving the goalposts: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Changing acceptance criteria after evidence has been provided.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Moving the goalposts", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses moving the goalposts with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 76, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 76, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "no_true_scotsman_explicit_marker", + "name": "No true Scotsman", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under No true Scotsman: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Protecting a generalization by redefining membership ad hoc.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under No true Scotsman: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Protecting a generalization by redefining membership ad hoc.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for No true Scotsman", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses no true scotsman with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 77, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 77, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "special_pleading_explicit_marker", + "name": "Special pleading", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Special pleading: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Applying standards inconsistently without relevant justification.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Special pleading: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Applying standards inconsistently without relevant justification.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Special pleading", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses special pleading with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 78, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 78, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "burden_of_proof_shift_explicit_marker", + "name": "Burden-of-proof shift", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Burden-of-proof shift: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Demanding disproof instead of supporting one's own claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Burden-of-proof shift: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Demanding disproof instead of supporting one's own claim.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Burden-of-proof shift", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses burden-of-proof shift with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 79, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 79, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_ignorance_explicit_marker", + "name": "Appeal to ignorance", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to ignorance: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Treating lack of disproof as proof or lack of proof as disproof.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to ignorance: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Treating lack of disproof as proof or lack of proof as disproof.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to ignorance", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to ignorance with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 80, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 80, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "post_hoc_explicit_marker", + "name": "Post hoc ergo propter hoc", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Post hoc ergo propter hoc: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Inferring causation from temporal sequence alone.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Post hoc ergo propter hoc: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Inferring causation from temporal sequence alone.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Post hoc ergo propter hoc", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses post hoc ergo propter hoc with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 81, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 81, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "cum_hoc_explicit_marker", + "name": "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Cum hoc ergo propter hoc: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Inferring causation from co-occurrence alone.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Cum hoc ergo propter hoc: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Inferring causation from co-occurrence alone.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Cum hoc ergo propter hoc", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses cum hoc ergo propter hoc with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 82, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 82, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "non_sequitur_explicit_marker", + "name": "Non sequitur", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Non sequitur: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Drawing a conclusion that does not follow from the stated reasons.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Non sequitur: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Drawing a conclusion that does not follow from the stated reasons.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Non sequitur", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses non sequitur with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 83, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 83, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "affirming_consequent_explicit_marker", + "name": "Affirming the consequent", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Affirming the consequent: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Inferring a sufficient condition from the consequent in a conditional.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Affirming the consequent: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Inferring a sufficient condition from the consequent in a conditional.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Affirming the consequent", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses affirming the consequent with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 84, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 84, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "denying_antecedent_explicit_marker", + "name": "Denying the antecedent", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Denying the antecedent: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Inferring the negation of the consequent from the negation of the antecedent.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Denying the antecedent: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Inferring the negation of the consequent from the negation of the antecedent.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Denying the antecedent", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses denying the antecedent with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 85, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 85, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "faulty_analogy_explicit_marker", + "name": "Faulty analogy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Faulty analogy: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Using an analogy while ignoring relevant disanalogies.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Faulty analogy: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Using an analogy while ignoring relevant disanalogies.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Faulty analogy", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses faulty analogy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/argumentation-schemes/1D013BFA2695C72B14134F2C38B17B85" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 86, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 86, + "source_family": "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_nature_explicit_marker", + "name": "Appeal to nature", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to nature: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Treating naturalness as sufficient proof of goodness or correctness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to nature: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Treating naturalness as sufficient proof of goodness or correctness.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to nature", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to nature with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 87, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 87, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_tradition_explicit_marker", + "name": "Appeal to tradition", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to tradition: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Treating long-standing practice as sufficient proof of correctness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to tradition: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Treating long-standing practice as sufficient proof of correctness.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to tradition", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to tradition with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 88, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 88, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_novelty_explicit_marker", + "name": "Appeal to novelty", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to novelty: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Treating newness as sufficient proof of superiority.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to novelty: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Treating newness as sufficient proof of superiority.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to novelty", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to novelty with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 89, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 89, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "nirvana_fallacy_explicit_marker", + "name": "Nirvana fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Nirvana fallacy: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Rejecting realistic options because they are not perfect.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Nirvana fallacy: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Rejecting realistic options because they are not perfect.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Nirvana fallacy", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses nirvana fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 90, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 90, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "middle_ground_fallacy_explicit_marker", + "name": "Middle-ground fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Middle-ground fallacy: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Assuming the middle position is correct merely because it is intermediate.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Middle-ground fallacy: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Assuming the middle position is correct merely because it is intermediate.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Middle-ground fallacy", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses middle-ground fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 91, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 91, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "relative_privation_explicit_marker", + "name": "Relative privation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Relative privation: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Dismissing a problem because worse problems exist.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Relative privation: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Dismissing a problem because worse problems exist.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Relative privation", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses relative privation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 92, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 92, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "whataboutism_explicit_marker", + "name": "Whataboutism", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Whataboutism: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Deflecting criticism by pointing to another issue.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Whataboutism: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language. Parent definition: Deflecting criticism by pointing to another issue.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Whataboutism", + "variant cue: the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern is cued by strong connective or evaluative language to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses whataboutism with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 93, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 93, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "straw_man_implicit_premise", + "name": "Straw man", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Straw man: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to refute.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Straw man: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to refute.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Straw man", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses straw man with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 94, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 94, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "weak_man_implicit_premise", + "name": "Weak man", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Weak man: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Targeting a weak version of a broader position rather than the strongest relevant version.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Weak man: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Targeting a weak version of a broader position rather than the strongest relevant version.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Weak man", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses weak man with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 95, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 95, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ad_hominem_abusive_implicit_premise", + "name": "Abusive ad hominem", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Abusive ad hominem: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Rejecting a claim by attacking a person rather than the claim-level reasons.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Abusive ad hominem: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Rejecting a claim by attacking a person rather than the claim-level reasons.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Abusive ad hominem", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses abusive ad hominem with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 96, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 96, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ad_hominem_circumstantial_implicit_premise", + "name": "Circumstantial ad hominem", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Circumstantial ad hominem: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Treating a speaker's circumstances as decisive against their claim without claim-level evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Circumstantial ad hominem: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Treating a speaker's circumstances as decisive against their claim without claim-level evidence.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Circumstantial ad hominem", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses circumstantial ad hominem with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 97, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 97, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "tu_quoque_implicit_premise", + "name": "Tu quoque", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Tu quoque: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Deflecting criticism by alleging inconsistency in the critic rather than addressing the argument.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Tu quoque: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Deflecting criticism by alleging inconsistency in the critic rather than addressing the argument.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Tu quoque", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses tu quoque with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 98, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 98, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "guilt_by_association_implicit_premise", + "name": "Guilt by association", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Guilt by association: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Rejecting a claim because its speaker is associated with a disliked person or group.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Guilt by association: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Rejecting a claim because its speaker is associated with a disliked person or group.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Guilt by association", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses guilt by association with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 99, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 99, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "genetic_fallacy_implicit_premise", + "name": "Genetic fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Genetic fallacy: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Judging a claim solely by its origin rather than its current evidence or reasoning.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Genetic fallacy: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Judging a claim solely by its origin rather than its current evidence or reasoning.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Genetic fallacy", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses genetic fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 100, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 100, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_authority_misuse_implicit_premise", + "name": "Misused appeal to authority", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Misused appeal to authority: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Using authority as a substitute for relevant evidence, especially outside the authority's domain.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Misused appeal to authority: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Using authority as a substitute for relevant evidence, especially outside the authority's domain.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Misused appeal to authority", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses misused appeal to authority with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "authority_bias", + "appeal_to_authority_misuse", + "source_triangulation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/argumentation-schemes/1D013BFA2695C72B14134F2C38B17B85" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 101, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 101, + "source_family": "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_emotion_implicit_premise", + "name": "Appeal to emotion", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to emotion: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Using emotion as the main support for a conclusion without adequate reasons.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to emotion: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Using emotion as the main support for a conclusion without adequate reasons.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to emotion", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to emotion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 102, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 102, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_fear_implicit_premise", + "name": "Appeal to fear", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to fear: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Using fear or threat as decisive support for a claim or choice.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to fear: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Using fear or threat as decisive support for a claim or choice.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to fear", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to fear with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 103, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 103, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_pity_implicit_premise", + "name": "Appeal to pity", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to pity: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Substituting pity or sympathy for relevant evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to pity: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Substituting pity or sympathy for relevant evidence.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to pity", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to pity with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 104, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 104, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_force_implicit_premise", + "name": "Appeal to force", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to force: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Relying on threat or coercion rather than reasons.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to force: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Relying on threat or coercion rather than reasons.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to force", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to force with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 105, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 105, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_popularity_implicit_premise", + "name": "Ad populum", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Ad populum: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Treating popularity as sufficient proof of truth or correctness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Ad populum: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Treating popularity as sufficient proof of truth or correctness.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Ad populum", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses ad populum with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 106, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 106, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_dilemma_implicit_premise", + "name": "False dilemma", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False dilemma: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Presenting limited options as exhaustive when relevant alternatives exist.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False dilemma: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Presenting limited options as exhaustive when relevant alternatives exist.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False dilemma", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false dilemma with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 107, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 107, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_equivalence_implicit_premise", + "name": "False equivalence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False equivalence: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Treating two cases as equivalent while ignoring relevant differences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False equivalence: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Treating two cases as equivalent while ignoring relevant differences.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False equivalence", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false equivalence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 108, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 108, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "slippery_slope_implicit_premise", + "name": "Slippery slope", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Slippery slope: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Asserting a chain of consequences without adequate causal support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Slippery slope: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Asserting a chain of consequences without adequate causal support.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Slippery slope", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses slippery slope with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "post_hoc", + "cum_hoc", + "alternative_explanation_neglect" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 109, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 109, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "hasty_generalization_implicit_premise", + "name": "Hasty generalization", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Hasty generalization: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Drawing a broad conclusion from insufficient or unrepresentative cases.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Hasty generalization: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Drawing a broad conclusion from insufficient or unrepresentative cases.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Hasty generalization", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses hasty generalization with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 110, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 110, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "accident_fallacy_implicit_premise", + "name": "Accident", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Accident: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Applying a general rule to an exceptional case without qualification.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Accident: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Applying a general rule to an exceptional case without qualification.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Accident", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses accident with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 111, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 111, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "converse_accident_implicit_premise", + "name": "Converse accident", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Converse accident: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Generalizing from an exceptional case to a broad rule.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Converse accident: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Generalizing from an exceptional case to a broad rule.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Converse accident", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses converse accident with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 112, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 112, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "composition_fallacy_implicit_premise", + "name": "Composition", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Composition: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Inferring that a whole has a property because its parts have it.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Composition: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Inferring that a whole has a property because its parts have it.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Composition", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses composition with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 113, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 113, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "division_fallacy_implicit_premise", + "name": "Division", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Division: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Inferring that parts have a property because the whole has it.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Division: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Inferring that parts have a property because the whole has it.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Division", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses division with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 114, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 114, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "equivocation_implicit_premise", + "name": "Equivocation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Equivocation: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Using a key term in different senses within the same argument.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Equivocation: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Using a key term in different senses within the same argument.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Equivocation", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses equivocation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 115, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 115, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "amphiboly_implicit_premise", + "name": "Amphiboly", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Amphiboly: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Relying on syntactic ambiguity to support a conclusion.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Amphiboly: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Relying on syntactic ambiguity to support a conclusion.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Amphiboly", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses amphiboly with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 116, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 116, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "begging_the_question_implicit_premise", + "name": "Begging the question", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Begging the question: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Assuming what the argument is meant to prove.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Begging the question: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Assuming what the argument is meant to prove.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Begging the question", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses begging the question with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 117, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 117, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "circular_reasoning_implicit_premise", + "name": "Circular reasoning", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Circular reasoning: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Using the conclusion, directly or indirectly, as support for itself.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Circular reasoning: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Using the conclusion, directly or indirectly, as support for itself.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Circular reasoning", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses circular reasoning with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 118, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 118, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "loaded_question_implicit_premise", + "name": "Loaded question", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Loaded question: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Asking a question that embeds a disputed presupposition.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Loaded question: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Asking a question that embeds a disputed presupposition.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Loaded question", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses loaded question with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 119, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 119, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "red_herring_implicit_premise", + "name": "Red herring", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Red herring: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Introducing irrelevant material that distracts from the issue.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Red herring: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Introducing irrelevant material that distracts from the issue.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Red herring", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses red herring with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 120, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 120, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ignoratio_elenchi_implicit_premise", + "name": "Irrelevant conclusion", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Irrelevant conclusion: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Offering support for a conclusion different from the one at issue.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Irrelevant conclusion: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Offering support for a conclusion different from the one at issue.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Irrelevant conclusion", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses irrelevant conclusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 121, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 121, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "moving_goalposts_implicit_premise", + "name": "Moving the goalposts", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Moving the goalposts: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Changing acceptance criteria after evidence has been provided.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Moving the goalposts: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Changing acceptance criteria after evidence has been provided.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Moving the goalposts", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses moving the goalposts with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 122, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 122, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "no_true_scotsman_implicit_premise", + "name": "No true Scotsman", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under No true Scotsman: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Protecting a generalization by redefining membership ad hoc.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under No true Scotsman: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Protecting a generalization by redefining membership ad hoc.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for No true Scotsman", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses no true scotsman with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 123, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 123, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "special_pleading_implicit_premise", + "name": "Special pleading", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Special pleading: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Applying standards inconsistently without relevant justification.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Special pleading: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Applying standards inconsistently without relevant justification.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Special pleading", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses special pleading with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 124, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 124, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "burden_of_proof_shift_implicit_premise", + "name": "Burden-of-proof shift", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Burden-of-proof shift: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Demanding disproof instead of supporting one's own claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Burden-of-proof shift: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Demanding disproof instead of supporting one's own claim.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Burden-of-proof shift", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses burden-of-proof shift with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 125, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 125, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_ignorance_implicit_premise", + "name": "Appeal to ignorance", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to ignorance: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Treating lack of disproof as proof or lack of proof as disproof.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to ignorance: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Treating lack of disproof as proof or lack of proof as disproof.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to ignorance", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to ignorance with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 126, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 126, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "post_hoc_implicit_premise", + "name": "Post hoc ergo propter hoc", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Post hoc ergo propter hoc: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Inferring causation from temporal sequence alone.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Post hoc ergo propter hoc: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Inferring causation from temporal sequence alone.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Post hoc ergo propter hoc", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses post hoc ergo propter hoc with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 127, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 127, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "cum_hoc_implicit_premise", + "name": "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Cum hoc ergo propter hoc: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Inferring causation from co-occurrence alone.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Cum hoc ergo propter hoc: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Inferring causation from co-occurrence alone.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Cum hoc ergo propter hoc", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses cum hoc ergo propter hoc with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 128, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 128, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "non_sequitur_implicit_premise", + "name": "Non sequitur", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Non sequitur: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Drawing a conclusion that does not follow from the stated reasons.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Non sequitur: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Drawing a conclusion that does not follow from the stated reasons.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Non sequitur", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses non sequitur with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 129, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 129, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "affirming_consequent_implicit_premise", + "name": "Affirming the consequent", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Affirming the consequent: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Inferring a sufficient condition from the consequent in a conditional.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Affirming the consequent: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Inferring a sufficient condition from the consequent in a conditional.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Affirming the consequent", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses affirming the consequent with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 130, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 130, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "denying_antecedent_implicit_premise", + "name": "Denying the antecedent", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Denying the antecedent: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Inferring the negation of the consequent from the negation of the antecedent.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Denying the antecedent: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Inferring the negation of the consequent from the negation of the antecedent.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Denying the antecedent", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses denying the antecedent with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 131, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 131, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "faulty_analogy_implicit_premise", + "name": "Faulty analogy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Faulty analogy: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Using an analogy while ignoring relevant disanalogies.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Faulty analogy: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Using an analogy while ignoring relevant disanalogies.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Faulty analogy", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses faulty analogy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/argumentation-schemes/1D013BFA2695C72B14134F2C38B17B85" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 132, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 132, + "source_family": "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_nature_implicit_premise", + "name": "Appeal to nature", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to nature: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Treating naturalness as sufficient proof of goodness or correctness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to nature: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Treating naturalness as sufficient proof of goodness or correctness.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to nature", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to nature with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 133, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 133, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_tradition_implicit_premise", + "name": "Appeal to tradition", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to tradition: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Treating long-standing practice as sufficient proof of correctness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to tradition: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Treating long-standing practice as sufficient proof of correctness.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to tradition", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to tradition with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 134, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 134, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_novelty_implicit_premise", + "name": "Appeal to novelty", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to novelty: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Treating newness as sufficient proof of superiority.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to novelty: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Treating newness as sufficient proof of superiority.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to novelty", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to novelty with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 135, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 135, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "nirvana_fallacy_implicit_premise", + "name": "Nirvana fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Nirvana fallacy: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Rejecting realistic options because they are not perfect.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Nirvana fallacy: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Rejecting realistic options because they are not perfect.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Nirvana fallacy", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses nirvana fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 136, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 136, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "middle_ground_fallacy_implicit_premise", + "name": "Middle-ground fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Middle-ground fallacy: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Assuming the middle position is correct merely because it is intermediate.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Middle-ground fallacy: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Assuming the middle position is correct merely because it is intermediate.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Middle-ground fallacy", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses middle-ground fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 137, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 137, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "relative_privation_implicit_premise", + "name": "Relative privation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Relative privation: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Dismissing a problem because worse problems exist.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Relative privation: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Dismissing a problem because worse problems exist.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Relative privation", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses relative privation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 138, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 138, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "whataboutism_implicit_premise", + "name": "Whataboutism", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Whataboutism: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Deflecting criticism by pointing to another issue.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Whataboutism: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated. Parent definition: Deflecting criticism by pointing to another issue.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Whataboutism", + "variant cue: a crucial premise is implied rather than stated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a crucial premise is implied rather than stated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses whataboutism with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 139, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 139, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "straw_man_comparative_variant", + "name": "Straw man", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Straw man: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to refute.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Straw man: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to refute.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Straw man", + "variant cue: the pattern appears through comparison between cases", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears through comparison between cases to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses straw man with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 140, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 140, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "weak_man_comparative_variant", + "name": "Weak man", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Weak man: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Targeting a weak version of a broader position rather than the strongest relevant version.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Weak man: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Targeting a weak version of a broader position rather than the strongest relevant version.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Weak man", + "variant cue: the pattern appears through comparison between cases", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears through comparison between cases to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses weak man with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 141, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 141, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ad_hominem_abusive_comparative_variant", + "name": "Abusive ad hominem", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Abusive ad hominem: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Rejecting a claim by attacking a person rather than the claim-level reasons.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Abusive ad hominem: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Rejecting a claim by attacking a person rather than the claim-level reasons.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Abusive ad hominem", + "variant cue: the pattern appears through comparison between cases", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears through comparison between cases to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses abusive ad hominem with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 142, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 142, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ad_hominem_circumstantial_comparative_variant", + "name": "Circumstantial ad hominem", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Circumstantial ad hominem: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Treating a speaker's circumstances as decisive against their claim without claim-level evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Circumstantial ad hominem: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Treating a speaker's circumstances as decisive against their claim without claim-level evidence.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Circumstantial ad hominem", + "variant cue: the pattern appears through comparison between cases", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears through comparison between cases to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses circumstantial ad hominem with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 143, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 143, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "tu_quoque_comparative_variant", + "name": "Tu quoque", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Tu quoque: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Deflecting criticism by alleging inconsistency in the critic rather than addressing the argument.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Tu quoque: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Deflecting criticism by alleging inconsistency in the critic rather than addressing the argument.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Tu quoque", + "variant cue: the pattern appears through comparison between cases", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears through comparison between cases to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses tu quoque with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 144, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 144, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "guilt_by_association_comparative_variant", + "name": "Guilt by association", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Guilt by association: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Rejecting a claim because its speaker is associated with a disliked person or group.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Guilt by association: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Rejecting a claim because its speaker is associated with a disliked person or group.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Guilt by association", + "variant cue: the pattern appears through comparison between cases", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears through comparison between cases to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses guilt by association with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 145, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 145, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "genetic_fallacy_comparative_variant", + "name": "Genetic fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Genetic fallacy: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Judging a claim solely by its origin rather than its current evidence or reasoning.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Genetic fallacy: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Judging a claim solely by its origin rather than its current evidence or reasoning.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Genetic fallacy", + "variant cue: the pattern appears through comparison between cases", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears through comparison between cases to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses genetic fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 146, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 146, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_authority_misuse_comparative_variant", + "name": "Misused appeal to authority", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Misused appeal to authority: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Using authority as a substitute for relevant evidence, especially outside the authority's domain.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Misused appeal to authority: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Using authority as a substitute for relevant evidence, especially outside the authority's domain.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Misused appeal to authority", + "variant cue: the pattern appears through comparison between cases", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears through comparison between cases to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses misused appeal to authority with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "authority_bias", + "appeal_to_authority_misuse", + "source_triangulation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/argumentation-schemes/1D013BFA2695C72B14134F2C38B17B85" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 147, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 147, + "source_family": "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_emotion_comparative_variant", + "name": "Appeal to emotion", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to emotion: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Using emotion as the main support for a conclusion without adequate reasons.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to emotion: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Using emotion as the main support for a conclusion without adequate reasons.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to emotion", + "variant cue: the pattern appears through comparison between cases", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears through comparison between cases to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to emotion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 148, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 148, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_fear_comparative_variant", + "name": "Appeal to fear", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to fear: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Using fear or threat as decisive support for a claim or choice.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to fear: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Using fear or threat as decisive support for a claim or choice.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to fear", + "variant cue: the pattern appears through comparison between cases", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears through comparison between cases to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to fear with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 149, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 149, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_pity_comparative_variant", + "name": "Appeal to pity", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to pity: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Substituting pity or sympathy for relevant evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to pity: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Substituting pity or sympathy for relevant evidence.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to pity", + "variant cue: the pattern appears through comparison between cases", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears through comparison between cases to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to pity with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 150, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 150, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "appeal_to_force_comparative_variant", + "name": "Appeal to force", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to force: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Relying on threat or coercion rather than reasons.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Appeal to force: the pattern appears through comparison between cases. Parent definition: Relying on threat or coercion rather than reasons.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Appeal to force", + "variant cue: the pattern appears through comparison between cases", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears through comparison between cases to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses appeal to force with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 151, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 151, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "cherry_picking_canonical", + "name": "Cherry picking", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Cherry picking: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Selecting supportive evidence while ignoring relevant counterevidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Cherry picking: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Selecting supportive evidence while ignoring relevant counterevidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Cherry picking", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses cherry picking with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 152, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 152, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "suppressed_evidence_canonical", + "name": "Suppressed evidence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Suppressed evidence: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Omitting relevant evidence that would materially change the conclusion.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Suppressed evidence: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Omitting relevant evidence that would materially change the conclusion.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Suppressed evidence", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses suppressed evidence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 153, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 153, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "anecdotal_evidence_canonical", + "name": "Anecdotal evidence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Anecdotal evidence: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Using isolated stories as if they establish a general claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Anecdotal evidence: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Using isolated stories as if they establish a general claim.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Anecdotal evidence", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses anecdotal evidence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 154, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 154, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "selection_bias_argument_canonical", + "name": "Selection bias in argument", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Selection bias in argument: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Basing a conclusion on a sample selected in a systematically distorted way.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Selection bias in argument: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Basing a conclusion on a sample selected in a systematically distorted way.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Selection bias in argument", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses selection bias in argument with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 155, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 155, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sample_size_neglect_canonical", + "name": "Sample size neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Sample size neglect: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Ignoring whether the amount of evidence is sufficient for the inference.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Sample size neglect: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Ignoring whether the amount of evidence is sufficient for the inference.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sample size neglect", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sample size neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 156, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 156, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "unrepresentative_sample_canonical", + "name": "Unrepresentative sample", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Unrepresentative sample: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Using a sample that does not plausibly represent the target population.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Unrepresentative sample: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Using a sample that does not plausibly represent the target population.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Unrepresentative sample", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses unrepresentative sample with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 157, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 157, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "survivorship_bias_canonical", + "name": "Survivorship bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Survivorship bias: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Focusing on visible successes or survivors while ignoring missing failures.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Survivorship bias: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Focusing on visible successes or survivors while ignoring missing failures.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Survivorship bias", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses survivorship bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 158, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 158, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "publication_bias_argument_canonical", + "name": "Publication bias as evidence issue", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Publication bias as evidence issue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Relying on published evidence without considering selective publication.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Publication bias as evidence issue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Relying on published evidence without considering selective publication.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Publication bias as evidence issue", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses publication bias as evidence issue with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 159, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 159, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "missing_counterevidence_canonical", + "name": "Missing counterevidence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing counterevidence: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Presenting a conclusion without acknowledging known counterarguments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing counterevidence: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Presenting a conclusion without acknowledging known counterarguments.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Missing counterevidence", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses missing counterevidence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 160, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 160, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "one_sided_evidence_canonical", + "name": "One-sided evidence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under One-sided evidence: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Presenting evidence from only one side while implying completeness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under One-sided evidence: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Presenting evidence from only one side while implying completeness.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for One-sided evidence", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses one-sided evidence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 161, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 161, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "misleading_precision_canonical", + "name": "Misleading precision", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Misleading precision: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Using overly precise numbers that imply certainty not supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Misleading precision: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Using overly precise numbers that imply certainty not supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Misleading precision", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses misleading precision with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 162, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 162, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "measurement_validity_gap_canonical", + "name": "Measurement validity gap", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Measurement validity gap: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Treating a weak measure as if it directly captures the intended construct.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Measurement validity gap: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Treating a weak measure as if it directly captures the intended construct.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Measurement validity gap", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses measurement validity gap with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 163, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 163, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "proxy_mismatch_canonical", + "name": "Proxy mismatch", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Proxy mismatch: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Using a proxy variable while overstating its relevance to the claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Proxy mismatch: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Using a proxy variable while overstating its relevance to the claim.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Proxy mismatch", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses proxy mismatch with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 164, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 164, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "construct_validity_gap_canonical", + "name": "Construct validity gap", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Construct validity gap: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Drawing conclusions about a construct not adequately measured by the evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Construct validity gap: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Drawing conclusions about a construct not adequately measured by the evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Construct validity gap", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses construct validity gap with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 165, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 165, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ecological_fallacy_canonical", + "name": "Ecological fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Ecological fallacy: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Inferring individual-level conclusions from aggregate-level data.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Ecological fallacy: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Inferring individual-level conclusions from aggregate-level data.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Ecological fallacy", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses ecological fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 166, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 166, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "atomistic_fallacy_canonical", + "name": "Atomistic fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Atomistic fallacy: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Inferring group-level conclusions from individual-level observations.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Atomistic fallacy: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Inferring group-level conclusions from individual-level observations.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Atomistic fallacy", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses atomistic fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 167, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 167, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "omitted_variable_bias_argument_canonical", + "name": "Omitted-variable reasoning gap", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Omitted-variable reasoning gap: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Ignoring plausible omitted factors that could explain the observed pattern.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Omitted-variable reasoning gap: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Ignoring plausible omitted factors that could explain the observed pattern.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Omitted-variable reasoning gap", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses omitted-variable reasoning gap with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 168, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 168, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "confounding_ignored_canonical", + "name": "Ignored confounding", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Ignored confounding: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Treating an association as direct while ignoring confounding factors.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Ignored confounding: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Treating an association as direct while ignoring confounding factors.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Ignored confounding", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses ignored confounding with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 169, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 169, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "noncomparable_groups_canonical", + "name": "Non-comparable groups", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Non-comparable groups: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Comparing groups that differ in ways relevant to the claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Non-comparable groups: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Comparing groups that differ in ways relevant to the claim.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Non-comparable groups", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses non-comparable groups with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 170, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 170, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "uncontrolled_comparison_canonical", + "name": "Uncontrolled comparison", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Uncontrolled comparison: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Drawing a strong conclusion from comparisons without controls or caveats.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Uncontrolled comparison: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Drawing a strong conclusion from comparisons without controls or caveats.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Uncontrolled comparison", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses uncontrolled comparison with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 171, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 171, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "causality_without_design_canonical", + "name": "Causal claim without causal design", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "causal_reasoning_error", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Causal claim without causal design: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Making causal claims without design or evidence suited to causal inference.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Causal claim without causal design: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Making causal claims without design or evidence suited to causal inference.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Causal claim without causal design", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses causal claim without causal design with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "post_hoc", + "cum_hoc", + "alternative_explanation_neglect" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 172, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 172, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "temporal_misalignment_canonical", + "name": "Temporal misalignment", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Temporal misalignment: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Using evidence from a time frame that does not match the claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Temporal misalignment: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Using evidence from a time frame that does not match the claim.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Temporal misalignment", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses temporal misalignment with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 173, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 173, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "data_dredging_canonical", + "name": "Data dredging", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Data dredging: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Searching many patterns and presenting selected ones as planned evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Data dredging: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Searching many patterns and presenting selected ones as planned evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Data dredging", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses data dredging with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 174, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 174, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "multiple_comparisons_ignored_canonical", + "name": "Multiple comparisons ignored", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Multiple comparisons ignored: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Drawing a conclusion from many tested comparisons without adjustment or caveat.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Multiple comparisons ignored: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Drawing a conclusion from many tested comparisons without adjustment or caveat.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Multiple comparisons ignored", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses multiple comparisons ignored with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 175, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 175, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "outlier_overweighting_canonical", + "name": "Outlier overweighting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Outlier overweighting: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Treating exceptional observations as representative without justification.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Outlier overweighting: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Treating exceptional observations as representative without justification.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Outlier overweighting", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses outlier overweighting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 176, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 176, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "availability_of_evidence_bias_canonical", + "name": "Availability of evidence bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability of evidence bias: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Treating easy-to-find evidence as if it were complete evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability of evidence bias: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Treating easy-to-find evidence as if it were complete evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Availability of evidence bias", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses availability of evidence bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 177, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 177, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "citation_without_relevance_canonical", + "name": "Citation without relevance", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Citation without relevance: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Citing a source that does not support the specific claim made.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Citation without relevance: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Citing a source that does not support the specific claim made.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Citation without relevance", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses citation without relevance with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 178, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 178, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "quote_mining_evidence_canonical", + "name": "Quote mining as evidence failure", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Quote mining as evidence failure: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Extracting a quote in a way that changes its evidential meaning.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Quote mining as evidence failure: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Extracting a quote in a way that changes its evidential meaning.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Quote mining as evidence failure", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses quote mining as evidence failure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 179, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 179, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "evidence_quality_mismatch_canonical", + "name": "Evidence-quality mismatch", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Evidence-quality mismatch: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Drawing high-strength conclusions from low-strength evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Evidence-quality mismatch: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Drawing high-strength conclusions from low-strength evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Evidence-quality mismatch", + "variant cue: evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is mishandled in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses evidence-quality mismatch with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 180, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 180, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "cherry_picking_missing_context", + "name": "Cherry picking", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Cherry picking: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Selecting supportive evidence while ignoring relevant counterevidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Cherry picking: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Selecting supportive evidence while ignoring relevant counterevidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Cherry picking", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses cherry picking with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 181, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 181, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "suppressed_evidence_missing_context", + "name": "Suppressed evidence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Suppressed evidence: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Omitting relevant evidence that would materially change the conclusion.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Suppressed evidence: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Omitting relevant evidence that would materially change the conclusion.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Suppressed evidence", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses suppressed evidence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 182, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 182, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "anecdotal_evidence_missing_context", + "name": "Anecdotal evidence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Anecdotal evidence: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Using isolated stories as if they establish a general claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Anecdotal evidence: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Using isolated stories as if they establish a general claim.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Anecdotal evidence", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses anecdotal evidence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 183, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 183, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "selection_bias_argument_missing_context", + "name": "Selection bias in argument", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Selection bias in argument: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Basing a conclusion on a sample selected in a systematically distorted way.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Selection bias in argument: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Basing a conclusion on a sample selected in a systematically distorted way.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Selection bias in argument", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses selection bias in argument with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 184, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 184, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sample_size_neglect_missing_context", + "name": "Sample size neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Sample size neglect: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Ignoring whether the amount of evidence is sufficient for the inference.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Sample size neglect: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Ignoring whether the amount of evidence is sufficient for the inference.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sample size neglect", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sample size neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 185, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 185, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "unrepresentative_sample_missing_context", + "name": "Unrepresentative sample", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Unrepresentative sample: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Using a sample that does not plausibly represent the target population.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Unrepresentative sample: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Using a sample that does not plausibly represent the target population.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Unrepresentative sample", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses unrepresentative sample with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 186, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 186, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "survivorship_bias_missing_context", + "name": "Survivorship bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Survivorship bias: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Focusing on visible successes or survivors while ignoring missing failures.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Survivorship bias: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Focusing on visible successes or survivors while ignoring missing failures.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Survivorship bias", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses survivorship bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 187, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 187, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "publication_bias_argument_missing_context", + "name": "Publication bias as evidence issue", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Publication bias as evidence issue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Relying on published evidence without considering selective publication.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Publication bias as evidence issue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Relying on published evidence without considering selective publication.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Publication bias as evidence issue", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses publication bias as evidence issue with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 188, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 188, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "missing_counterevidence_missing_context", + "name": "Missing counterevidence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing counterevidence: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Presenting a conclusion without acknowledging known counterarguments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing counterevidence: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Presenting a conclusion without acknowledging known counterarguments.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Missing counterevidence", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses missing counterevidence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 189, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 189, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "one_sided_evidence_missing_context", + "name": "One-sided evidence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under One-sided evidence: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Presenting evidence from only one side while implying completeness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under One-sided evidence: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Presenting evidence from only one side while implying completeness.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for One-sided evidence", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses one-sided evidence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 190, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 190, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "misleading_precision_missing_context", + "name": "Misleading precision", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Misleading precision: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Using overly precise numbers that imply certainty not supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Misleading precision: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Using overly precise numbers that imply certainty not supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Misleading precision", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses misleading precision with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 191, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 191, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "measurement_validity_gap_missing_context", + "name": "Measurement validity gap", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Measurement validity gap: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Treating a weak measure as if it directly captures the intended construct.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Measurement validity gap: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Treating a weak measure as if it directly captures the intended construct.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Measurement validity gap", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses measurement validity gap with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 192, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 192, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "proxy_mismatch_missing_context", + "name": "Proxy mismatch", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Proxy mismatch: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Using a proxy variable while overstating its relevance to the claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Proxy mismatch: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Using a proxy variable while overstating its relevance to the claim.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Proxy mismatch", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses proxy mismatch with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 193, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 193, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "construct_validity_gap_missing_context", + "name": "Construct validity gap", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Construct validity gap: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Drawing conclusions about a construct not adequately measured by the evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Construct validity gap: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Drawing conclusions about a construct not adequately measured by the evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Construct validity gap", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses construct validity gap with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 194, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 194, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ecological_fallacy_missing_context", + "name": "Ecological fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Ecological fallacy: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Inferring individual-level conclusions from aggregate-level data.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Ecological fallacy: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Inferring individual-level conclusions from aggregate-level data.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Ecological fallacy", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses ecological fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 195, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 195, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "atomistic_fallacy_missing_context", + "name": "Atomistic fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Atomistic fallacy: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Inferring group-level conclusions from individual-level observations.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Atomistic fallacy: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Inferring group-level conclusions from individual-level observations.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Atomistic fallacy", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses atomistic fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 196, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 196, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "omitted_variable_bias_argument_missing_context", + "name": "Omitted-variable reasoning gap", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Omitted-variable reasoning gap: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Ignoring plausible omitted factors that could explain the observed pattern.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Omitted-variable reasoning gap: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Ignoring plausible omitted factors that could explain the observed pattern.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Omitted-variable reasoning gap", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses omitted-variable reasoning gap with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 197, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 197, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "confounding_ignored_missing_context", + "name": "Ignored confounding", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Ignored confounding: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Treating an association as direct while ignoring confounding factors.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Ignored confounding: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Treating an association as direct while ignoring confounding factors.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Ignored confounding", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses ignored confounding with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 198, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 198, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "noncomparable_groups_missing_context", + "name": "Non-comparable groups", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Non-comparable groups: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Comparing groups that differ in ways relevant to the claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Non-comparable groups: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Comparing groups that differ in ways relevant to the claim.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Non-comparable groups", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses non-comparable groups with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 199, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 199, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "uncontrolled_comparison_missing_context", + "name": "Uncontrolled comparison", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Uncontrolled comparison: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Drawing a strong conclusion from comparisons without controls or caveats.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Uncontrolled comparison: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Drawing a strong conclusion from comparisons without controls or caveats.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Uncontrolled comparison", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses uncontrolled comparison with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 200, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 200, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "causality_without_design_missing_context", + "name": "Causal claim without causal design", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "causal_reasoning_error", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Causal claim without causal design: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Making causal claims without design or evidence suited to causal inference.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Causal claim without causal design: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Making causal claims without design or evidence suited to causal inference.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Causal claim without causal design", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses causal claim without causal design with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "post_hoc", + "cum_hoc", + "alternative_explanation_neglect" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 201, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 201, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "temporal_misalignment_missing_context", + "name": "Temporal misalignment", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Temporal misalignment: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Using evidence from a time frame that does not match the claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Temporal misalignment: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Using evidence from a time frame that does not match the claim.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Temporal misalignment", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses temporal misalignment with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 202, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 202, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "data_dredging_missing_context", + "name": "Data dredging", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Data dredging: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Searching many patterns and presenting selected ones as planned evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Data dredging: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Searching many patterns and presenting selected ones as planned evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Data dredging", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses data dredging with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 203, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 203, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "multiple_comparisons_ignored_missing_context", + "name": "Multiple comparisons ignored", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Multiple comparisons ignored: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Drawing a conclusion from many tested comparisons without adjustment or caveat.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Multiple comparisons ignored: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Drawing a conclusion from many tested comparisons without adjustment or caveat.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Multiple comparisons ignored", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses multiple comparisons ignored with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 204, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 204, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "outlier_overweighting_missing_context", + "name": "Outlier overweighting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Outlier overweighting: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Treating exceptional observations as representative without justification.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Outlier overweighting: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Treating exceptional observations as representative without justification.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Outlier overweighting", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses outlier overweighting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 205, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 205, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "availability_of_evidence_bias_missing_context", + "name": "Availability of evidence bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability of evidence bias: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Treating easy-to-find evidence as if it were complete evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability of evidence bias: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Treating easy-to-find evidence as if it were complete evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Availability of evidence bias", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses availability of evidence bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 206, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 206, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "citation_without_relevance_missing_context", + "name": "Citation without relevance", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Citation without relevance: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Citing a source that does not support the specific claim made.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Citation without relevance: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Citing a source that does not support the specific claim made.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Citation without relevance", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses citation without relevance with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 207, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 207, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "quote_mining_evidence_missing_context", + "name": "Quote mining as evidence failure", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Quote mining as evidence failure: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Extracting a quote in a way that changes its evidential meaning.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Quote mining as evidence failure: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Extracting a quote in a way that changes its evidential meaning.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Quote mining as evidence failure", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses quote mining as evidence failure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 208, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 208, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "evidence_quality_mismatch_missing_context", + "name": "Evidence-quality mismatch", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Evidence-quality mismatch: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Drawing high-strength conclusions from low-strength evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Evidence-quality mismatch: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent. Parent definition: Drawing high-strength conclusions from low-strength evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Evidence-quality mismatch", + "variant cue: context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on context needed to evaluate the evidence is absent to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses evidence-quality mismatch with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 209, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 209, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "cherry_picking_sample_problem", + "name": "Cherry picking", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Cherry picking: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Selecting supportive evidence while ignoring relevant counterevidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Cherry picking: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Selecting supportive evidence while ignoring relevant counterevidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Cherry picking", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses cherry picking with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 210, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 210, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "suppressed_evidence_sample_problem", + "name": "Suppressed evidence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Suppressed evidence: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Omitting relevant evidence that would materially change the conclusion.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Suppressed evidence: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Omitting relevant evidence that would materially change the conclusion.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Suppressed evidence", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses suppressed evidence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 211, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 211, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "anecdotal_evidence_sample_problem", + "name": "Anecdotal evidence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Anecdotal evidence: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Using isolated stories as if they establish a general claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Anecdotal evidence: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Using isolated stories as if they establish a general claim.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Anecdotal evidence", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses anecdotal evidence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 212, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 212, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "selection_bias_argument_sample_problem", + "name": "Selection bias in argument", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Selection bias in argument: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Basing a conclusion on a sample selected in a systematically distorted way.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Selection bias in argument: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Basing a conclusion on a sample selected in a systematically distorted way.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Selection bias in argument", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses selection bias in argument with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 213, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 213, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sample_size_neglect_sample_problem", + "name": "Sample size neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Sample size neglect: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Ignoring whether the amount of evidence is sufficient for the inference.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Sample size neglect: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Ignoring whether the amount of evidence is sufficient for the inference.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sample size neglect", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sample size neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 214, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 214, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "unrepresentative_sample_sample_problem", + "name": "Unrepresentative sample", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Unrepresentative sample: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Using a sample that does not plausibly represent the target population.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Unrepresentative sample: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Using a sample that does not plausibly represent the target population.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Unrepresentative sample", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses unrepresentative sample with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 215, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 215, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "survivorship_bias_sample_problem", + "name": "Survivorship bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Survivorship bias: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Focusing on visible successes or survivors while ignoring missing failures.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Survivorship bias: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Focusing on visible successes or survivors while ignoring missing failures.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Survivorship bias", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses survivorship bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 216, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 216, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "publication_bias_argument_sample_problem", + "name": "Publication bias as evidence issue", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Publication bias as evidence issue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Relying on published evidence without considering selective publication.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Publication bias as evidence issue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Relying on published evidence without considering selective publication.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Publication bias as evidence issue", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses publication bias as evidence issue with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 217, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 217, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "missing_counterevidence_sample_problem", + "name": "Missing counterevidence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing counterevidence: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Presenting a conclusion without acknowledging known counterarguments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing counterevidence: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Presenting a conclusion without acknowledging known counterarguments.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Missing counterevidence", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses missing counterevidence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 218, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 218, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "one_sided_evidence_sample_problem", + "name": "One-sided evidence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under One-sided evidence: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Presenting evidence from only one side while implying completeness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under One-sided evidence: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Presenting evidence from only one side while implying completeness.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for One-sided evidence", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses one-sided evidence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 219, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 219, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "misleading_precision_sample_problem", + "name": "Misleading precision", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Misleading precision: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Using overly precise numbers that imply certainty not supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Misleading precision: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Using overly precise numbers that imply certainty not supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Misleading precision", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses misleading precision with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 220, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 220, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "measurement_validity_gap_sample_problem", + "name": "Measurement validity gap", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Measurement validity gap: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Treating a weak measure as if it directly captures the intended construct.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Measurement validity gap: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Treating a weak measure as if it directly captures the intended construct.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Measurement validity gap", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses measurement validity gap with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 221, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 221, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "proxy_mismatch_sample_problem", + "name": "Proxy mismatch", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Proxy mismatch: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Using a proxy variable while overstating its relevance to the claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Proxy mismatch: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Using a proxy variable while overstating its relevance to the claim.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Proxy mismatch", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses proxy mismatch with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 222, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 222, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "construct_validity_gap_sample_problem", + "name": "Construct validity gap", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Construct validity gap: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Drawing conclusions about a construct not adequately measured by the evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Construct validity gap: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Drawing conclusions about a construct not adequately measured by the evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Construct validity gap", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses construct validity gap with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 223, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 223, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ecological_fallacy_sample_problem", + "name": "Ecological fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Ecological fallacy: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Inferring individual-level conclusions from aggregate-level data.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Ecological fallacy: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Inferring individual-level conclusions from aggregate-level data.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Ecological fallacy", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses ecological fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 224, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 224, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "atomistic_fallacy_sample_problem", + "name": "Atomistic fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Atomistic fallacy: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Inferring group-level conclusions from individual-level observations.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Atomistic fallacy: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Inferring group-level conclusions from individual-level observations.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Atomistic fallacy", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses atomistic fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 225, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 225, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "omitted_variable_bias_argument_sample_problem", + "name": "Omitted-variable reasoning gap", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Omitted-variable reasoning gap: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Ignoring plausible omitted factors that could explain the observed pattern.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Omitted-variable reasoning gap: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Ignoring plausible omitted factors that could explain the observed pattern.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Omitted-variable reasoning gap", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses omitted-variable reasoning gap with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 226, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 226, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "confounding_ignored_sample_problem", + "name": "Ignored confounding", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Ignored confounding: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Treating an association as direct while ignoring confounding factors.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Ignored confounding: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Treating an association as direct while ignoring confounding factors.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Ignored confounding", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses ignored confounding with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 227, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 227, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "noncomparable_groups_sample_problem", + "name": "Non-comparable groups", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Non-comparable groups: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Comparing groups that differ in ways relevant to the claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Non-comparable groups: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Comparing groups that differ in ways relevant to the claim.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Non-comparable groups", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses non-comparable groups with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 228, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 228, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "uncontrolled_comparison_sample_problem", + "name": "Uncontrolled comparison", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Uncontrolled comparison: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Drawing a strong conclusion from comparisons without controls or caveats.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Uncontrolled comparison: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Drawing a strong conclusion from comparisons without controls or caveats.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Uncontrolled comparison", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses uncontrolled comparison with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 229, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 229, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "causality_without_design_sample_problem", + "name": "Causal claim without causal design", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "causal_reasoning_error", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Causal claim without causal design: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Making causal claims without design or evidence suited to causal inference.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Causal claim without causal design: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Making causal claims without design or evidence suited to causal inference.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Causal claim without causal design", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses causal claim without causal design with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "post_hoc", + "cum_hoc", + "alternative_explanation_neglect" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 230, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 230, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "temporal_misalignment_sample_problem", + "name": "Temporal misalignment", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Temporal misalignment: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Using evidence from a time frame that does not match the claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Temporal misalignment: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Using evidence from a time frame that does not match the claim.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Temporal misalignment", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses temporal misalignment with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 231, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 231, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "data_dredging_sample_problem", + "name": "Data dredging", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Data dredging: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Searching many patterns and presenting selected ones as planned evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Data dredging: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Searching many patterns and presenting selected ones as planned evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Data dredging", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses data dredging with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 232, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 232, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "multiple_comparisons_ignored_sample_problem", + "name": "Multiple comparisons ignored", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Multiple comparisons ignored: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Drawing a conclusion from many tested comparisons without adjustment or caveat.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Multiple comparisons ignored: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Drawing a conclusion from many tested comparisons without adjustment or caveat.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Multiple comparisons ignored", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses multiple comparisons ignored with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 233, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 233, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "outlier_overweighting_sample_problem", + "name": "Outlier overweighting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Outlier overweighting: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Treating exceptional observations as representative without justification.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Outlier overweighting: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Treating exceptional observations as representative without justification.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Outlier overweighting", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses outlier overweighting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 234, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 234, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "availability_of_evidence_bias_sample_problem", + "name": "Availability of evidence bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability of evidence bias: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Treating easy-to-find evidence as if it were complete evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability of evidence bias: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Treating easy-to-find evidence as if it were complete evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Availability of evidence bias", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses availability of evidence bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 235, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 235, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "citation_without_relevance_sample_problem", + "name": "Citation without relevance", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Citation without relevance: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Citing a source that does not support the specific claim made.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Citation without relevance: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Citing a source that does not support the specific claim made.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Citation without relevance", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses citation without relevance with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 236, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 236, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "quote_mining_evidence_sample_problem", + "name": "Quote mining as evidence failure", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Quote mining as evidence failure: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Extracting a quote in a way that changes its evidential meaning.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Quote mining as evidence failure: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Extracting a quote in a way that changes its evidential meaning.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Quote mining as evidence failure", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses quote mining as evidence failure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 237, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 237, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "evidence_quality_mismatch_sample_problem", + "name": "Evidence-quality mismatch", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Evidence-quality mismatch: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Drawing high-strength conclusions from low-strength evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Evidence-quality mismatch: sample, selection, or representativeness is central. Parent definition: Drawing high-strength conclusions from low-strength evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Evidence-quality mismatch", + "variant cue: sample, selection, or representativeness is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on sample, selection, or representativeness is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses evidence-quality mismatch with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 238, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 238, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "cherry_picking_measurement_problem", + "name": "Cherry picking", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Cherry picking: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Selecting supportive evidence while ignoring relevant counterevidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Cherry picking: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Selecting supportive evidence while ignoring relevant counterevidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Cherry picking", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses cherry picking with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 239, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 239, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "suppressed_evidence_measurement_problem", + "name": "Suppressed evidence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Suppressed evidence: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Omitting relevant evidence that would materially change the conclusion.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Suppressed evidence: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Omitting relevant evidence that would materially change the conclusion.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Suppressed evidence", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses suppressed evidence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 240, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 240, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "anecdotal_evidence_measurement_problem", + "name": "Anecdotal evidence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Anecdotal evidence: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Using isolated stories as if they establish a general claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Anecdotal evidence: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Using isolated stories as if they establish a general claim.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Anecdotal evidence", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses anecdotal evidence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 241, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 241, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "selection_bias_argument_measurement_problem", + "name": "Selection bias in argument", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Selection bias in argument: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Basing a conclusion on a sample selected in a systematically distorted way.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Selection bias in argument: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Basing a conclusion on a sample selected in a systematically distorted way.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Selection bias in argument", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses selection bias in argument with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 242, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 242, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sample_size_neglect_measurement_problem", + "name": "Sample size neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Sample size neglect: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Ignoring whether the amount of evidence is sufficient for the inference.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Sample size neglect: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Ignoring whether the amount of evidence is sufficient for the inference.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sample size neglect", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sample size neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 243, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 243, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "unrepresentative_sample_measurement_problem", + "name": "Unrepresentative sample", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Unrepresentative sample: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Using a sample that does not plausibly represent the target population.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Unrepresentative sample: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Using a sample that does not plausibly represent the target population.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Unrepresentative sample", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses unrepresentative sample with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 244, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 244, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "survivorship_bias_measurement_problem", + "name": "Survivorship bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Survivorship bias: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Focusing on visible successes or survivors while ignoring missing failures.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Survivorship bias: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Focusing on visible successes or survivors while ignoring missing failures.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Survivorship bias", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses survivorship bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 245, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 245, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "publication_bias_argument_measurement_problem", + "name": "Publication bias as evidence issue", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Publication bias as evidence issue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Relying on published evidence without considering selective publication.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Publication bias as evidence issue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Relying on published evidence without considering selective publication.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Publication bias as evidence issue", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses publication bias as evidence issue with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 246, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 246, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "missing_counterevidence_measurement_problem", + "name": "Missing counterevidence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing counterevidence: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Presenting a conclusion without acknowledging known counterarguments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing counterevidence: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Presenting a conclusion without acknowledging known counterarguments.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Missing counterevidence", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses missing counterevidence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 247, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 247, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "one_sided_evidence_measurement_problem", + "name": "One-sided evidence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under One-sided evidence: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Presenting evidence from only one side while implying completeness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under One-sided evidence: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Presenting evidence from only one side while implying completeness.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for One-sided evidence", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses one-sided evidence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 248, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 248, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "misleading_precision_measurement_problem", + "name": "Misleading precision", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Misleading precision: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Using overly precise numbers that imply certainty not supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Misleading precision: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Using overly precise numbers that imply certainty not supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Misleading precision", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses misleading precision with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 249, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 249, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "measurement_validity_gap_measurement_problem", + "name": "Measurement validity gap", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Measurement validity gap: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Treating a weak measure as if it directly captures the intended construct.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Measurement validity gap: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Treating a weak measure as if it directly captures the intended construct.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Measurement validity gap", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses measurement validity gap with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 250, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 250, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "proxy_mismatch_measurement_problem", + "name": "Proxy mismatch", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Proxy mismatch: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Using a proxy variable while overstating its relevance to the claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Proxy mismatch: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Using a proxy variable while overstating its relevance to the claim.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Proxy mismatch", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses proxy mismatch with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 251, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 251, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "construct_validity_gap_measurement_problem", + "name": "Construct validity gap", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Construct validity gap: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Drawing conclusions about a construct not adequately measured by the evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Construct validity gap: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Drawing conclusions about a construct not adequately measured by the evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Construct validity gap", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses construct validity gap with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 252, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 252, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ecological_fallacy_measurement_problem", + "name": "Ecological fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Ecological fallacy: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Inferring individual-level conclusions from aggregate-level data.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Ecological fallacy: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Inferring individual-level conclusions from aggregate-level data.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Ecological fallacy", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses ecological fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 253, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 253, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "atomistic_fallacy_measurement_problem", + "name": "Atomistic fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Atomistic fallacy: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Inferring group-level conclusions from individual-level observations.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Atomistic fallacy: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Inferring group-level conclusions from individual-level observations.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Atomistic fallacy", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses atomistic fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 254, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 254, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "omitted_variable_bias_argument_measurement_problem", + "name": "Omitted-variable reasoning gap", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Omitted-variable reasoning gap: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Ignoring plausible omitted factors that could explain the observed pattern.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Omitted-variable reasoning gap: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Ignoring plausible omitted factors that could explain the observed pattern.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Omitted-variable reasoning gap", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses omitted-variable reasoning gap with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 255, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 255, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "confounding_ignored_measurement_problem", + "name": "Ignored confounding", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Ignored confounding: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Treating an association as direct while ignoring confounding factors.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Ignored confounding: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Treating an association as direct while ignoring confounding factors.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Ignored confounding", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses ignored confounding with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 256, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 256, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "noncomparable_groups_measurement_problem", + "name": "Non-comparable groups", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Non-comparable groups: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Comparing groups that differ in ways relevant to the claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Non-comparable groups: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Comparing groups that differ in ways relevant to the claim.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Non-comparable groups", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses non-comparable groups with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 257, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 257, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "uncontrolled_comparison_measurement_problem", + "name": "Uncontrolled comparison", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Uncontrolled comparison: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Drawing a strong conclusion from comparisons without controls or caveats.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Uncontrolled comparison: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Drawing a strong conclusion from comparisons without controls or caveats.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Uncontrolled comparison", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses uncontrolled comparison with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 258, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 258, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "causality_without_design_measurement_problem", + "name": "Causal claim without causal design", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "causal_reasoning_error", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Causal claim without causal design: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Making causal claims without design or evidence suited to causal inference.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Causal claim without causal design: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Making causal claims without design or evidence suited to causal inference.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Causal claim without causal design", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses causal claim without causal design with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "post_hoc", + "cum_hoc", + "alternative_explanation_neglect" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 259, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 259, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "temporal_misalignment_measurement_problem", + "name": "Temporal misalignment", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Temporal misalignment: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Using evidence from a time frame that does not match the claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Temporal misalignment: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Using evidence from a time frame that does not match the claim.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Temporal misalignment", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses temporal misalignment with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 260, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 260, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "data_dredging_measurement_problem", + "name": "Data dredging", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Data dredging: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Searching many patterns and presenting selected ones as planned evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Data dredging: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Searching many patterns and presenting selected ones as planned evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Data dredging", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses data dredging with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 261, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 261, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "multiple_comparisons_ignored_measurement_problem", + "name": "Multiple comparisons ignored", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Multiple comparisons ignored: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Drawing a conclusion from many tested comparisons without adjustment or caveat.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Multiple comparisons ignored: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Drawing a conclusion from many tested comparisons without adjustment or caveat.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Multiple comparisons ignored", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses multiple comparisons ignored with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 262, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 262, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "outlier_overweighting_measurement_problem", + "name": "Outlier overweighting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Outlier overweighting: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Treating exceptional observations as representative without justification.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Outlier overweighting: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Treating exceptional observations as representative without justification.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Outlier overweighting", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses outlier overweighting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 263, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 263, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "availability_of_evidence_bias_measurement_problem", + "name": "Availability of evidence bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability of evidence bias: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Treating easy-to-find evidence as if it were complete evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability of evidence bias: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Treating easy-to-find evidence as if it were complete evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Availability of evidence bias", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses availability of evidence bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 264, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 264, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "citation_without_relevance_measurement_problem", + "name": "Citation without relevance", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Citation without relevance: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Citing a source that does not support the specific claim made.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Citation without relevance: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Citing a source that does not support the specific claim made.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Citation without relevance", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses citation without relevance with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 265, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 265, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "quote_mining_evidence_measurement_problem", + "name": "Quote mining as evidence failure", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Quote mining as evidence failure: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Extracting a quote in a way that changes its evidential meaning.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Quote mining as evidence failure: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Extracting a quote in a way that changes its evidential meaning.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Quote mining as evidence failure", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses quote mining as evidence failure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 266, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 266, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "evidence_quality_mismatch_measurement_problem", + "name": "Evidence-quality mismatch", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Evidence-quality mismatch: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Drawing high-strength conclusions from low-strength evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Evidence-quality mismatch: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well. Parent definition: Drawing high-strength conclusions from low-strength evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Evidence-quality mismatch", + "variant cue: the evidence does not measure the intended construct well", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the evidence does not measure the intended construct well to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses evidence-quality mismatch with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 267, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 267, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "cherry_picking_counterevidence_omission", + "name": "Cherry picking", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Cherry picking: relevant contrary evidence is not acknowledged. Parent definition: Selecting supportive evidence while ignoring relevant counterevidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Cherry picking: relevant contrary evidence is not acknowledged. Parent definition: Selecting supportive evidence while ignoring relevant counterevidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Cherry picking", + "variant cue: relevant contrary evidence is not acknowledged", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on relevant contrary evidence is not acknowledged to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses cherry picking with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 268, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 268, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "suppressed_evidence_counterevidence_omission", + "name": "Suppressed evidence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Suppressed evidence: relevant contrary evidence is not acknowledged. Parent definition: Omitting relevant evidence that would materially change the conclusion.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Suppressed evidence: relevant contrary evidence is not acknowledged. Parent definition: Omitting relevant evidence that would materially change the conclusion.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Suppressed evidence", + "variant cue: relevant contrary evidence is not acknowledged", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on relevant contrary evidence is not acknowledged to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses suppressed evidence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 269, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 269, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "anecdotal_evidence_counterevidence_omission", + "name": "Anecdotal evidence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Anecdotal evidence: relevant contrary evidence is not acknowledged. Parent definition: Using isolated stories as if they establish a general claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Anecdotal evidence: relevant contrary evidence is not acknowledged. Parent definition: Using isolated stories as if they establish a general claim.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Anecdotal evidence", + "variant cue: relevant contrary evidence is not acknowledged", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on relevant contrary evidence is not acknowledged to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses anecdotal evidence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 270, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 270, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "selection_bias_argument_counterevidence_omission", + "name": "Selection bias in argument", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Selection bias in argument: relevant contrary evidence is not acknowledged. Parent definition: Basing a conclusion on a sample selected in a systematically distorted way.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Selection bias in argument: relevant contrary evidence is not acknowledged. Parent definition: Basing a conclusion on a sample selected in a systematically distorted way.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Selection bias in argument", + "variant cue: relevant contrary evidence is not acknowledged", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on relevant contrary evidence is not acknowledged to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses selection bias in argument with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 271, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 271, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "base_rate_neglect_canonical", + "name": "Base-rate neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Base-rate neglect: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Ignoring general statistical prevalence when judging a specific case.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Base-rate neglect: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Ignoring general statistical prevalence when judging a specific case.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Base-rate neglect", + "variant cue: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on probability is misread in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses base-rate neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 272, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 272, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "conjunction_fallacy_canonical", + "name": "Conjunction fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Conjunction fallacy: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Judging a conjunction as more probable than one of its components.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Conjunction fallacy: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Judging a conjunction as more probable than one of its components.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Conjunction fallacy", + "variant cue: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on probability is misread in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses conjunction fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 273, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 273, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "gambler_fallacy_canonical", + "name": "Gambler's fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Gambler's fallacy: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Expecting random outcomes to self-correct over short sequences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Gambler's fallacy: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Expecting random outcomes to self-correct over short sequences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Gambler's fallacy", + "variant cue: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on probability is misread in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses gambler's fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 274, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 274, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "hot_hand_fallacy_canonical", + "name": "Hot-hand fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Hot-hand fallacy: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Inferring persistent streak-based ability from random or noisy sequences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Hot-hand fallacy: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Inferring persistent streak-based ability from random or noisy sequences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Hot-hand fallacy", + "variant cue: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on probability is misread in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses hot-hand fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 275, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 275, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "regression_to_mean_neglect_canonical", + "name": "Regression-to-mean neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Regression-to-mean neglect: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Explaining natural reversion as if it were caused by an intervention.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Regression-to-mean neglect: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Explaining natural reversion as if it were caused by an intervention.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Regression-to-mean neglect", + "variant cue: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on probability is misread in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses regression-to-mean neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 276, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 276, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "inverse_probability_error_canonical", + "name": "Inverse probability error", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Inverse probability error: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Confusing P(A|B) with P(B|A).", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Inverse probability error: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Confusing P(A|B) with P(B|A).", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Inverse probability error", + "variant cue: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on probability is misread in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses inverse probability error with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 277, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 277, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "prosecutor_fallacy_canonical", + "name": "Prosecutor's fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Prosecutor's fallacy: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Overstating evidential strength by confusing match probability with guilt probability.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Prosecutor's fallacy: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Overstating evidential strength by confusing match probability with guilt probability.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Prosecutor's fallacy", + "variant cue: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on probability is misread in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses prosecutor's fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 278, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 278, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "denominator_neglect_canonical", + "name": "Denominator neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Denominator neglect: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Focusing on counts while ignoring the denominator or exposure base.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Denominator neglect: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Focusing on counts while ignoring the denominator or exposure base.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Denominator neglect", + "variant cue: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on probability is misread in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses denominator neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 279, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 279, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "law_of_small_numbers_canonical", + "name": "Law of small numbers", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Law of small numbers: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Expecting small samples to resemble the population too closely.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Law of small numbers: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Expecting small samples to resemble the population too closely.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Law of small numbers", + "variant cue: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on probability is misread in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses law of small numbers with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 280, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 280, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sample_space_confusion_canonical", + "name": "Sample-space confusion", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Sample-space confusion: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Reasoning about probabilities without specifying the relevant outcome space.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Sample-space confusion: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Reasoning about probabilities without specifying the relevant outcome space.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sample-space confusion", + "variant cue: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on probability is misread in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sample-space confusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 281, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 281, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "risk_ratio_absolute_risk_confusion_canonical", + "name": "Relative vs absolute risk confusion", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Relative vs absolute risk confusion: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Using relative change while hiding absolute magnitude.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Relative vs absolute risk confusion: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Using relative change while hiding absolute magnitude.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Relative vs absolute risk confusion", + "variant cue: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on probability is misread in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses relative vs absolute risk confusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 282, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 282, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "expected_value_neglect_canonical", + "name": "Expected-value neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Expected-value neglect: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Focusing on salient outcomes while ignoring probability-weighted value.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Expected-value neglect: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Focusing on salient outcomes while ignoring probability-weighted value.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Expected-value neglect", + "variant cue: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on probability is misread in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses expected-value neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 283, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 283, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "tail_risk_neglect_canonical", + "name": "Tail-risk neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Tail-risk neglect: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Ignoring low-probability but high-impact outcomes when relevant.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Tail-risk neglect: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Ignoring low-probability but high-impact outcomes when relevant.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Tail-risk neglect", + "variant cue: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on probability is misread in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses tail-risk neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 284, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 284, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "rare_event_overweighting_canonical", + "name": "Rare-event overweighting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Rare-event overweighting: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Overweighting rare events due to salience or vividness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Rare-event overweighting: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Overweighting rare events due to salience or vividness.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Rare-event overweighting", + "variant cue: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on probability is misread in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses rare-event overweighting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 285, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 285, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "normalcy_bias_probability_canonical", + "name": "Normalcy bias in risk", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Normalcy bias in risk: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Assuming adverse outcomes are unlikely because they have not recently occurred.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Normalcy bias in risk: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Assuming adverse outcomes are unlikely because they have not recently occurred.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Normalcy bias in risk", + "variant cue: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on probability is misread in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses normalcy bias in risk with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 286, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 286, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "certainty_effect_canonical", + "name": "Certainty effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Certainty effect: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Overvaluing certain outcomes relative to merely probable outcomes.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Certainty effect: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Overvaluing certain outcomes relative to merely probable outcomes.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Certainty effect", + "variant cue: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on probability is misread in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses certainty effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 287, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 287, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "pseudocertainty_effect_canonical", + "name": "Pseudocertainty effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Pseudocertainty effect: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Treating an uncertain multi-stage outcome as certain at a later stage.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Pseudocertainty effect: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Treating an uncertain multi-stage outcome as certain at a later stage.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Pseudocertainty effect", + "variant cue: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on probability is misread in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses pseudocertainty effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "tversky_kahneman_framing_1981", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 288, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 288, + "source_family": "tversky_kahneman_framing_1981", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "probability_neglect_canonical", + "name": "Probability neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Probability neglect: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Reacting to possible outcomes without proportionate attention to likelihood.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Probability neglect: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Reacting to possible outcomes without proportionate attention to likelihood.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Probability neglect", + "variant cue: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on probability is misread in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses probability neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 289, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 289, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "odds_ratio_misinterpretation_canonical", + "name": "Odds-ratio misinterpretation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Odds-ratio misinterpretation: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Treating odds ratios as direct probability differences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Odds-ratio misinterpretation: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Treating odds ratios as direct probability differences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Odds-ratio misinterpretation", + "variant cue: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on probability is misread in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses odds-ratio misinterpretation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 290, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 290, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "confidence_interval_neglect_canonical", + "name": "Confidence interval neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Confidence interval neglect: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Using point estimates as if uncertainty intervals did not exist.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Confidence interval neglect: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Using point estimates as if uncertainty intervals did not exist.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Confidence interval neglect", + "variant cue: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on probability is misread in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses confidence interval neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 291, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 291, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "forecast_base_rate_neglect_canonical", + "name": "Forecast base-rate neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Forecast base-rate neglect: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Making forecasts without considering historical frequencies.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Forecast base-rate neglect: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Making forecasts without considering historical frequencies.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Forecast base-rate neglect", + "variant cue: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on probability is misread in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses forecast base-rate neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 292, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 292, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "calibration_error_canonical", + "name": "Calibration error", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Calibration error: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Mismatch between expressed confidence and actual evidential support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Calibration error: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way. Parent definition: Mismatch between expressed confidence and actual evidential support.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Calibration error", + "variant cue: probability is misread in a standard recognizable way", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on probability is misread in a standard recognizable way to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses calibration error with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 293, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 293, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "base_rate_neglect_denominator_variant", + "name": "Base-rate neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Base-rate neglect: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Ignoring general statistical prevalence when judging a specific case.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Base-rate neglect: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Ignoring general statistical prevalence when judging a specific case.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Base-rate neglect", + "variant cue: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses base-rate neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 294, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 294, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "conjunction_fallacy_denominator_variant", + "name": "Conjunction fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Conjunction fallacy: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Judging a conjunction as more probable than one of its components.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Conjunction fallacy: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Judging a conjunction as more probable than one of its components.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Conjunction fallacy", + "variant cue: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses conjunction fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 295, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 295, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "gambler_fallacy_denominator_variant", + "name": "Gambler's fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Gambler's fallacy: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Expecting random outcomes to self-correct over short sequences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Gambler's fallacy: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Expecting random outcomes to self-correct over short sequences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Gambler's fallacy", + "variant cue: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses gambler's fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 296, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 296, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "hot_hand_fallacy_denominator_variant", + "name": "Hot-hand fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Hot-hand fallacy: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Inferring persistent streak-based ability from random or noisy sequences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Hot-hand fallacy: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Inferring persistent streak-based ability from random or noisy sequences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Hot-hand fallacy", + "variant cue: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses hot-hand fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 297, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 297, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "regression_to_mean_neglect_denominator_variant", + "name": "Regression-to-mean neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Regression-to-mean neglect: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Explaining natural reversion as if it were caused by an intervention.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Regression-to-mean neglect: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Explaining natural reversion as if it were caused by an intervention.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Regression-to-mean neglect", + "variant cue: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses regression-to-mean neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 298, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 298, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "inverse_probability_error_denominator_variant", + "name": "Inverse probability error", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Inverse probability error: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Confusing P(A|B) with P(B|A).", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Inverse probability error: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Confusing P(A|B) with P(B|A).", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Inverse probability error", + "variant cue: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses inverse probability error with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 299, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 299, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "prosecutor_fallacy_denominator_variant", + "name": "Prosecutor's fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Prosecutor's fallacy: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Overstating evidential strength by confusing match probability with guilt probability.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Prosecutor's fallacy: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Overstating evidential strength by confusing match probability with guilt probability.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Prosecutor's fallacy", + "variant cue: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses prosecutor's fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 300, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 300, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "denominator_neglect_denominator_variant", + "name": "Denominator neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Denominator neglect: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Focusing on counts while ignoring the denominator or exposure base.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Denominator neglect: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Focusing on counts while ignoring the denominator or exposure base.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Denominator neglect", + "variant cue: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses denominator neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 301, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 301, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "law_of_small_numbers_denominator_variant", + "name": "Law of small numbers", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Law of small numbers: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Expecting small samples to resemble the population too closely.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Law of small numbers: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Expecting small samples to resemble the population too closely.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Law of small numbers", + "variant cue: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses law of small numbers with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 302, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 302, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sample_space_confusion_denominator_variant", + "name": "Sample-space confusion", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Sample-space confusion: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Reasoning about probabilities without specifying the relevant outcome space.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Sample-space confusion: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Reasoning about probabilities without specifying the relevant outcome space.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sample-space confusion", + "variant cue: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sample-space confusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 303, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 303, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "risk_ratio_absolute_risk_confusion_denominator_variant", + "name": "Relative vs absolute risk confusion", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Relative vs absolute risk confusion: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Using relative change while hiding absolute magnitude.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Relative vs absolute risk confusion: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Using relative change while hiding absolute magnitude.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Relative vs absolute risk confusion", + "variant cue: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses relative vs absolute risk confusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 304, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 304, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "expected_value_neglect_denominator_variant", + "name": "Expected-value neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Expected-value neglect: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Focusing on salient outcomes while ignoring probability-weighted value.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Expected-value neglect: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Focusing on salient outcomes while ignoring probability-weighted value.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Expected-value neglect", + "variant cue: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses expected-value neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 305, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 305, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "tail_risk_neglect_denominator_variant", + "name": "Tail-risk neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Tail-risk neglect: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Ignoring low-probability but high-impact outcomes when relevant.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Tail-risk neglect: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Ignoring low-probability but high-impact outcomes when relevant.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Tail-risk neglect", + "variant cue: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses tail-risk neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 306, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 306, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "rare_event_overweighting_denominator_variant", + "name": "Rare-event overweighting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Rare-event overweighting: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Overweighting rare events due to salience or vividness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Rare-event overweighting: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Overweighting rare events due to salience or vividness.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Rare-event overweighting", + "variant cue: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses rare-event overweighting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 307, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 307, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "normalcy_bias_probability_denominator_variant", + "name": "Normalcy bias in risk", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Normalcy bias in risk: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Assuming adverse outcomes are unlikely because they have not recently occurred.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Normalcy bias in risk: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Assuming adverse outcomes are unlikely because they have not recently occurred.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Normalcy bias in risk", + "variant cue: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses normalcy bias in risk with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 308, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 308, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "certainty_effect_denominator_variant", + "name": "Certainty effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Certainty effect: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Overvaluing certain outcomes relative to merely probable outcomes.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Certainty effect: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Overvaluing certain outcomes relative to merely probable outcomes.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Certainty effect", + "variant cue: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses certainty effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 309, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 309, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "pseudocertainty_effect_denominator_variant", + "name": "Pseudocertainty effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Pseudocertainty effect: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Treating an uncertain multi-stage outcome as certain at a later stage.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Pseudocertainty effect: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Treating an uncertain multi-stage outcome as certain at a later stage.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Pseudocertainty effect", + "variant cue: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses pseudocertainty effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "tversky_kahneman_framing_1981", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 310, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 310, + "source_family": "tversky_kahneman_framing_1981", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "probability_neglect_denominator_variant", + "name": "Probability neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Probability neglect: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Reacting to possible outcomes without proportionate attention to likelihood.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Probability neglect: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Reacting to possible outcomes without proportionate attention to likelihood.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Probability neglect", + "variant cue: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses probability neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 311, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 311, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "odds_ratio_misinterpretation_denominator_variant", + "name": "Odds-ratio misinterpretation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Odds-ratio misinterpretation: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Treating odds ratios as direct probability differences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Odds-ratio misinterpretation: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Treating odds ratios as direct probability differences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Odds-ratio misinterpretation", + "variant cue: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses odds-ratio misinterpretation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 312, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 312, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "confidence_interval_neglect_denominator_variant", + "name": "Confidence interval neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Confidence interval neglect: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Using point estimates as if uncertainty intervals did not exist.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Confidence interval neglect: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Using point estimates as if uncertainty intervals did not exist.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Confidence interval neglect", + "variant cue: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses confidence interval neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 313, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 313, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "forecast_base_rate_neglect_denominator_variant", + "name": "Forecast base-rate neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Forecast base-rate neglect: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Making forecasts without considering historical frequencies.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Forecast base-rate neglect: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Making forecasts without considering historical frequencies.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Forecast base-rate neglect", + "variant cue: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses forecast base-rate neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 314, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 314, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "calibration_error_denominator_variant", + "name": "Calibration error", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Calibration error: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Mismatch between expressed confidence and actual evidential support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Calibration error: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden. Parent definition: Mismatch between expressed confidence and actual evidential support.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Calibration error", + "variant cue: the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the base, denominator, or exposure count is hidden to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses calibration error with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 315, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 315, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "base_rate_neglect_conditional_probability_variant", + "name": "Base-rate neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Base-rate neglect: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Ignoring general statistical prevalence when judging a specific case.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Base-rate neglect: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Ignoring general statistical prevalence when judging a specific case.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Base-rate neglect", + "variant cue: conditional probabilities are confused", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on conditional probabilities are confused to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses base-rate neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 316, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 316, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "conjunction_fallacy_conditional_probability_variant", + "name": "Conjunction fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Conjunction fallacy: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Judging a conjunction as more probable than one of its components.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Conjunction fallacy: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Judging a conjunction as more probable than one of its components.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Conjunction fallacy", + "variant cue: conditional probabilities are confused", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on conditional probabilities are confused to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses conjunction fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 317, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 317, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "gambler_fallacy_conditional_probability_variant", + "name": "Gambler's fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Gambler's fallacy: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Expecting random outcomes to self-correct over short sequences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Gambler's fallacy: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Expecting random outcomes to self-correct over short sequences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Gambler's fallacy", + "variant cue: conditional probabilities are confused", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on conditional probabilities are confused to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses gambler's fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 318, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 318, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "hot_hand_fallacy_conditional_probability_variant", + "name": "Hot-hand fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Hot-hand fallacy: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Inferring persistent streak-based ability from random or noisy sequences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Hot-hand fallacy: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Inferring persistent streak-based ability from random or noisy sequences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Hot-hand fallacy", + "variant cue: conditional probabilities are confused", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on conditional probabilities are confused to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses hot-hand fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 319, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 319, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "regression_to_mean_neglect_conditional_probability_variant", + "name": "Regression-to-mean neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Regression-to-mean neglect: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Explaining natural reversion as if it were caused by an intervention.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Regression-to-mean neglect: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Explaining natural reversion as if it were caused by an intervention.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Regression-to-mean neglect", + "variant cue: conditional probabilities are confused", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on conditional probabilities are confused to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses regression-to-mean neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 320, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 320, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "inverse_probability_error_conditional_probability_variant", + "name": "Inverse probability error", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Inverse probability error: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Confusing P(A|B) with P(B|A).", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Inverse probability error: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Confusing P(A|B) with P(B|A).", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Inverse probability error", + "variant cue: conditional probabilities are confused", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on conditional probabilities are confused to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses inverse probability error with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 321, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 321, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "prosecutor_fallacy_conditional_probability_variant", + "name": "Prosecutor's fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Prosecutor's fallacy: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Overstating evidential strength by confusing match probability with guilt probability.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Prosecutor's fallacy: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Overstating evidential strength by confusing match probability with guilt probability.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Prosecutor's fallacy", + "variant cue: conditional probabilities are confused", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on conditional probabilities are confused to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses prosecutor's fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 322, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 322, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "denominator_neglect_conditional_probability_variant", + "name": "Denominator neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Denominator neglect: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Focusing on counts while ignoring the denominator or exposure base.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Denominator neglect: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Focusing on counts while ignoring the denominator or exposure base.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Denominator neglect", + "variant cue: conditional probabilities are confused", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on conditional probabilities are confused to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses denominator neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 323, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 323, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "law_of_small_numbers_conditional_probability_variant", + "name": "Law of small numbers", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Law of small numbers: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Expecting small samples to resemble the population too closely.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Law of small numbers: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Expecting small samples to resemble the population too closely.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Law of small numbers", + "variant cue: conditional probabilities are confused", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on conditional probabilities are confused to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses law of small numbers with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 324, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 324, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sample_space_confusion_conditional_probability_variant", + "name": "Sample-space confusion", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Sample-space confusion: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Reasoning about probabilities without specifying the relevant outcome space.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Sample-space confusion: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Reasoning about probabilities without specifying the relevant outcome space.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sample-space confusion", + "variant cue: conditional probabilities are confused", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on conditional probabilities are confused to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sample-space confusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 325, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 325, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "risk_ratio_absolute_risk_confusion_conditional_probability_variant", + "name": "Relative vs absolute risk confusion", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Relative vs absolute risk confusion: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Using relative change while hiding absolute magnitude.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Relative vs absolute risk confusion: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Using relative change while hiding absolute magnitude.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Relative vs absolute risk confusion", + "variant cue: conditional probabilities are confused", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on conditional probabilities are confused to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses relative vs absolute risk confusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 326, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 326, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "expected_value_neglect_conditional_probability_variant", + "name": "Expected-value neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Expected-value neglect: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Focusing on salient outcomes while ignoring probability-weighted value.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Expected-value neglect: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Focusing on salient outcomes while ignoring probability-weighted value.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Expected-value neglect", + "variant cue: conditional probabilities are confused", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on conditional probabilities are confused to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses expected-value neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 327, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 327, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "tail_risk_neglect_conditional_probability_variant", + "name": "Tail-risk neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Tail-risk neglect: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Ignoring low-probability but high-impact outcomes when relevant.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Tail-risk neglect: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Ignoring low-probability but high-impact outcomes when relevant.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Tail-risk neglect", + "variant cue: conditional probabilities are confused", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on conditional probabilities are confused to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses tail-risk neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 328, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 328, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "rare_event_overweighting_conditional_probability_variant", + "name": "Rare-event overweighting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Rare-event overweighting: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Overweighting rare events due to salience or vividness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Rare-event overweighting: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Overweighting rare events due to salience or vividness.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Rare-event overweighting", + "variant cue: conditional probabilities are confused", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on conditional probabilities are confused to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses rare-event overweighting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 329, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 329, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "normalcy_bias_probability_conditional_probability_variant", + "name": "Normalcy bias in risk", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Normalcy bias in risk: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Assuming adverse outcomes are unlikely because they have not recently occurred.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Normalcy bias in risk: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Assuming adverse outcomes are unlikely because they have not recently occurred.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Normalcy bias in risk", + "variant cue: conditional probabilities are confused", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on conditional probabilities are confused to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses normalcy bias in risk with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 330, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 330, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "certainty_effect_conditional_probability_variant", + "name": "Certainty effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Certainty effect: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Overvaluing certain outcomes relative to merely probable outcomes.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Certainty effect: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Overvaluing certain outcomes relative to merely probable outcomes.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Certainty effect", + "variant cue: conditional probabilities are confused", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on conditional probabilities are confused to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses certainty effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 331, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 331, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "pseudocertainty_effect_conditional_probability_variant", + "name": "Pseudocertainty effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Pseudocertainty effect: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Treating an uncertain multi-stage outcome as certain at a later stage.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Pseudocertainty effect: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Treating an uncertain multi-stage outcome as certain at a later stage.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Pseudocertainty effect", + "variant cue: conditional probabilities are confused", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on conditional probabilities are confused to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses pseudocertainty effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "tversky_kahneman_framing_1981", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 332, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 332, + "source_family": "tversky_kahneman_framing_1981", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "probability_neglect_conditional_probability_variant", + "name": "Probability neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Probability neglect: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Reacting to possible outcomes without proportionate attention to likelihood.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Probability neglect: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Reacting to possible outcomes without proportionate attention to likelihood.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Probability neglect", + "variant cue: conditional probabilities are confused", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on conditional probabilities are confused to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses probability neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 333, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 333, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "odds_ratio_misinterpretation_conditional_probability_variant", + "name": "Odds-ratio misinterpretation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Odds-ratio misinterpretation: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Treating odds ratios as direct probability differences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Odds-ratio misinterpretation: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Treating odds ratios as direct probability differences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Odds-ratio misinterpretation", + "variant cue: conditional probabilities are confused", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on conditional probabilities are confused to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses odds-ratio misinterpretation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 334, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 334, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "confidence_interval_neglect_conditional_probability_variant", + "name": "Confidence interval neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Confidence interval neglect: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Using point estimates as if uncertainty intervals did not exist.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Confidence interval neglect: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Using point estimates as if uncertainty intervals did not exist.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Confidence interval neglect", + "variant cue: conditional probabilities are confused", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on conditional probabilities are confused to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses confidence interval neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 335, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 335, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "forecast_base_rate_neglect_conditional_probability_variant", + "name": "Forecast base-rate neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Forecast base-rate neglect: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Making forecasts without considering historical frequencies.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Forecast base-rate neglect: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Making forecasts without considering historical frequencies.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Forecast base-rate neglect", + "variant cue: conditional probabilities are confused", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on conditional probabilities are confused to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses forecast base-rate neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 336, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 336, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "calibration_error_conditional_probability_variant", + "name": "Calibration error", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Calibration error: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Mismatch between expressed confidence and actual evidential support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Calibration error: conditional probabilities are confused. Parent definition: Mismatch between expressed confidence and actual evidential support.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Calibration error", + "variant cue: conditional probabilities are confused", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on conditional probabilities are confused to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses calibration error with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 337, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 337, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "base_rate_neglect_small_sample_variant", + "name": "Base-rate neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Base-rate neglect: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Ignoring general statistical prevalence when judging a specific case.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Base-rate neglect: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Ignoring general statistical prevalence when judging a specific case.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Base-rate neglect", + "variant cue: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on small or noisy samples are overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses base-rate neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 338, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 338, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "conjunction_fallacy_small_sample_variant", + "name": "Conjunction fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Conjunction fallacy: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Judging a conjunction as more probable than one of its components.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Conjunction fallacy: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Judging a conjunction as more probable than one of its components.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Conjunction fallacy", + "variant cue: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on small or noisy samples are overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses conjunction fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 339, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 339, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "gambler_fallacy_small_sample_variant", + "name": "Gambler's fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Gambler's fallacy: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Expecting random outcomes to self-correct over short sequences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Gambler's fallacy: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Expecting random outcomes to self-correct over short sequences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Gambler's fallacy", + "variant cue: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on small or noisy samples are overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses gambler's fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 340, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 340, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "hot_hand_fallacy_small_sample_variant", + "name": "Hot-hand fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Hot-hand fallacy: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Inferring persistent streak-based ability from random or noisy sequences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Hot-hand fallacy: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Inferring persistent streak-based ability from random or noisy sequences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Hot-hand fallacy", + "variant cue: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on small or noisy samples are overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses hot-hand fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 341, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 341, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "regression_to_mean_neglect_small_sample_variant", + "name": "Regression-to-mean neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Regression-to-mean neglect: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Explaining natural reversion as if it were caused by an intervention.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Regression-to-mean neglect: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Explaining natural reversion as if it were caused by an intervention.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Regression-to-mean neglect", + "variant cue: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on small or noisy samples are overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses regression-to-mean neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 342, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 342, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "inverse_probability_error_small_sample_variant", + "name": "Inverse probability error", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Inverse probability error: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Confusing P(A|B) with P(B|A).", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Inverse probability error: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Confusing P(A|B) with P(B|A).", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Inverse probability error", + "variant cue: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on small or noisy samples are overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses inverse probability error with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 343, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 343, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "prosecutor_fallacy_small_sample_variant", + "name": "Prosecutor's fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Prosecutor's fallacy: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Overstating evidential strength by confusing match probability with guilt probability.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Prosecutor's fallacy: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Overstating evidential strength by confusing match probability with guilt probability.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Prosecutor's fallacy", + "variant cue: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on small or noisy samples are overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses prosecutor's fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 344, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 344, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "denominator_neglect_small_sample_variant", + "name": "Denominator neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Denominator neglect: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Focusing on counts while ignoring the denominator or exposure base.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Denominator neglect: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Focusing on counts while ignoring the denominator or exposure base.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Denominator neglect", + "variant cue: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on small or noisy samples are overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses denominator neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 345, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 345, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "law_of_small_numbers_small_sample_variant", + "name": "Law of small numbers", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Law of small numbers: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Expecting small samples to resemble the population too closely.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Law of small numbers: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Expecting small samples to resemble the population too closely.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Law of small numbers", + "variant cue: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on small or noisy samples are overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses law of small numbers with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 346, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 346, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sample_space_confusion_small_sample_variant", + "name": "Sample-space confusion", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Sample-space confusion: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Reasoning about probabilities without specifying the relevant outcome space.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Sample-space confusion: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Reasoning about probabilities without specifying the relevant outcome space.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sample-space confusion", + "variant cue: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on small or noisy samples are overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sample-space confusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 347, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 347, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "risk_ratio_absolute_risk_confusion_small_sample_variant", + "name": "Relative vs absolute risk confusion", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Relative vs absolute risk confusion: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Using relative change while hiding absolute magnitude.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Relative vs absolute risk confusion: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Using relative change while hiding absolute magnitude.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Relative vs absolute risk confusion", + "variant cue: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on small or noisy samples are overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses relative vs absolute risk confusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 348, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 348, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "expected_value_neglect_small_sample_variant", + "name": "Expected-value neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Expected-value neglect: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Focusing on salient outcomes while ignoring probability-weighted value.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Expected-value neglect: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Focusing on salient outcomes while ignoring probability-weighted value.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Expected-value neglect", + "variant cue: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on small or noisy samples are overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses expected-value neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 349, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 349, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "tail_risk_neglect_small_sample_variant", + "name": "Tail-risk neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Tail-risk neglect: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Ignoring low-probability but high-impact outcomes when relevant.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Tail-risk neglect: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Ignoring low-probability but high-impact outcomes when relevant.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Tail-risk neglect", + "variant cue: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on small or noisy samples are overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses tail-risk neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 350, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 350, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "rare_event_overweighting_small_sample_variant", + "name": "Rare-event overweighting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Rare-event overweighting: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Overweighting rare events due to salience or vividness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Rare-event overweighting: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Overweighting rare events due to salience or vividness.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Rare-event overweighting", + "variant cue: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on small or noisy samples are overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses rare-event overweighting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 351, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 351, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "normalcy_bias_probability_small_sample_variant", + "name": "Normalcy bias in risk", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Normalcy bias in risk: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Assuming adverse outcomes are unlikely because they have not recently occurred.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Normalcy bias in risk: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Assuming adverse outcomes are unlikely because they have not recently occurred.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Normalcy bias in risk", + "variant cue: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on small or noisy samples are overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses normalcy bias in risk with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 352, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 352, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "certainty_effect_small_sample_variant", + "name": "Certainty effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Certainty effect: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Overvaluing certain outcomes relative to merely probable outcomes.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Certainty effect: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Overvaluing certain outcomes relative to merely probable outcomes.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Certainty effect", + "variant cue: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on small or noisy samples are overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses certainty effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 353, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 353, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "pseudocertainty_effect_small_sample_variant", + "name": "Pseudocertainty effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Pseudocertainty effect: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Treating an uncertain multi-stage outcome as certain at a later stage.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Pseudocertainty effect: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Treating an uncertain multi-stage outcome as certain at a later stage.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Pseudocertainty effect", + "variant cue: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on small or noisy samples are overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses pseudocertainty effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "tversky_kahneman_framing_1981", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 354, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 354, + "source_family": "tversky_kahneman_framing_1981", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "probability_neglect_small_sample_variant", + "name": "Probability neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Probability neglect: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Reacting to possible outcomes without proportionate attention to likelihood.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Probability neglect: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Reacting to possible outcomes without proportionate attention to likelihood.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Probability neglect", + "variant cue: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on small or noisy samples are overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses probability neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 355, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 355, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "odds_ratio_misinterpretation_small_sample_variant", + "name": "Odds-ratio misinterpretation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Odds-ratio misinterpretation: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Treating odds ratios as direct probability differences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Odds-ratio misinterpretation: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Treating odds ratios as direct probability differences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Odds-ratio misinterpretation", + "variant cue: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on small or noisy samples are overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses odds-ratio misinterpretation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 356, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 356, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "confidence_interval_neglect_small_sample_variant", + "name": "Confidence interval neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Confidence interval neglect: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Using point estimates as if uncertainty intervals did not exist.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Confidence interval neglect: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Using point estimates as if uncertainty intervals did not exist.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Confidence interval neglect", + "variant cue: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on small or noisy samples are overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses confidence interval neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 357, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 357, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "forecast_base_rate_neglect_small_sample_variant", + "name": "Forecast base-rate neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Forecast base-rate neglect: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Making forecasts without considering historical frequencies.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Forecast base-rate neglect: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Making forecasts without considering historical frequencies.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Forecast base-rate neglect", + "variant cue: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on small or noisy samples are overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses forecast base-rate neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 358, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 358, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "calibration_error_small_sample_variant", + "name": "Calibration error", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Calibration error: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Mismatch between expressed confidence and actual evidential support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Calibration error: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted. Parent definition: Mismatch between expressed confidence and actual evidential support.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Calibration error", + "variant cue: small or noisy samples are overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on small or noisy samples are overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses calibration error with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 359, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 359, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "base_rate_neglect_risk_communication_variant", + "name": "Base-rate neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Base-rate neglect: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Ignoring general statistical prevalence when judging a specific case.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Base-rate neglect: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Ignoring general statistical prevalence when judging a specific case.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Base-rate neglect", + "variant cue: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on risk is framed in a misleading statistical format to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses base-rate neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 360, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 360, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "conjunction_fallacy_risk_communication_variant", + "name": "Conjunction fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Conjunction fallacy: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Judging a conjunction as more probable than one of its components.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Conjunction fallacy: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Judging a conjunction as more probable than one of its components.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Conjunction fallacy", + "variant cue: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on risk is framed in a misleading statistical format to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses conjunction fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 361, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 361, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "gambler_fallacy_risk_communication_variant", + "name": "Gambler's fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Gambler's fallacy: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Expecting random outcomes to self-correct over short sequences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Gambler's fallacy: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Expecting random outcomes to self-correct over short sequences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Gambler's fallacy", + "variant cue: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on risk is framed in a misleading statistical format to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses gambler's fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 362, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 362, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "hot_hand_fallacy_risk_communication_variant", + "name": "Hot-hand fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Hot-hand fallacy: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Inferring persistent streak-based ability from random or noisy sequences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Hot-hand fallacy: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Inferring persistent streak-based ability from random or noisy sequences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Hot-hand fallacy", + "variant cue: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on risk is framed in a misleading statistical format to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses hot-hand fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 363, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 363, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "regression_to_mean_neglect_risk_communication_variant", + "name": "Regression-to-mean neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Regression-to-mean neglect: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Explaining natural reversion as if it were caused by an intervention.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Regression-to-mean neglect: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Explaining natural reversion as if it were caused by an intervention.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Regression-to-mean neglect", + "variant cue: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on risk is framed in a misleading statistical format to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses regression-to-mean neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 364, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 364, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "inverse_probability_error_risk_communication_variant", + "name": "Inverse probability error", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Inverse probability error: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Confusing P(A|B) with P(B|A).", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Inverse probability error: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Confusing P(A|B) with P(B|A).", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Inverse probability error", + "variant cue: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on risk is framed in a misleading statistical format to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses inverse probability error with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 365, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 365, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "prosecutor_fallacy_risk_communication_variant", + "name": "Prosecutor's fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "fallacy", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Prosecutor's fallacy: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Overstating evidential strength by confusing match probability with guilt probability.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Prosecutor's fallacy: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Overstating evidential strength by confusing match probability with guilt probability.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Prosecutor's fallacy", + "variant cue: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on risk is framed in a misleading statistical format to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses prosecutor's fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 366, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 366, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "denominator_neglect_risk_communication_variant", + "name": "Denominator neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Denominator neglect: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Focusing on counts while ignoring the denominator or exposure base.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Denominator neglect: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Focusing on counts while ignoring the denominator or exposure base.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Denominator neglect", + "variant cue: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on risk is framed in a misleading statistical format to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses denominator neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 367, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 367, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "law_of_small_numbers_risk_communication_variant", + "name": "Law of small numbers", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Law of small numbers: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Expecting small samples to resemble the population too closely.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Law of small numbers: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Expecting small samples to resemble the population too closely.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Law of small numbers", + "variant cue: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on risk is framed in a misleading statistical format to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses law of small numbers with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 368, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 368, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sample_space_confusion_risk_communication_variant", + "name": "Sample-space confusion", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Sample-space confusion: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Reasoning about probabilities without specifying the relevant outcome space.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Sample-space confusion: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Reasoning about probabilities without specifying the relevant outcome space.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sample-space confusion", + "variant cue: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on risk is framed in a misleading statistical format to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sample-space confusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 369, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 369, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "risk_ratio_absolute_risk_confusion_risk_communication_variant", + "name": "Relative vs absolute risk confusion", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Relative vs absolute risk confusion: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Using relative change while hiding absolute magnitude.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Relative vs absolute risk confusion: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Using relative change while hiding absolute magnitude.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Relative vs absolute risk confusion", + "variant cue: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on risk is framed in a misleading statistical format to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses relative vs absolute risk confusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 370, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 370, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "expected_value_neglect_risk_communication_variant", + "name": "Expected-value neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Expected-value neglect: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Focusing on salient outcomes while ignoring probability-weighted value.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Expected-value neglect: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Focusing on salient outcomes while ignoring probability-weighted value.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Expected-value neglect", + "variant cue: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on risk is framed in a misleading statistical format to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses expected-value neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 371, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 371, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "tail_risk_neglect_risk_communication_variant", + "name": "Tail-risk neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Tail-risk neglect: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Ignoring low-probability but high-impact outcomes when relevant.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Tail-risk neglect: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Ignoring low-probability but high-impact outcomes when relevant.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Tail-risk neglect", + "variant cue: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on risk is framed in a misleading statistical format to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses tail-risk neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 372, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 372, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "rare_event_overweighting_risk_communication_variant", + "name": "Rare-event overweighting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Rare-event overweighting: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Overweighting rare events due to salience or vividness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Rare-event overweighting: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Overweighting rare events due to salience or vividness.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Rare-event overweighting", + "variant cue: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on risk is framed in a misleading statistical format to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses rare-event overweighting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 373, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 373, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "normalcy_bias_probability_risk_communication_variant", + "name": "Normalcy bias in risk", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Normalcy bias in risk: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Assuming adverse outcomes are unlikely because they have not recently occurred.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Normalcy bias in risk: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Assuming adverse outcomes are unlikely because they have not recently occurred.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Normalcy bias in risk", + "variant cue: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on risk is framed in a misleading statistical format to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses normalcy bias in risk with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 374, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 374, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "certainty_effect_risk_communication_variant", + "name": "Certainty effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Certainty effect: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Overvaluing certain outcomes relative to merely probable outcomes.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Certainty effect: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Overvaluing certain outcomes relative to merely probable outcomes.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Certainty effect", + "variant cue: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on risk is framed in a misleading statistical format to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses certainty effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 375, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 375, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "pseudocertainty_effect_risk_communication_variant", + "name": "Pseudocertainty effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Pseudocertainty effect: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Treating an uncertain multi-stage outcome as certain at a later stage.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Pseudocertainty effect: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Treating an uncertain multi-stage outcome as certain at a later stage.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Pseudocertainty effect", + "variant cue: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on risk is framed in a misleading statistical format to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses pseudocertainty effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "tversky_kahneman_framing_1981", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 376, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 376, + "source_family": "tversky_kahneman_framing_1981", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "probability_neglect_risk_communication_variant", + "name": "Probability neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Probability neglect: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Reacting to possible outcomes without proportionate attention to likelihood.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Probability neglect: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Reacting to possible outcomes without proportionate attention to likelihood.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Probability neglect", + "variant cue: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on risk is framed in a misleading statistical format to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses probability neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 377, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 377, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "odds_ratio_misinterpretation_risk_communication_variant", + "name": "Odds-ratio misinterpretation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Odds-ratio misinterpretation: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Treating odds ratios as direct probability differences.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Odds-ratio misinterpretation: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Treating odds ratios as direct probability differences.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Odds-ratio misinterpretation", + "variant cue: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on risk is framed in a misleading statistical format to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses odds-ratio misinterpretation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 378, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 378, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "confidence_interval_neglect_risk_communication_variant", + "name": "Confidence interval neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Confidence interval neglect: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Using point estimates as if uncertainty intervals did not exist.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Confidence interval neglect: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Using point estimates as if uncertainty intervals did not exist.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Confidence interval neglect", + "variant cue: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on risk is framed in a misleading statistical format to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses confidence interval neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 379, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 379, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "forecast_base_rate_neglect_risk_communication_variant", + "name": "Forecast base-rate neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Forecast base-rate neglect: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Making forecasts without considering historical frequencies.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Forecast base-rate neglect: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Making forecasts without considering historical frequencies.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Forecast base-rate neglect", + "variant cue: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on risk is framed in a misleading statistical format to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses forecast base-rate neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 380, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 380, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "calibration_error_risk_communication_variant", + "name": "Calibration error", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Calibration error: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Mismatch between expressed confidence and actual evidential support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Calibration error: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format. Parent definition: Mismatch between expressed confidence and actual evidential support.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Calibration error", + "variant cue: risk is framed in a misleading statistical format", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on risk is framed in a misleading statistical format to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses calibration error with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 381, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 381, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "loss_aversion_canonical", + "name": "Loss aversion", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Loss aversion: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Losses are weighted more strongly than comparable gains.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Loss aversion: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Losses are weighted more strongly than comparable gains.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Loss aversion", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses loss aversion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 522, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 522, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "endowment_effect_canonical", + "name": "Endowment effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Endowment effect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Valuing something more highly because one owns it.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Endowment effect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Valuing something more highly because one owns it.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Endowment effect", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses endowment effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 523, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 523, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "status_quo_bias_canonical", + "name": "Status quo bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Status quo bias: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferring the existing state partly because it is the default.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Status quo bias: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferring the existing state partly because it is the default.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Status quo bias", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses status quo bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 524, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 524, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "default_effect_canonical", + "name": "Default effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Default effect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Choosing an option disproportionately because it is preselected.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Default effect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Choosing an option disproportionately because it is preselected.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Default effect", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses default effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 525, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 525, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sunk_cost_fallacy_canonical", + "name": "Sunk-cost fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Sunk-cost fallacy: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Continuing a choice because of past costs that cannot be recovered.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Sunk-cost fallacy: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Continuing a choice because of past costs that cannot be recovered.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sunk-cost fallacy", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sunk-cost fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 526, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 526, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "present_bias_canonical", + "name": "Present bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Present bias: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Overweighting immediate costs or rewards relative to future ones.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Present bias: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Overweighting immediate costs or rewards relative to future ones.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Present bias", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses present bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 527, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 527, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "hyperbolic_discounting_canonical", + "name": "Hyperbolic discounting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Hyperbolic discounting: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Discounting future outcomes in a time-inconsistent way.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Hyperbolic discounting: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Discounting future outcomes in a time-inconsistent way.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Hyperbolic discounting", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses hyperbolic discounting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 528, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 528, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "planning_fallacy_canonical", + "name": "Planning fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Planning fallacy: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Underestimating time, costs, or risks of future tasks.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Planning fallacy: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Underestimating time, costs, or risks of future tasks.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Planning fallacy", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses planning fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 529, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 529, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "choice_overload_canonical", + "name": "Choice overload", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Choice overload: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Decision quality or satisfaction decreases when options become excessive.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Choice overload: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Decision quality or satisfaction decreases when options become excessive.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Choice overload", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses choice overload with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 530, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 530, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "decoy_effect_canonical", + "name": "Decoy effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Decoy effect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferences change when an asymmetrically dominated option is introduced.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Decoy effect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferences change when an asymmetrically dominated option is introduced.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Decoy effect", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses decoy effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 531, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 531, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "compromise_effect_canonical", + "name": "Compromise effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Compromise effect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferring middle options because they appear safer or balanced.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Compromise effect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferring middle options because they appear safer or balanced.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Compromise effect", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses compromise effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 532, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 532, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "scarcity_bias_canonical", + "name": "Scarcity bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Scarcity bias: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Overvaluing something because it is framed as scarce.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Scarcity bias: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Overvaluing something because it is framed as scarce.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Scarcity bias", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses scarcity bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 533, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 533, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "zero_price_effect_canonical", + "name": "Zero-price effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Zero-price effect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Overvaluing free options relative to small-cost alternatives.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Zero-price effect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Overvaluing free options relative to small-cost alternatives.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Zero-price effect", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses zero-price effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 534, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 534, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "mental_accounting_canonical", + "name": "Mental accounting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Mental accounting: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Treating money or resources differently based on arbitrary mental categories.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Mental accounting: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Treating money or resources differently based on arbitrary mental categories.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Mental accounting", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses mental accounting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 535, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 535, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "reference_dependence_canonical", + "name": "Reference dependence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Reference dependence: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Evaluating outcomes relative to a reference point rather than final state.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Reference dependence: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Evaluating outcomes relative to a reference point rather than final state.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Reference dependence", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses reference dependence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 536, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 536, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "risk_seeking_in_losses_canonical", + "name": "Risk seeking in losses", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk seeking in losses: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Choosing riskier options to avoid a framed loss.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk seeking in losses: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Choosing riskier options to avoid a framed loss.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Risk seeking in losses", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses risk seeking in losses with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 537, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 537, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "risk_aversion_in_gains_canonical", + "name": "Risk aversion in gains", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk aversion in gains: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferring sure gains over higher expected but risky gains.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk aversion in gains: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferring sure gains over higher expected but risky gains.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Risk aversion in gains", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses risk aversion in gains with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 538, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 538, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "omission_bias_canonical", + "name": "Omission bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Omission bias: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Judging harmful inaction more leniently than harmful action.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Omission bias: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Judging harmful inaction more leniently than harmful action.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Omission bias", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses omission bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 539, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 539, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "action_bias_canonical", + "name": "Action bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Action bias: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferring action even when waiting or gathering evidence would be better.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Action bias: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferring action even when waiting or gathering evidence would be better.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Action bias", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses action bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 540, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 540, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "time_inconsistency_canonical", + "name": "Time inconsistency", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Time inconsistency: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferences change over time in ways that undermine prior plans.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Time inconsistency: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferences change over time in ways that undermine prior plans.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Time inconsistency", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses time inconsistency with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 541, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 541, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "commitment_escalation_canonical", + "name": "Escalation of commitment", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Escalation of commitment: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Increasing commitment to a failing course of action.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Escalation of commitment: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Increasing commitment to a failing course of action.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Escalation of commitment", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses escalation of commitment with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 542, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 542, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "disposition_effect_canonical", + "name": "Disposition effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Disposition effect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Selling gains too quickly and holding losses too long.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Disposition effect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Selling gains too quickly and holding losses too long.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Disposition effect", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses disposition effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 543, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 543, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "availability_in_decision_canonical", + "name": "Availability in decision-making", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability in decision-making: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Choosing based on memorable cases rather than representative evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability in decision-making: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Choosing based on memorable cases rather than representative evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Availability in decision-making", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses availability in decision-making with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 544, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 544, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "friction_cost_neglect_canonical", + "name": "Friction-cost neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Friction-cost neglect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Ignoring transaction costs, cognitive load, or access barriers in choices.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Friction-cost neglect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Ignoring transaction costs, cognitive load, or access barriers in choices.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Friction-cost neglect", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses friction-cost neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 545, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 545, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "loss_aversion_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Loss aversion", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Loss aversion: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Losses are weighted more strongly than comparable gains.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Loss aversion: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Losses are weighted more strongly than comparable gains.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Loss aversion", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses loss aversion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 546, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 546, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "endowment_effect_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Endowment effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Endowment effect: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Valuing something more highly because one owns it.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Endowment effect: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Valuing something more highly because one owns it.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Endowment effect", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses endowment effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 547, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 547, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "status_quo_bias_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Status quo bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Status quo bias: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Preferring the existing state partly because it is the default.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Status quo bias: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Preferring the existing state partly because it is the default.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Status quo bias", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses status quo bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 548, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 548, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "default_effect_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Default effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Default effect: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Choosing an option disproportionately because it is preselected.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Default effect: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Choosing an option disproportionately because it is preselected.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Default effect", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses default effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 549, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 549, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sunk_cost_fallacy_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Sunk-cost fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Sunk-cost fallacy: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Continuing a choice because of past costs that cannot be recovered.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Sunk-cost fallacy: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Continuing a choice because of past costs that cannot be recovered.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sunk-cost fallacy", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sunk-cost fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 550, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 550, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "present_bias_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Present bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Present bias: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Overweighting immediate costs or rewards relative to future ones.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Present bias: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Overweighting immediate costs or rewards relative to future ones.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Present bias", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses present bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 551, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 551, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "hyperbolic_discounting_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Hyperbolic discounting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Hyperbolic discounting: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Discounting future outcomes in a time-inconsistent way.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Hyperbolic discounting: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Discounting future outcomes in a time-inconsistent way.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Hyperbolic discounting", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses hyperbolic discounting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 552, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 552, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "planning_fallacy_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Planning fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Planning fallacy: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Underestimating time, costs, or risks of future tasks.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Planning fallacy: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Underestimating time, costs, or risks of future tasks.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Planning fallacy", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses planning fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 553, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 553, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "choice_overload_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Choice overload", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Choice overload: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Decision quality or satisfaction decreases when options become excessive.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Choice overload: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Decision quality or satisfaction decreases when options become excessive.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Choice overload", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses choice overload with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 554, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 554, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "decoy_effect_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Decoy effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Decoy effect: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Preferences change when an asymmetrically dominated option is introduced.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Decoy effect: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Preferences change when an asymmetrically dominated option is introduced.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Decoy effect", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses decoy effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 555, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 555, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "compromise_effect_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Compromise effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Compromise effect: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Preferring middle options because they appear safer or balanced.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Compromise effect: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Preferring middle options because they appear safer or balanced.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Compromise effect", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses compromise effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 556, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 556, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "scarcity_bias_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Scarcity bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Scarcity bias: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Overvaluing something because it is framed as scarce.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Scarcity bias: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Overvaluing something because it is framed as scarce.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Scarcity bias", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses scarcity bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 557, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 557, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "zero_price_effect_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Zero-price effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Zero-price effect: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Overvaluing free options relative to small-cost alternatives.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Zero-price effect: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Overvaluing free options relative to small-cost alternatives.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Zero-price effect", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses zero-price effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 558, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 558, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "mental_accounting_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Mental accounting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Mental accounting: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Treating money or resources differently based on arbitrary mental categories.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Mental accounting: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Treating money or resources differently based on arbitrary mental categories.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Mental accounting", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses mental accounting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 559, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 559, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "reference_dependence_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Reference dependence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Reference dependence: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Evaluating outcomes relative to a reference point rather than final state.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Reference dependence: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Evaluating outcomes relative to a reference point rather than final state.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Reference dependence", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses reference dependence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 560, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 560, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "risk_seeking_in_losses_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Risk seeking in losses", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk seeking in losses: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Choosing riskier options to avoid a framed loss.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk seeking in losses: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Choosing riskier options to avoid a framed loss.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Risk seeking in losses", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses risk seeking in losses with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 561, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 561, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "risk_aversion_in_gains_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Risk aversion in gains", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk aversion in gains: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Preferring sure gains over higher expected but risky gains.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk aversion in gains: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Preferring sure gains over higher expected but risky gains.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Risk aversion in gains", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses risk aversion in gains with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 562, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 562, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "omission_bias_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Omission bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Omission bias: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Judging harmful inaction more leniently than harmful action.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Omission bias: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Judging harmful inaction more leniently than harmful action.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Omission bias", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses omission bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 563, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 563, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "action_bias_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Action bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Action bias: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Preferring action even when waiting or gathering evidence would be better.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Action bias: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Preferring action even when waiting or gathering evidence would be better.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Action bias", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses action bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 564, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 564, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "time_inconsistency_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Time inconsistency", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Time inconsistency: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Preferences change over time in ways that undermine prior plans.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Time inconsistency: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Preferences change over time in ways that undermine prior plans.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Time inconsistency", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses time inconsistency with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 565, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 565, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "commitment_escalation_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Escalation of commitment", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Escalation of commitment: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Increasing commitment to a failing course of action.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Escalation of commitment: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Increasing commitment to a failing course of action.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Escalation of commitment", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses escalation of commitment with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 566, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 566, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "disposition_effect_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Disposition effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Disposition effect: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Selling gains too quickly and holding losses too long.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Disposition effect: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Selling gains too quickly and holding losses too long.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Disposition effect", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses disposition effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 567, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 567, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "availability_in_decision_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Availability in decision-making", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability in decision-making: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Choosing based on memorable cases rather than representative evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability in decision-making: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Choosing based on memorable cases rather than representative evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Availability in decision-making", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses availability in decision-making with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 568, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 568, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "friction_cost_neglect_gain_frame_variant", + "name": "Friction-cost neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Friction-cost neglect: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Ignoring transaction costs, cognitive load, or access barriers in choices.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Friction-cost neglect: the reasoning depends on a gain framing. Parent definition: Ignoring transaction costs, cognitive load, or access barriers in choices.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Friction-cost neglect", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a gain framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a gain framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses friction-cost neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 569, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 569, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "loss_aversion_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Loss aversion", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Loss aversion: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Losses are weighted more strongly than comparable gains.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Loss aversion: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Losses are weighted more strongly than comparable gains.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Loss aversion", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses loss aversion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 570, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 570, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "endowment_effect_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Endowment effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Endowment effect: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Valuing something more highly because one owns it.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Endowment effect: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Valuing something more highly because one owns it.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Endowment effect", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses endowment effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 571, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 571, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "status_quo_bias_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Status quo bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Status quo bias: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Preferring the existing state partly because it is the default.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Status quo bias: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Preferring the existing state partly because it is the default.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Status quo bias", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses status quo bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 572, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 572, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "default_effect_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Default effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Default effect: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Choosing an option disproportionately because it is preselected.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Default effect: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Choosing an option disproportionately because it is preselected.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Default effect", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses default effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 573, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 573, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sunk_cost_fallacy_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Sunk-cost fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Sunk-cost fallacy: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Continuing a choice because of past costs that cannot be recovered.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Sunk-cost fallacy: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Continuing a choice because of past costs that cannot be recovered.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sunk-cost fallacy", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sunk-cost fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 574, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 574, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "present_bias_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Present bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Present bias: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Overweighting immediate costs or rewards relative to future ones.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Present bias: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Overweighting immediate costs or rewards relative to future ones.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Present bias", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses present bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 575, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 575, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "hyperbolic_discounting_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Hyperbolic discounting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Hyperbolic discounting: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Discounting future outcomes in a time-inconsistent way.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Hyperbolic discounting: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Discounting future outcomes in a time-inconsistent way.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Hyperbolic discounting", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses hyperbolic discounting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 576, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 576, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "planning_fallacy_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Planning fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Planning fallacy: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Underestimating time, costs, or risks of future tasks.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Planning fallacy: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Underestimating time, costs, or risks of future tasks.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Planning fallacy", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses planning fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 577, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 577, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "choice_overload_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Choice overload", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Choice overload: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Decision quality or satisfaction decreases when options become excessive.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Choice overload: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Decision quality or satisfaction decreases when options become excessive.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Choice overload", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses choice overload with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 578, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 578, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "decoy_effect_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Decoy effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Decoy effect: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Preferences change when an asymmetrically dominated option is introduced.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Decoy effect: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Preferences change when an asymmetrically dominated option is introduced.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Decoy effect", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses decoy effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 579, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 579, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "compromise_effect_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Compromise effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Compromise effect: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Preferring middle options because they appear safer or balanced.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Compromise effect: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Preferring middle options because they appear safer or balanced.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Compromise effect", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses compromise effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 580, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 580, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "scarcity_bias_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Scarcity bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Scarcity bias: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Overvaluing something because it is framed as scarce.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Scarcity bias: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Overvaluing something because it is framed as scarce.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Scarcity bias", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses scarcity bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 581, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 581, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "zero_price_effect_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Zero-price effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Zero-price effect: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Overvaluing free options relative to small-cost alternatives.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Zero-price effect: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Overvaluing free options relative to small-cost alternatives.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Zero-price effect", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses zero-price effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 582, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 582, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "mental_accounting_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Mental accounting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Mental accounting: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Treating money or resources differently based on arbitrary mental categories.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Mental accounting: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Treating money or resources differently based on arbitrary mental categories.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Mental accounting", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses mental accounting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 583, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 583, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "reference_dependence_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Reference dependence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Reference dependence: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Evaluating outcomes relative to a reference point rather than final state.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Reference dependence: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Evaluating outcomes relative to a reference point rather than final state.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Reference dependence", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses reference dependence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 584, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 584, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "risk_seeking_in_losses_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Risk seeking in losses", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk seeking in losses: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Choosing riskier options to avoid a framed loss.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk seeking in losses: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Choosing riskier options to avoid a framed loss.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Risk seeking in losses", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses risk seeking in losses with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 585, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 585, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "risk_aversion_in_gains_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Risk aversion in gains", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk aversion in gains: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Preferring sure gains over higher expected but risky gains.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk aversion in gains: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Preferring sure gains over higher expected but risky gains.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Risk aversion in gains", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses risk aversion in gains with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 586, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 586, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "omission_bias_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Omission bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Omission bias: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Judging harmful inaction more leniently than harmful action.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Omission bias: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Judging harmful inaction more leniently than harmful action.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Omission bias", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses omission bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 587, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 587, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "action_bias_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Action bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Action bias: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Preferring action even when waiting or gathering evidence would be better.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Action bias: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Preferring action even when waiting or gathering evidence would be better.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Action bias", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses action bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 588, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 588, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "time_inconsistency_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Time inconsistency", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Time inconsistency: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Preferences change over time in ways that undermine prior plans.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Time inconsistency: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Preferences change over time in ways that undermine prior plans.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Time inconsistency", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses time inconsistency with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 589, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 589, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "commitment_escalation_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Escalation of commitment", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Escalation of commitment: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Increasing commitment to a failing course of action.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Escalation of commitment: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Increasing commitment to a failing course of action.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Escalation of commitment", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses escalation of commitment with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 590, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 590, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "disposition_effect_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Disposition effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Disposition effect: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Selling gains too quickly and holding losses too long.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Disposition effect: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Selling gains too quickly and holding losses too long.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Disposition effect", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses disposition effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 591, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 591, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "availability_in_decision_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Availability in decision-making", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability in decision-making: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Choosing based on memorable cases rather than representative evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability in decision-making: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Choosing based on memorable cases rather than representative evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Availability in decision-making", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses availability in decision-making with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 592, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 592, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "friction_cost_neglect_loss_frame_variant", + "name": "Friction-cost neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Friction-cost neglect: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Ignoring transaction costs, cognitive load, or access barriers in choices.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Friction-cost neglect: the reasoning depends on a loss framing. Parent definition: Ignoring transaction costs, cognitive load, or access barriers in choices.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Friction-cost neglect", + "variant cue: the reasoning depends on a loss framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the reasoning depends on a loss framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses friction-cost neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 593, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 593, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "loss_aversion_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Loss aversion", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Loss aversion: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Losses are weighted more strongly than comparable gains.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Loss aversion: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Losses are weighted more strongly than comparable gains.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Loss aversion", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses loss aversion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 594, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 594, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "endowment_effect_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Endowment effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Endowment effect: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Valuing something more highly because one owns it.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Endowment effect: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Valuing something more highly because one owns it.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Endowment effect", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses endowment effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 595, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 595, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "status_quo_bias_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Status quo bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Status quo bias: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Preferring the existing state partly because it is the default.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Status quo bias: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Preferring the existing state partly because it is the default.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Status quo bias", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses status quo bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 596, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 596, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "default_effect_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Default effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Default effect: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Choosing an option disproportionately because it is preselected.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Default effect: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Choosing an option disproportionately because it is preselected.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Default effect", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses default effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 597, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 597, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sunk_cost_fallacy_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Sunk-cost fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Sunk-cost fallacy: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Continuing a choice because of past costs that cannot be recovered.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Sunk-cost fallacy: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Continuing a choice because of past costs that cannot be recovered.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sunk-cost fallacy", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sunk-cost fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 598, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 598, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "present_bias_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Present bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Present bias: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Overweighting immediate costs or rewards relative to future ones.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Present bias: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Overweighting immediate costs or rewards relative to future ones.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Present bias", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses present bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 599, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 599, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "hyperbolic_discounting_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Hyperbolic discounting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Hyperbolic discounting: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Discounting future outcomes in a time-inconsistent way.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Hyperbolic discounting: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Discounting future outcomes in a time-inconsistent way.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Hyperbolic discounting", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses hyperbolic discounting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 600, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 600, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "planning_fallacy_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Planning fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Planning fallacy: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Underestimating time, costs, or risks of future tasks.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Planning fallacy: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Underestimating time, costs, or risks of future tasks.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Planning fallacy", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses planning fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 601, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 601, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "choice_overload_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Choice overload", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Choice overload: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Decision quality or satisfaction decreases when options become excessive.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Choice overload: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Decision quality or satisfaction decreases when options become excessive.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Choice overload", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses choice overload with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 602, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 602, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "decoy_effect_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Decoy effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Decoy effect: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Preferences change when an asymmetrically dominated option is introduced.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Decoy effect: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Preferences change when an asymmetrically dominated option is introduced.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Decoy effect", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses decoy effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 603, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 603, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "compromise_effect_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Compromise effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Compromise effect: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Preferring middle options because they appear safer or balanced.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Compromise effect: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Preferring middle options because they appear safer or balanced.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Compromise effect", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses compromise effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 604, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 604, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "scarcity_bias_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Scarcity bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Scarcity bias: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Overvaluing something because it is framed as scarce.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Scarcity bias: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Overvaluing something because it is framed as scarce.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Scarcity bias", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses scarcity bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 605, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 605, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "zero_price_effect_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Zero-price effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Zero-price effect: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Overvaluing free options relative to small-cost alternatives.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Zero-price effect: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Overvaluing free options relative to small-cost alternatives.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Zero-price effect", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses zero-price effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 606, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 606, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "mental_accounting_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Mental accounting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Mental accounting: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Treating money or resources differently based on arbitrary mental categories.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Mental accounting: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Treating money or resources differently based on arbitrary mental categories.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Mental accounting", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses mental accounting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 607, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 607, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "reference_dependence_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Reference dependence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Reference dependence: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Evaluating outcomes relative to a reference point rather than final state.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Reference dependence: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Evaluating outcomes relative to a reference point rather than final state.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Reference dependence", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses reference dependence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 608, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 608, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "risk_seeking_in_losses_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Risk seeking in losses", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk seeking in losses: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Choosing riskier options to avoid a framed loss.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk seeking in losses: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Choosing riskier options to avoid a framed loss.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Risk seeking in losses", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses risk seeking in losses with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 609, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 609, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "risk_aversion_in_gains_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Risk aversion in gains", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk aversion in gains: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Preferring sure gains over higher expected but risky gains.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk aversion in gains: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Preferring sure gains over higher expected but risky gains.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Risk aversion in gains", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses risk aversion in gains with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 610, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 610, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "omission_bias_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Omission bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Omission bias: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Judging harmful inaction more leniently than harmful action.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Omission bias: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Judging harmful inaction more leniently than harmful action.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Omission bias", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses omission bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 611, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 611, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "action_bias_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Action bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Action bias: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Preferring action even when waiting or gathering evidence would be better.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Action bias: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Preferring action even when waiting or gathering evidence would be better.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Action bias", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses action bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 612, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 612, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "time_inconsistency_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Time inconsistency", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Time inconsistency: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Preferences change over time in ways that undermine prior plans.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Time inconsistency: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Preferences change over time in ways that undermine prior plans.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Time inconsistency", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses time inconsistency with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 613, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 613, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "commitment_escalation_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Escalation of commitment", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Escalation of commitment: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Increasing commitment to a failing course of action.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Escalation of commitment: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Increasing commitment to a failing course of action.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Escalation of commitment", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses escalation of commitment with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 614, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 614, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "disposition_effect_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Disposition effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Disposition effect: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Selling gains too quickly and holding losses too long.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Disposition effect: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Selling gains too quickly and holding losses too long.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Disposition effect", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses disposition effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 615, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 615, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "availability_in_decision_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Availability in decision-making", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability in decision-making: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Choosing based on memorable cases rather than representative evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability in decision-making: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Choosing based on memorable cases rather than representative evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Availability in decision-making", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses availability in decision-making with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 616, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 616, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "friction_cost_neglect_default_or_status_quo_variant", + "name": "Friction-cost neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Friction-cost neglect: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Ignoring transaction costs, cognitive load, or access barriers in choices.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Friction-cost neglect: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons. Parent definition: Ignoring transaction costs, cognitive load, or access barriers in choices.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Friction-cost neglect", + "variant cue: the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the default or current state is treated as preferable without reasons to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses friction-cost neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 617, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 617, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "loss_aversion_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Loss aversion", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Loss aversion: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Losses are weighted more strongly than comparable gains.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Loss aversion: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Losses are weighted more strongly than comparable gains.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Loss aversion", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses loss aversion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 618, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 618, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "endowment_effect_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Endowment effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Endowment effect: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Valuing something more highly because one owns it.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Endowment effect: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Valuing something more highly because one owns it.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Endowment effect", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses endowment effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 619, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 619, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "status_quo_bias_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Status quo bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Status quo bias: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Preferring the existing state partly because it is the default.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Status quo bias: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Preferring the existing state partly because it is the default.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Status quo bias", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses status quo bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 620, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 620, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "default_effect_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Default effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Default effect: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Choosing an option disproportionately because it is preselected.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Default effect: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Choosing an option disproportionately because it is preselected.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Default effect", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses default effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 621, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 621, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sunk_cost_fallacy_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Sunk-cost fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Sunk-cost fallacy: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Continuing a choice because of past costs that cannot be recovered.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Sunk-cost fallacy: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Continuing a choice because of past costs that cannot be recovered.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sunk-cost fallacy", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sunk-cost fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 622, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 622, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "present_bias_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Present bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Present bias: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Overweighting immediate costs or rewards relative to future ones.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Present bias: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Overweighting immediate costs or rewards relative to future ones.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Present bias", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses present bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 623, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 623, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "hyperbolic_discounting_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Hyperbolic discounting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Hyperbolic discounting: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Discounting future outcomes in a time-inconsistent way.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Hyperbolic discounting: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Discounting future outcomes in a time-inconsistent way.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Hyperbolic discounting", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses hyperbolic discounting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 624, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 624, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "planning_fallacy_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Planning fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Planning fallacy: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Underestimating time, costs, or risks of future tasks.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Planning fallacy: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Underestimating time, costs, or risks of future tasks.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Planning fallacy", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses planning fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 625, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 625, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "choice_overload_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Choice overload", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Choice overload: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Decision quality or satisfaction decreases when options become excessive.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Choice overload: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Decision quality or satisfaction decreases when options become excessive.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Choice overload", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses choice overload with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 626, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 626, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "decoy_effect_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Decoy effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Decoy effect: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Preferences change when an asymmetrically dominated option is introduced.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Decoy effect: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Preferences change when an asymmetrically dominated option is introduced.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Decoy effect", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses decoy effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 627, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 627, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "compromise_effect_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Compromise effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Compromise effect: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Preferring middle options because they appear safer or balanced.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Compromise effect: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Preferring middle options because they appear safer or balanced.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Compromise effect", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses compromise effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 628, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 628, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "scarcity_bias_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Scarcity bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Scarcity bias: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Overvaluing something because it is framed as scarce.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Scarcity bias: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Overvaluing something because it is framed as scarce.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Scarcity bias", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses scarcity bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 629, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 629, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "zero_price_effect_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Zero-price effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Zero-price effect: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Overvaluing free options relative to small-cost alternatives.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Zero-price effect: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Overvaluing free options relative to small-cost alternatives.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Zero-price effect", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses zero-price effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 630, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 630, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "mental_accounting_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Mental accounting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Mental accounting: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Treating money or resources differently based on arbitrary mental categories.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Mental accounting: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Treating money or resources differently based on arbitrary mental categories.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Mental accounting", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses mental accounting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 631, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 631, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "reference_dependence_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Reference dependence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Reference dependence: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Evaluating outcomes relative to a reference point rather than final state.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Reference dependence: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Evaluating outcomes relative to a reference point rather than final state.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Reference dependence", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses reference dependence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 632, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 632, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "risk_seeking_in_losses_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Risk seeking in losses", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk seeking in losses: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Choosing riskier options to avoid a framed loss.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk seeking in losses: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Choosing riskier options to avoid a framed loss.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Risk seeking in losses", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses risk seeking in losses with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 633, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 633, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "risk_aversion_in_gains_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Risk aversion in gains", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk aversion in gains: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Preferring sure gains over higher expected but risky gains.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk aversion in gains: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Preferring sure gains over higher expected but risky gains.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Risk aversion in gains", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses risk aversion in gains with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 634, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 634, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "omission_bias_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Omission bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Omission bias: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Judging harmful inaction more leniently than harmful action.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Omission bias: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Judging harmful inaction more leniently than harmful action.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Omission bias", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses omission bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 635, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 635, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "action_bias_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Action bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Action bias: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Preferring action even when waiting or gathering evidence would be better.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Action bias: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Preferring action even when waiting or gathering evidence would be better.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Action bias", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses action bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 636, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 636, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "time_inconsistency_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Time inconsistency", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Time inconsistency: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Preferences change over time in ways that undermine prior plans.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Time inconsistency: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Preferences change over time in ways that undermine prior plans.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Time inconsistency", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses time inconsistency with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 637, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 637, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "commitment_escalation_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Escalation of commitment", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Escalation of commitment: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Increasing commitment to a failing course of action.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Escalation of commitment: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Increasing commitment to a failing course of action.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Escalation of commitment", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses escalation of commitment with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 638, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 638, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "disposition_effect_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Disposition effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Disposition effect: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Selling gains too quickly and holding losses too long.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Disposition effect: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Selling gains too quickly and holding losses too long.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Disposition effect", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses disposition effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 639, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 639, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "availability_in_decision_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Availability in decision-making", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability in decision-making: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Choosing based on memorable cases rather than representative evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Availability in decision-making: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Choosing based on memorable cases rather than representative evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Availability in decision-making", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses availability in decision-making with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 640, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 640, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "friction_cost_neglect_time_or_friction_variant", + "name": "Friction-cost neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Friction-cost neglect: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Ignoring transaction costs, cognitive load, or access barriers in choices.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Friction-cost neglect: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation. Parent definition: Ignoring transaction costs, cognitive load, or access barriers in choices.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Friction-cost neglect", + "variant cue: short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on short-term costs, delays, or friction distort evaluation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses friction-cost neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 641, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 641, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "loss_aversion_canonical_121", + "name": "Loss aversion", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Loss aversion: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Losses are weighted more strongly than comparable gains.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Loss aversion: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Losses are weighted more strongly than comparable gains.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Loss aversion", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses loss aversion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 642, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 642, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "endowment_effect_canonical_122", + "name": "Endowment effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Endowment effect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Valuing something more highly because one owns it.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Endowment effect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Valuing something more highly because one owns it.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Endowment effect", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses endowment effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 643, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 643, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "status_quo_bias_canonical_123", + "name": "Status quo bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Status quo bias: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferring the existing state partly because it is the default.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Status quo bias: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferring the existing state partly because it is the default.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Status quo bias", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses status quo bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 644, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 644, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "default_effect_canonical_124", + "name": "Default effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Default effect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Choosing an option disproportionately because it is preselected.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Default effect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Choosing an option disproportionately because it is preselected.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Default effect", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses default effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 645, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 645, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sunk_cost_fallacy_canonical_125", + "name": "Sunk-cost fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Sunk-cost fallacy: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Continuing a choice because of past costs that cannot be recovered.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Sunk-cost fallacy: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Continuing a choice because of past costs that cannot be recovered.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sunk-cost fallacy", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sunk-cost fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 646, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 646, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "present_bias_canonical_126", + "name": "Present bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Present bias: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Overweighting immediate costs or rewards relative to future ones.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Present bias: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Overweighting immediate costs or rewards relative to future ones.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Present bias", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses present bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 647, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 647, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "hyperbolic_discounting_canonical_127", + "name": "Hyperbolic discounting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Hyperbolic discounting: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Discounting future outcomes in a time-inconsistent way.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Hyperbolic discounting: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Discounting future outcomes in a time-inconsistent way.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Hyperbolic discounting", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses hyperbolic discounting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 648, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 648, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "planning_fallacy_canonical_128", + "name": "Planning fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Planning fallacy: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Underestimating time, costs, or risks of future tasks.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Planning fallacy: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Underestimating time, costs, or risks of future tasks.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Planning fallacy", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses planning fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 649, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 649, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "choice_overload_canonical_129", + "name": "Choice overload", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Choice overload: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Decision quality or satisfaction decreases when options become excessive.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Choice overload: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Decision quality or satisfaction decreases when options become excessive.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Choice overload", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses choice overload with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 650, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 650, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "decoy_effect_canonical_130", + "name": "Decoy effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Decoy effect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferences change when an asymmetrically dominated option is introduced.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Decoy effect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferences change when an asymmetrically dominated option is introduced.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Decoy effect", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses decoy effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 651, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 651, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "compromise_effect_canonical_131", + "name": "Compromise effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Compromise effect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferring middle options because they appear safer or balanced.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Compromise effect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferring middle options because they appear safer or balanced.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Compromise effect", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses compromise effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 652, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 652, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "scarcity_bias_canonical_132", + "name": "Scarcity bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Scarcity bias: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Overvaluing something because it is framed as scarce.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Scarcity bias: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Overvaluing something because it is framed as scarce.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Scarcity bias", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses scarcity bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 653, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 653, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "zero_price_effect_canonical_133", + "name": "Zero-price effect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Zero-price effect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Overvaluing free options relative to small-cost alternatives.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Zero-price effect: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Overvaluing free options relative to small-cost alternatives.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Zero-price effect", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses zero-price effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 654, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 654, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "mental_accounting_canonical_134", + "name": "Mental accounting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Mental accounting: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Treating money or resources differently based on arbitrary mental categories.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Mental accounting: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Treating money or resources differently based on arbitrary mental categories.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Mental accounting", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses mental accounting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 655, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 655, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "reference_dependence_canonical_135", + "name": "Reference dependence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Reference dependence: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Evaluating outcomes relative to a reference point rather than final state.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Reference dependence: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Evaluating outcomes relative to a reference point rather than final state.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Reference dependence", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses reference dependence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 656, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 656, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "risk_seeking_in_losses_canonical_136", + "name": "Risk seeking in losses", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk seeking in losses: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Choosing riskier options to avoid a framed loss.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk seeking in losses: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Choosing riskier options to avoid a framed loss.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Risk seeking in losses", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses risk seeking in losses with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 657, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 657, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "risk_aversion_in_gains_canonical_137", + "name": "Risk aversion in gains", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk aversion in gains: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferring sure gains over higher expected but risky gains.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Risk aversion in gains: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferring sure gains over higher expected but risky gains.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Risk aversion in gains", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses risk aversion in gains with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 658, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 658, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_prospect_1979", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "omission_bias_canonical_138", + "name": "Omission bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Omission bias: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Judging harmful inaction more leniently than harmful action.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Omission bias: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Judging harmful inaction more leniently than harmful action.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Omission bias", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses omission bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 659, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 659, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "action_bias_canonical_139", + "name": "Action bias", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Action bias: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferring action even when waiting or gathering evidence would be better.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Action bias: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferring action even when waiting or gathering evidence would be better.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Action bias", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses action bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 660, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 660, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "time_inconsistency_canonical_140", + "name": "Time inconsistency", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "behavioural_bias", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Time inconsistency: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferences change over time in ways that undermine prior plans.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Time inconsistency: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument. Parent definition: Preferences change over time in ways that undermine prior plans.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Time inconsistency", + "variant cue: the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the parent decision tendency appears in a choice argument to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses time inconsistency with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300262285/nudge/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 661, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 661, + "source_family": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "overclaiming_certainty_canonical", + "name": "Overclaiming certainty", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Overclaiming certainty: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Stating a conclusion more certainly than evidence warrants.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Overclaiming certainty: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Stating a conclusion more certainly than evidence warrants.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Overclaiming certainty", + "variant cue: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses overclaiming certainty with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 852, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 852, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_precision_canonical", + "name": "False precision", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False precision: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Using precise numbers or terms without evidential basis.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False precision: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Using precise numbers or terms without evidential basis.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False precision", + "variant cue: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false precision with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 853, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 853, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "missing_confidence_level_canonical", + "name": "Missing confidence level", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing confidence level: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Presenting estimates without uncertainty or confidence framing.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing confidence level: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Presenting estimates without uncertainty or confidence framing.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Missing confidence level", + "variant cue: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses missing confidence level with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 854, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 854, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "forecast_horizon_neglect_canonical", + "name": "Forecast horizon neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Forecast horizon neglect: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Making forecasts without specifying the time horizon.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Forecast horizon neglect: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Making forecasts without specifying the time horizon.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Forecast horizon neglect", + "variant cue: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses forecast horizon neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 855, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 855, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "trend_extrapolation_overreach_canonical", + "name": "Trend extrapolation overreach", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Trend extrapolation overreach: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Extending a trend beyond evidence without caveats.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Trend extrapolation overreach: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Extending a trend beyond evidence without caveats.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Trend extrapolation overreach", + "variant cue: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses trend extrapolation overreach with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 856, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 856, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "linear_projection_fallacy_canonical", + "name": "Linear projection fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Linear projection fallacy: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Assuming linear continuation in a nonlinear domain.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Linear projection fallacy: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Assuming linear continuation in a nonlinear domain.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Linear projection fallacy", + "variant cue: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses linear projection fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 857, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 857, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "scenario_neglect_canonical", + "name": "Scenario neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Scenario neglect: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Failing to consider plausible alternative futures.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Scenario neglect: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Failing to consider plausible alternative futures.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Scenario neglect", + "variant cue: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses scenario neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 858, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 858, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "alternative_explanation_neglect_canonical", + "name": "Alternative explanation neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Alternative explanation neglect: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Ignoring plausible alternative explanations for observed evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Alternative explanation neglect: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Ignoring plausible alternative explanations for observed evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Alternative explanation neglect", + "variant cue: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses alternative explanation neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 859, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 859, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "model_overfit_claim_canonical", + "name": "Model overfit claim", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Model overfit claim: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Treating model fit as reliable prediction without validation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Model overfit claim: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Treating model fit as reliable prediction without validation.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Model overfit claim", + "variant cue: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses model overfit claim with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 860, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 860, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "domain_transfer_overreach_canonical", + "name": "Domain transfer overreach", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Domain transfer overreach: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Applying evidence from one domain to another without justification.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Domain transfer overreach: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Applying evidence from one domain to another without justification.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Domain transfer overreach", + "variant cue: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses domain transfer overreach with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 861, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 861, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "unqualified_universal_claim_canonical", + "name": "Unqualified universal claim", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Unqualified universal claim: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Using always, never, all, or none without support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Unqualified universal claim: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Using always, never, all, or none without support.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Unqualified universal claim", + "variant cue: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses unqualified universal claim with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 862, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 862, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "assumption_silence_canonical", + "name": "Silent assumptions", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Silent assumptions: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Relying on unstated assumptions necessary for the conclusion.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Silent assumptions: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Relying on unstated assumptions necessary for the conclusion.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Silent assumptions", + "variant cue: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses silent assumptions with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 863, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 863, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "evidence_threshold_undefined_canonical", + "name": "Undefined evidence threshold", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Undefined evidence threshold: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Not specifying what evidence would support or change the claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Undefined evidence threshold: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Not specifying what evidence would support or change the claim.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Undefined evidence threshold", + "variant cue: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses undefined evidence threshold with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 864, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 864, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "prediction_observation_conflation_canonical", + "name": "Prediction-observation conflation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Prediction-observation conflation: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Treating forecasts as observed facts.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Prediction-observation conflation: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Treating forecasts as observed facts.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Prediction-observation conflation", + "variant cue: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses prediction-observation conflation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 865, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 865, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "possibility_probability_conflation_canonical", + "name": "Possibility-probability conflation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Possibility-probability conflation: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Treating what could happen as if it is likely.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Possibility-probability conflation: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Treating what could happen as if it is likely.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Possibility-probability conflation", + "variant cue: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses possibility-probability conflation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 866, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 866, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "overclaiming_certainty_certainty_language_variant", + "name": "Overclaiming certainty", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Overclaiming certainty: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Stating a conclusion more certainly than evidence warrants.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Overclaiming certainty: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Stating a conclusion more certainly than evidence warrants.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Overclaiming certainty", + "variant cue: absolute language overstates evidence", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on absolute language overstates evidence to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses overclaiming certainty with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 867, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 867, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_precision_certainty_language_variant", + "name": "False precision", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False precision: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Using precise numbers or terms without evidential basis.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False precision: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Using precise numbers or terms without evidential basis.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False precision", + "variant cue: absolute language overstates evidence", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on absolute language overstates evidence to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false precision with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 868, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 868, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "missing_confidence_level_certainty_language_variant", + "name": "Missing confidence level", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing confidence level: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Presenting estimates without uncertainty or confidence framing.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing confidence level: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Presenting estimates without uncertainty or confidence framing.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Missing confidence level", + "variant cue: absolute language overstates evidence", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on absolute language overstates evidence to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses missing confidence level with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 869, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 869, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "forecast_horizon_neglect_certainty_language_variant", + "name": "Forecast horizon neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Forecast horizon neglect: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Making forecasts without specifying the time horizon.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Forecast horizon neglect: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Making forecasts without specifying the time horizon.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Forecast horizon neglect", + "variant cue: absolute language overstates evidence", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on absolute language overstates evidence to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses forecast horizon neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 870, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 870, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "trend_extrapolation_overreach_certainty_language_variant", + "name": "Trend extrapolation overreach", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Trend extrapolation overreach: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Extending a trend beyond evidence without caveats.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Trend extrapolation overreach: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Extending a trend beyond evidence without caveats.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Trend extrapolation overreach", + "variant cue: absolute language overstates evidence", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on absolute language overstates evidence to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses trend extrapolation overreach with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 871, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 871, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "linear_projection_fallacy_certainty_language_variant", + "name": "Linear projection fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Linear projection fallacy: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Assuming linear continuation in a nonlinear domain.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Linear projection fallacy: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Assuming linear continuation in a nonlinear domain.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Linear projection fallacy", + "variant cue: absolute language overstates evidence", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on absolute language overstates evidence to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses linear projection fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 872, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 872, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "scenario_neglect_certainty_language_variant", + "name": "Scenario neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Scenario neglect: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Failing to consider plausible alternative futures.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Scenario neglect: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Failing to consider plausible alternative futures.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Scenario neglect", + "variant cue: absolute language overstates evidence", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on absolute language overstates evidence to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses scenario neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 873, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 873, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "alternative_explanation_neglect_certainty_language_variant", + "name": "Alternative explanation neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Alternative explanation neglect: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Ignoring plausible alternative explanations for observed evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Alternative explanation neglect: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Ignoring plausible alternative explanations for observed evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Alternative explanation neglect", + "variant cue: absolute language overstates evidence", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on absolute language overstates evidence to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses alternative explanation neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 874, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 874, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "model_overfit_claim_certainty_language_variant", + "name": "Model overfit claim", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Model overfit claim: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Treating model fit as reliable prediction without validation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Model overfit claim: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Treating model fit as reliable prediction without validation.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Model overfit claim", + "variant cue: absolute language overstates evidence", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on absolute language overstates evidence to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses model overfit claim with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 875, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 875, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "domain_transfer_overreach_certainty_language_variant", + "name": "Domain transfer overreach", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Domain transfer overreach: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Applying evidence from one domain to another without justification.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Domain transfer overreach: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Applying evidence from one domain to another without justification.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Domain transfer overreach", + "variant cue: absolute language overstates evidence", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on absolute language overstates evidence to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses domain transfer overreach with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 876, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 876, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "unqualified_universal_claim_certainty_language_variant", + "name": "Unqualified universal claim", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Unqualified universal claim: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Using always, never, all, or none without support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Unqualified universal claim: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Using always, never, all, or none without support.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Unqualified universal claim", + "variant cue: absolute language overstates evidence", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on absolute language overstates evidence to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses unqualified universal claim with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 877, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 877, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "assumption_silence_certainty_language_variant", + "name": "Silent assumptions", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Silent assumptions: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Relying on unstated assumptions necessary for the conclusion.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Silent assumptions: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Relying on unstated assumptions necessary for the conclusion.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Silent assumptions", + "variant cue: absolute language overstates evidence", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on absolute language overstates evidence to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses silent assumptions with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 878, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 878, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "evidence_threshold_undefined_certainty_language_variant", + "name": "Undefined evidence threshold", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Undefined evidence threshold: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Not specifying what evidence would support or change the claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Undefined evidence threshold: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Not specifying what evidence would support or change the claim.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Undefined evidence threshold", + "variant cue: absolute language overstates evidence", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on absolute language overstates evidence to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses undefined evidence threshold with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 879, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 879, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "prediction_observation_conflation_certainty_language_variant", + "name": "Prediction-observation conflation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Prediction-observation conflation: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Treating forecasts as observed facts.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Prediction-observation conflation: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Treating forecasts as observed facts.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Prediction-observation conflation", + "variant cue: absolute language overstates evidence", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on absolute language overstates evidence to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses prediction-observation conflation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 880, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 880, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "possibility_probability_conflation_certainty_language_variant", + "name": "Possibility-probability conflation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Possibility-probability conflation: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Treating what could happen as if it is likely.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Possibility-probability conflation: absolute language overstates evidence. Parent definition: Treating what could happen as if it is likely.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Possibility-probability conflation", + "variant cue: absolute language overstates evidence", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on absolute language overstates evidence to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses possibility-probability conflation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 881, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 881, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "overclaiming_certainty_forecast_variant", + "name": "Overclaiming certainty", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Overclaiming certainty: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Stating a conclusion more certainly than evidence warrants.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Overclaiming certainty: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Stating a conclusion more certainly than evidence warrants.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Overclaiming certainty", + "variant cue: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses overclaiming certainty with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 882, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 882, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_precision_forecast_variant", + "name": "False precision", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False precision: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Using precise numbers or terms without evidential basis.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False precision: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Using precise numbers or terms without evidential basis.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False precision", + "variant cue: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false precision with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 883, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 883, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "missing_confidence_level_forecast_variant", + "name": "Missing confidence level", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing confidence level: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Presenting estimates without uncertainty or confidence framing.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing confidence level: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Presenting estimates without uncertainty or confidence framing.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Missing confidence level", + "variant cue: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses missing confidence level with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 884, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 884, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "forecast_horizon_neglect_forecast_variant", + "name": "Forecast horizon neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Forecast horizon neglect: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Making forecasts without specifying the time horizon.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Forecast horizon neglect: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Making forecasts without specifying the time horizon.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Forecast horizon neglect", + "variant cue: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses forecast horizon neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 885, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 885, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "trend_extrapolation_overreach_forecast_variant", + "name": "Trend extrapolation overreach", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Trend extrapolation overreach: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Extending a trend beyond evidence without caveats.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Trend extrapolation overreach: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Extending a trend beyond evidence without caveats.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Trend extrapolation overreach", + "variant cue: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses trend extrapolation overreach with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 886, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 886, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "linear_projection_fallacy_forecast_variant", + "name": "Linear projection fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Linear projection fallacy: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Assuming linear continuation in a nonlinear domain.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Linear projection fallacy: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Assuming linear continuation in a nonlinear domain.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Linear projection fallacy", + "variant cue: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses linear projection fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 887, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 887, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "scenario_neglect_forecast_variant", + "name": "Scenario neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Scenario neglect: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Failing to consider plausible alternative futures.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Scenario neglect: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Failing to consider plausible alternative futures.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Scenario neglect", + "variant cue: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses scenario neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 888, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 888, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "alternative_explanation_neglect_forecast_variant", + "name": "Alternative explanation neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Alternative explanation neglect: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Ignoring plausible alternative explanations for observed evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Alternative explanation neglect: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Ignoring plausible alternative explanations for observed evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Alternative explanation neglect", + "variant cue: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses alternative explanation neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 889, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 889, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "model_overfit_claim_forecast_variant", + "name": "Model overfit claim", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Model overfit claim: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Treating model fit as reliable prediction without validation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Model overfit claim: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Treating model fit as reliable prediction without validation.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Model overfit claim", + "variant cue: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses model overfit claim with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 890, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 890, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "domain_transfer_overreach_forecast_variant", + "name": "Domain transfer overreach", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Domain transfer overreach: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Applying evidence from one domain to another without justification.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Domain transfer overreach: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Applying evidence from one domain to another without justification.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Domain transfer overreach", + "variant cue: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses domain transfer overreach with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 891, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 891, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "unqualified_universal_claim_forecast_variant", + "name": "Unqualified universal claim", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Unqualified universal claim: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Using always, never, all, or none without support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Unqualified universal claim: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Using always, never, all, or none without support.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Unqualified universal claim", + "variant cue: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses unqualified universal claim with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 892, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 892, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "assumption_silence_forecast_variant", + "name": "Silent assumptions", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Silent assumptions: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Relying on unstated assumptions necessary for the conclusion.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Silent assumptions: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Relying on unstated assumptions necessary for the conclusion.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Silent assumptions", + "variant cue: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses silent assumptions with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 893, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 893, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "evidence_threshold_undefined_forecast_variant", + "name": "Undefined evidence threshold", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Undefined evidence threshold: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Not specifying what evidence would support or change the claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Undefined evidence threshold: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Not specifying what evidence would support or change the claim.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Undefined evidence threshold", + "variant cue: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses undefined evidence threshold with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 894, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 894, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "prediction_observation_conflation_forecast_variant", + "name": "Prediction-observation conflation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Prediction-observation conflation: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Treating forecasts as observed facts.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Prediction-observation conflation: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Treating forecasts as observed facts.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Prediction-observation conflation", + "variant cue: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses prediction-observation conflation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 895, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 895, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "possibility_probability_conflation_forecast_variant", + "name": "Possibility-probability conflation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Possibility-probability conflation: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Treating what could happen as if it is likely.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Possibility-probability conflation: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives. Parent definition: Treating what could happen as if it is likely.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Possibility-probability conflation", + "variant cue: prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on prediction is made without horizon, assumptions, or alternatives to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses possibility-probability conflation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 896, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 896, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "overclaiming_certainty_model_or_data_variant", + "name": "Overclaiming certainty", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Overclaiming certainty: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Stating a conclusion more certainly than evidence warrants.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Overclaiming certainty: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Stating a conclusion more certainly than evidence warrants.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Overclaiming certainty", + "variant cue: a model or dataset is overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a model or dataset is overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses overclaiming certainty with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 897, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 897, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_precision_model_or_data_variant", + "name": "False precision", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False precision: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Using precise numbers or terms without evidential basis.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False precision: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Using precise numbers or terms without evidential basis.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False precision", + "variant cue: a model or dataset is overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a model or dataset is overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false precision with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 898, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 898, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "missing_confidence_level_model_or_data_variant", + "name": "Missing confidence level", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing confidence level: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Presenting estimates without uncertainty or confidence framing.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing confidence level: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Presenting estimates without uncertainty or confidence framing.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Missing confidence level", + "variant cue: a model or dataset is overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a model or dataset is overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses missing confidence level with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 899, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 899, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "forecast_horizon_neglect_model_or_data_variant", + "name": "Forecast horizon neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Forecast horizon neglect: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Making forecasts without specifying the time horizon.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Forecast horizon neglect: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Making forecasts without specifying the time horizon.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Forecast horizon neglect", + "variant cue: a model or dataset is overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a model or dataset is overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses forecast horizon neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 900, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 900, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "trend_extrapolation_overreach_model_or_data_variant", + "name": "Trend extrapolation overreach", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Trend extrapolation overreach: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Extending a trend beyond evidence without caveats.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Trend extrapolation overreach: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Extending a trend beyond evidence without caveats.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Trend extrapolation overreach", + "variant cue: a model or dataset is overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a model or dataset is overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses trend extrapolation overreach with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 901, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 901, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "linear_projection_fallacy_model_or_data_variant", + "name": "Linear projection fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Linear projection fallacy: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Assuming linear continuation in a nonlinear domain.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Linear projection fallacy: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Assuming linear continuation in a nonlinear domain.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Linear projection fallacy", + "variant cue: a model or dataset is overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a model or dataset is overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses linear projection fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 902, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 902, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "scenario_neglect_model_or_data_variant", + "name": "Scenario neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Scenario neglect: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Failing to consider plausible alternative futures.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Scenario neglect: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Failing to consider plausible alternative futures.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Scenario neglect", + "variant cue: a model or dataset is overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a model or dataset is overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses scenario neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 903, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 903, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "alternative_explanation_neglect_model_or_data_variant", + "name": "Alternative explanation neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Alternative explanation neglect: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Ignoring plausible alternative explanations for observed evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Alternative explanation neglect: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Ignoring plausible alternative explanations for observed evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Alternative explanation neglect", + "variant cue: a model or dataset is overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a model or dataset is overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses alternative explanation neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 904, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 904, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "model_overfit_claim_model_or_data_variant", + "name": "Model overfit claim", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Model overfit claim: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Treating model fit as reliable prediction without validation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Model overfit claim: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Treating model fit as reliable prediction without validation.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Model overfit claim", + "variant cue: a model or dataset is overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a model or dataset is overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses model overfit claim with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 905, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 905, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "domain_transfer_overreach_model_or_data_variant", + "name": "Domain transfer overreach", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Domain transfer overreach: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Applying evidence from one domain to another without justification.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Domain transfer overreach: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Applying evidence from one domain to another without justification.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Domain transfer overreach", + "variant cue: a model or dataset is overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a model or dataset is overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses domain transfer overreach with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 906, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 906, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "unqualified_universal_claim_model_or_data_variant", + "name": "Unqualified universal claim", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Unqualified universal claim: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Using always, never, all, or none without support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Unqualified universal claim: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Using always, never, all, or none without support.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Unqualified universal claim", + "variant cue: a model or dataset is overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a model or dataset is overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses unqualified universal claim with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 907, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 907, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "assumption_silence_model_or_data_variant", + "name": "Silent assumptions", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Silent assumptions: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Relying on unstated assumptions necessary for the conclusion.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Silent assumptions: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Relying on unstated assumptions necessary for the conclusion.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Silent assumptions", + "variant cue: a model or dataset is overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a model or dataset is overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses silent assumptions with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 908, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 908, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "evidence_threshold_undefined_model_or_data_variant", + "name": "Undefined evidence threshold", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Undefined evidence threshold: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Not specifying what evidence would support or change the claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Undefined evidence threshold: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Not specifying what evidence would support or change the claim.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Undefined evidence threshold", + "variant cue: a model or dataset is overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a model or dataset is overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses undefined evidence threshold with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 909, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 909, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "prediction_observation_conflation_model_or_data_variant", + "name": "Prediction-observation conflation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Prediction-observation conflation: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Treating forecasts as observed facts.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Prediction-observation conflation: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Treating forecasts as observed facts.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Prediction-observation conflation", + "variant cue: a model or dataset is overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a model or dataset is overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses prediction-observation conflation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 910, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 910, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "possibility_probability_conflation_model_or_data_variant", + "name": "Possibility-probability conflation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Possibility-probability conflation: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Treating what could happen as if it is likely.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Possibility-probability conflation: a model or dataset is overinterpreted. Parent definition: Treating what could happen as if it is likely.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Possibility-probability conflation", + "variant cue: a model or dataset is overinterpreted", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a model or dataset is overinterpreted to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses possibility-probability conflation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 911, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 911, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "overclaiming_certainty_scope_transfer_variant", + "name": "Overclaiming certainty", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Overclaiming certainty: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Stating a conclusion more certainly than evidence warrants.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Overclaiming certainty: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Stating a conclusion more certainly than evidence warrants.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Overclaiming certainty", + "variant cue: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses overclaiming certainty with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 912, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 912, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_precision_scope_transfer_variant", + "name": "False precision", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False precision: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Using precise numbers or terms without evidential basis.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False precision: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Using precise numbers or terms without evidential basis.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False precision", + "variant cue: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false precision with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 913, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 913, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "missing_confidence_level_scope_transfer_variant", + "name": "Missing confidence level", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing confidence level: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Presenting estimates without uncertainty or confidence framing.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing confidence level: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Presenting estimates without uncertainty or confidence framing.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Missing confidence level", + "variant cue: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses missing confidence level with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 914, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 914, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "forecast_horizon_neglect_scope_transfer_variant", + "name": "Forecast horizon neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Forecast horizon neglect: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Making forecasts without specifying the time horizon.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Forecast horizon neglect: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Making forecasts without specifying the time horizon.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Forecast horizon neglect", + "variant cue: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses forecast horizon neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 915, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 915, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "trend_extrapolation_overreach_scope_transfer_variant", + "name": "Trend extrapolation overreach", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Trend extrapolation overreach: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Extending a trend beyond evidence without caveats.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Trend extrapolation overreach: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Extending a trend beyond evidence without caveats.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Trend extrapolation overreach", + "variant cue: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses trend extrapolation overreach with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 916, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 916, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "linear_projection_fallacy_scope_transfer_variant", + "name": "Linear projection fallacy", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Linear projection fallacy: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Assuming linear continuation in a nonlinear domain.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Linear projection fallacy: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Assuming linear continuation in a nonlinear domain.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Linear projection fallacy", + "variant cue: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses linear projection fallacy with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 917, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 917, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "scenario_neglect_scope_transfer_variant", + "name": "Scenario neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Scenario neglect: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Failing to consider plausible alternative futures.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Scenario neglect: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Failing to consider plausible alternative futures.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Scenario neglect", + "variant cue: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses scenario neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 918, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 918, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "alternative_explanation_neglect_scope_transfer_variant", + "name": "Alternative explanation neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Alternative explanation neglect: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Ignoring plausible alternative explanations for observed evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Alternative explanation neglect: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Ignoring plausible alternative explanations for observed evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Alternative explanation neglect", + "variant cue: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses alternative explanation neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 919, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 919, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "model_overfit_claim_scope_transfer_variant", + "name": "Model overfit claim", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Model overfit claim: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Treating model fit as reliable prediction without validation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Model overfit claim: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Treating model fit as reliable prediction without validation.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Model overfit claim", + "variant cue: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses model overfit claim with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 920, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 920, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "domain_transfer_overreach_scope_transfer_variant", + "name": "Domain transfer overreach", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Domain transfer overreach: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Applying evidence from one domain to another without justification.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Domain transfer overreach: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Applying evidence from one domain to another without justification.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Domain transfer overreach", + "variant cue: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses domain transfer overreach with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 921, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 921, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "unqualified_universal_claim_scope_transfer_variant", + "name": "Unqualified universal claim", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Unqualified universal claim: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Using always, never, all, or none without support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Unqualified universal claim: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Using always, never, all, or none without support.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Unqualified universal claim", + "variant cue: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses unqualified universal claim with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 922, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 922, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "assumption_silence_scope_transfer_variant", + "name": "Silent assumptions", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Silent assumptions: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Relying on unstated assumptions necessary for the conclusion.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Silent assumptions: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Relying on unstated assumptions necessary for the conclusion.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Silent assumptions", + "variant cue: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses silent assumptions with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 923, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 923, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "evidence_threshold_undefined_scope_transfer_variant", + "name": "Undefined evidence threshold", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "evidence_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Undefined evidence threshold: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Not specifying what evidence would support or change the claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Undefined evidence threshold: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Not specifying what evidence would support or change the claim.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Undefined evidence threshold", + "variant cue: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses undefined evidence threshold with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 924, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 924, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "prediction_observation_conflation_scope_transfer_variant", + "name": "Prediction-observation conflation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Prediction-observation conflation: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Treating forecasts as observed facts.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Prediction-observation conflation: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Treating forecasts as observed facts.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Prediction-observation conflation", + "variant cue: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses prediction-observation conflation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 925, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 925, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "possibility_probability_conflation_scope_transfer_variant", + "name": "Possibility-probability conflation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Possibility-probability conflation: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Treating what could happen as if it is likely.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Possibility-probability conflation: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain. Parent definition: Treating what could happen as if it is likely.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Possibility-probability conflation", + "variant cue: evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on evidence is transferred beyond its valid domain to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses possibility-probability conflation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 926, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 926, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "overclaiming_certainty_canonical_76", + "name": "Overclaiming certainty", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Overclaiming certainty: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Stating a conclusion more certainly than evidence warrants.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Overclaiming certainty: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Stating a conclusion more certainly than evidence warrants.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Overclaiming certainty", + "variant cue: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses overclaiming certainty with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 927, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 927, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_precision_canonical_77", + "name": "False precision", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False precision: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Using precise numbers or terms without evidential basis.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False precision: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Using precise numbers or terms without evidential basis.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False precision", + "variant cue: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false precision with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 928, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 928, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "missing_confidence_level_canonical_78", + "name": "Missing confidence level", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing confidence level: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Presenting estimates without uncertainty or confidence framing.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing confidence level: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Presenting estimates without uncertainty or confidence framing.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Missing confidence level", + "variant cue: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses missing confidence level with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 929, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 929, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "forecast_horizon_neglect_canonical_79", + "name": "Forecast horizon neglect", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Forecast horizon neglect: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Making forecasts without specifying the time horizon.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Forecast horizon neglect: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Making forecasts without specifying the time horizon.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Forecast horizon neglect", + "variant cue: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses forecast horizon neglect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "uncertainty_acknowledgement", + "confidence_calibration", + "scope_limitation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 930, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 930, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "trend_extrapolation_overreach_canonical_80", + "name": "Trend extrapolation overreach", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "uncertainty_failure", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Trend extrapolation overreach: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Extending a trend beyond evidence without caveats.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Trend extrapolation overreach: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated. Parent definition: Extending a trend beyond evidence without caveats.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Trend extrapolation overreach", + "variant cue: uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on uncertainty is understated or miscalibrated to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses trend extrapolation overreach with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 931, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 931, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "topic_derailment_canonical", + "name": "Topic derailment", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Topic derailment: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Moving discussion away from the claim under evaluation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Topic derailment: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Moving discussion away from the claim under evaluation.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Topic derailment", + "variant cue: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses topic derailment with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 932, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 932, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "commitment_inconsistency_canonical", + "name": "Commitment inconsistency", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Commitment inconsistency: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Maintaining claims that conflict with previously accepted commitments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Commitment inconsistency: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Maintaining claims that conflict with previously accepted commitments.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Commitment inconsistency", + "variant cue: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses commitment inconsistency with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 933, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 933, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "unanswered_critical_question_canonical", + "name": "Unanswered critical question", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Unanswered critical question: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Ignoring critical questions required by an argument scheme.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Unanswered critical question: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Ignoring critical questions required by an argument scheme.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Unanswered critical question", + "variant cue: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses unanswered critical question with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/argumentation-schemes/1D013BFA2695C72B14134F2C38B17B85" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 934, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 934, + "source_family": "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "premature_closure_canonical", + "name": "Premature closure", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Premature closure: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Ending inquiry before relevant objections or alternatives are considered.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Premature closure: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Ending inquiry before relevant objections or alternatives are considered.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Premature closure", + "variant cue: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses premature closure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 935, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 935, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "criterion_shifting_canonical", + "name": "Criterion shifting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Criterion shifting: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Changing evaluation criteria without stating the change.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Criterion shifting: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Changing evaluation criteria without stating the change.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Criterion shifting", + "variant cue: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses criterion shifting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 936, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 936, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ambiguity_exploitation_canonical", + "name": "Ambiguity exploitation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Ambiguity exploitation: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Using ambiguous wording to maintain multiple interpretations.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Ambiguity exploitation: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Using ambiguous wording to maintain multiple interpretations.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Ambiguity exploitation", + "variant cue: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses ambiguity exploitation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 937, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 937, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "burden_overload_canonical", + "name": "Burden overload", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Burden overload: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Demanding an unrealistic standard from one side while offering less support oneself.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Burden overload: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Demanding an unrealistic standard from one side while offering less support oneself.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Burden overload", + "variant cue: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses burden overload with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 938, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 938, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "uncharitable_interpretation_canonical", + "name": "Uncharitable interpretation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Uncharitable interpretation: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Interpreting a claim in a weaker or less reasonable way than context supports.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Uncharitable interpretation: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Interpreting a claim in a weaker or less reasonable way than context supports.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Uncharitable interpretation", + "variant cue: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses uncharitable interpretation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 939, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 939, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "missing_warrant_canonical", + "name": "Missing warrant", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing warrant: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: The move from evidence to conclusion lacks an explicit or plausible warrant.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing warrant: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: The move from evidence to conclusion lacks an explicit or plausible warrant.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Missing warrant", + "variant cue: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses missing warrant with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 940, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 940, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "warrant_backing_gap_canonical", + "name": "Warrant-backing gap", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Warrant-backing gap: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: The warrant itself lacks support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Warrant-backing gap: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: The warrant itself lacks support.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Warrant-backing gap", + "variant cue: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses warrant-backing gap with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 941, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 941, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "qualifier_absence_canonical", + "name": "Qualifier absence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Qualifier absence: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: A claim lacks necessary qualifiers given uncertainty.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Qualifier absence: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: A claim lacks necessary qualifiers given uncertainty.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Qualifier absence", + "variant cue: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses qualifier absence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 942, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 942, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "rebuttal_suppression_canonical", + "name": "Rebuttal suppression", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Rebuttal suppression: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Known exceptions or rebuttals are omitted.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Rebuttal suppression: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Known exceptions or rebuttals are omitted.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Rebuttal suppression", + "variant cue: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses rebuttal suppression with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 943, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 943, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "maxim_quantity_violation_canonical", + "name": "Quantity maxim issue", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Quantity maxim issue: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Providing too little or too much information for the argumentative need.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Quantity maxim issue: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Providing too little or too much information for the argumentative need.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Quantity maxim issue", + "variant cue: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses quantity maxim issue with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 944, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 944, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "maxim_relevance_violation_canonical", + "name": "Relevance maxim issue", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Relevance maxim issue: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Providing information that is not relevant to the claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Relevance maxim issue: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Providing information that is not relevant to the claim.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Relevance maxim issue", + "variant cue: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses relevance maxim issue with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 945, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 945, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "maxim_manner_violation_canonical", + "name": "Manner maxim issue", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Manner maxim issue: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Using obscure or disorderly expression that impairs evaluation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Manner maxim issue: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met. Parent definition: Using obscure or disorderly expression that impairs evaluation.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Manner maxim issue", + "variant cue: dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on dialogue obligations or pragmatic norms are not met to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses manner maxim issue with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 946, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 946, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "topic_derailment_burden_variant", + "name": "Topic derailment", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Topic derailment: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Moving discussion away from the claim under evaluation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Topic derailment: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Moving discussion away from the claim under evaluation.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Topic derailment", + "variant cue: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses topic derailment with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 947, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 947, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "commitment_inconsistency_burden_variant", + "name": "Commitment inconsistency", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Commitment inconsistency: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Maintaining claims that conflict with previously accepted commitments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Commitment inconsistency: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Maintaining claims that conflict with previously accepted commitments.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Commitment inconsistency", + "variant cue: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses commitment inconsistency with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 948, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 948, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "unanswered_critical_question_burden_variant", + "name": "Unanswered critical question", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Unanswered critical question: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Ignoring critical questions required by an argument scheme.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Unanswered critical question: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Ignoring critical questions required by an argument scheme.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Unanswered critical question", + "variant cue: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses unanswered critical question with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/argumentation-schemes/1D013BFA2695C72B14134F2C38B17B85" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 949, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 949, + "source_family": "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "premature_closure_burden_variant", + "name": "Premature closure", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Premature closure: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Ending inquiry before relevant objections or alternatives are considered.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Premature closure: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Ending inquiry before relevant objections or alternatives are considered.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Premature closure", + "variant cue: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses premature closure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 950, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 950, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "criterion_shifting_burden_variant", + "name": "Criterion shifting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Criterion shifting: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Changing evaluation criteria without stating the change.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Criterion shifting: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Changing evaluation criteria without stating the change.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Criterion shifting", + "variant cue: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses criterion shifting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 951, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 951, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ambiguity_exploitation_burden_variant", + "name": "Ambiguity exploitation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Ambiguity exploitation: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Using ambiguous wording to maintain multiple interpretations.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Ambiguity exploitation: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Using ambiguous wording to maintain multiple interpretations.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Ambiguity exploitation", + "variant cue: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses ambiguity exploitation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 952, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 952, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "burden_overload_burden_variant", + "name": "Burden overload", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Burden overload: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Demanding an unrealistic standard from one side while offering less support oneself.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Burden overload: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Demanding an unrealistic standard from one side while offering less support oneself.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Burden overload", + "variant cue: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses burden overload with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 953, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 953, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "uncharitable_interpretation_burden_variant", + "name": "Uncharitable interpretation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Uncharitable interpretation: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Interpreting a claim in a weaker or less reasonable way than context supports.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Uncharitable interpretation: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Interpreting a claim in a weaker or less reasonable way than context supports.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Uncharitable interpretation", + "variant cue: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses uncharitable interpretation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 954, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 954, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "missing_warrant_burden_variant", + "name": "Missing warrant", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing warrant: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: The move from evidence to conclusion lacks an explicit or plausible warrant.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing warrant: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: The move from evidence to conclusion lacks an explicit or plausible warrant.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Missing warrant", + "variant cue: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses missing warrant with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 955, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 955, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "warrant_backing_gap_burden_variant", + "name": "Warrant-backing gap", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Warrant-backing gap: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: The warrant itself lacks support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Warrant-backing gap: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: The warrant itself lacks support.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Warrant-backing gap", + "variant cue: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses warrant-backing gap with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 956, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 956, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "qualifier_absence_burden_variant", + "name": "Qualifier absence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Qualifier absence: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: A claim lacks necessary qualifiers given uncertainty.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Qualifier absence: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: A claim lacks necessary qualifiers given uncertainty.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Qualifier absence", + "variant cue: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses qualifier absence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 957, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 957, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "rebuttal_suppression_burden_variant", + "name": "Rebuttal suppression", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Rebuttal suppression: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Known exceptions or rebuttals are omitted.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Rebuttal suppression: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Known exceptions or rebuttals are omitted.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Rebuttal suppression", + "variant cue: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses rebuttal suppression with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 958, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 958, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "maxim_quantity_violation_burden_variant", + "name": "Quantity maxim issue", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Quantity maxim issue: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Providing too little or too much information for the argumentative need.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Quantity maxim issue: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Providing too little or too much information for the argumentative need.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Quantity maxim issue", + "variant cue: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses quantity maxim issue with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 959, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 959, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "maxim_relevance_violation_burden_variant", + "name": "Relevance maxim issue", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Relevance maxim issue: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Providing information that is not relevant to the claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Relevance maxim issue: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Providing information that is not relevant to the claim.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Relevance maxim issue", + "variant cue: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses relevance maxim issue with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 960, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 960, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "maxim_manner_violation_burden_variant", + "name": "Manner maxim issue", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Manner maxim issue: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Using obscure or disorderly expression that impairs evaluation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Manner maxim issue: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric. Parent definition: Using obscure or disorderly expression that impairs evaluation.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Manner maxim issue", + "variant cue: proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on proof obligations are shifted or made asymmetric to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses manner maxim issue with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 961, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 961, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "topic_derailment_relevance_variant", + "name": "Topic derailment", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Topic derailment: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Moving discussion away from the claim under evaluation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Topic derailment: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Moving discussion away from the claim under evaluation.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Topic derailment", + "variant cue: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the move is not relevant to the claim at issue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses topic derailment with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 962, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 962, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "commitment_inconsistency_relevance_variant", + "name": "Commitment inconsistency", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Commitment inconsistency: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Maintaining claims that conflict with previously accepted commitments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Commitment inconsistency: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Maintaining claims that conflict with previously accepted commitments.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Commitment inconsistency", + "variant cue: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the move is not relevant to the claim at issue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses commitment inconsistency with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 963, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 963, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "unanswered_critical_question_relevance_variant", + "name": "Unanswered critical question", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Unanswered critical question: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Ignoring critical questions required by an argument scheme.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Unanswered critical question: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Ignoring critical questions required by an argument scheme.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Unanswered critical question", + "variant cue: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the move is not relevant to the claim at issue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses unanswered critical question with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/argumentation-schemes/1D013BFA2695C72B14134F2C38B17B85" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 964, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 964, + "source_family": "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "premature_closure_relevance_variant", + "name": "Premature closure", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Premature closure: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Ending inquiry before relevant objections or alternatives are considered.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Premature closure: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Ending inquiry before relevant objections or alternatives are considered.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Premature closure", + "variant cue: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the move is not relevant to the claim at issue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses premature closure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 965, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 965, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "criterion_shifting_relevance_variant", + "name": "Criterion shifting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Criterion shifting: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Changing evaluation criteria without stating the change.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Criterion shifting: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Changing evaluation criteria without stating the change.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Criterion shifting", + "variant cue: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the move is not relevant to the claim at issue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses criterion shifting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 966, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 966, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ambiguity_exploitation_relevance_variant", + "name": "Ambiguity exploitation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Ambiguity exploitation: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Using ambiguous wording to maintain multiple interpretations.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Ambiguity exploitation: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Using ambiguous wording to maintain multiple interpretations.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Ambiguity exploitation", + "variant cue: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the move is not relevant to the claim at issue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses ambiguity exploitation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 967, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 967, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "burden_overload_relevance_variant", + "name": "Burden overload", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Burden overload: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Demanding an unrealistic standard from one side while offering less support oneself.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Burden overload: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Demanding an unrealistic standard from one side while offering less support oneself.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Burden overload", + "variant cue: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the move is not relevant to the claim at issue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses burden overload with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 968, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 968, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "uncharitable_interpretation_relevance_variant", + "name": "Uncharitable interpretation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Uncharitable interpretation: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Interpreting a claim in a weaker or less reasonable way than context supports.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Uncharitable interpretation: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Interpreting a claim in a weaker or less reasonable way than context supports.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Uncharitable interpretation", + "variant cue: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the move is not relevant to the claim at issue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses uncharitable interpretation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 969, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 969, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "missing_warrant_relevance_variant", + "name": "Missing warrant", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing warrant: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: The move from evidence to conclusion lacks an explicit or plausible warrant.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing warrant: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: The move from evidence to conclusion lacks an explicit or plausible warrant.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Missing warrant", + "variant cue: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the move is not relevant to the claim at issue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses missing warrant with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 970, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 970, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "warrant_backing_gap_relevance_variant", + "name": "Warrant-backing gap", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Warrant-backing gap: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: The warrant itself lacks support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Warrant-backing gap: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: The warrant itself lacks support.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Warrant-backing gap", + "variant cue: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the move is not relevant to the claim at issue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses warrant-backing gap with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 971, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 971, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "qualifier_absence_relevance_variant", + "name": "Qualifier absence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Qualifier absence: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: A claim lacks necessary qualifiers given uncertainty.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Qualifier absence: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: A claim lacks necessary qualifiers given uncertainty.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Qualifier absence", + "variant cue: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the move is not relevant to the claim at issue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses qualifier absence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 972, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 972, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "rebuttal_suppression_relevance_variant", + "name": "Rebuttal suppression", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Rebuttal suppression: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Known exceptions or rebuttals are omitted.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Rebuttal suppression: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Known exceptions or rebuttals are omitted.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Rebuttal suppression", + "variant cue: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the move is not relevant to the claim at issue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses rebuttal suppression with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 973, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 973, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "maxim_quantity_violation_relevance_variant", + "name": "Quantity maxim issue", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Quantity maxim issue: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Providing too little or too much information for the argumentative need.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Quantity maxim issue: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Providing too little or too much information for the argumentative need.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Quantity maxim issue", + "variant cue: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the move is not relevant to the claim at issue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses quantity maxim issue with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 974, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 974, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "maxim_relevance_violation_relevance_variant", + "name": "Relevance maxim issue", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Relevance maxim issue: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Providing information that is not relevant to the claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Relevance maxim issue: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Providing information that is not relevant to the claim.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Relevance maxim issue", + "variant cue: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the move is not relevant to the claim at issue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses relevance maxim issue with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 975, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 975, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "maxim_manner_violation_relevance_variant", + "name": "Manner maxim issue", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Manner maxim issue: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Using obscure or disorderly expression that impairs evaluation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Manner maxim issue: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue. Parent definition: Using obscure or disorderly expression that impairs evaluation.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Manner maxim issue", + "variant cue: the move is not relevant to the claim at issue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the move is not relevant to the claim at issue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses manner maxim issue with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 976, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 976, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "topic_derailment_commitment_variant", + "name": "Topic derailment", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Topic derailment: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Moving discussion away from the claim under evaluation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Topic derailment: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Moving discussion away from the claim under evaluation.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Topic derailment", + "variant cue: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses topic derailment with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 977, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 977, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "commitment_inconsistency_commitment_variant", + "name": "Commitment inconsistency", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Commitment inconsistency: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Maintaining claims that conflict with previously accepted commitments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Commitment inconsistency: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Maintaining claims that conflict with previously accepted commitments.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Commitment inconsistency", + "variant cue: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses commitment inconsistency with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 978, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 978, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "unanswered_critical_question_commitment_variant", + "name": "Unanswered critical question", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Unanswered critical question: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Ignoring critical questions required by an argument scheme.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Unanswered critical question: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Ignoring critical questions required by an argument scheme.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Unanswered critical question", + "variant cue: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses unanswered critical question with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/argumentation-schemes/1D013BFA2695C72B14134F2C38B17B85" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 979, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 979, + "source_family": "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "premature_closure_commitment_variant", + "name": "Premature closure", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Premature closure: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Ending inquiry before relevant objections or alternatives are considered.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Premature closure: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Ending inquiry before relevant objections or alternatives are considered.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Premature closure", + "variant cue: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses premature closure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 980, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 980, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "criterion_shifting_commitment_variant", + "name": "Criterion shifting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Criterion shifting: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Changing evaluation criteria without stating the change.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Criterion shifting: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Changing evaluation criteria without stating the change.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Criterion shifting", + "variant cue: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses criterion shifting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 981, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 981, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ambiguity_exploitation_commitment_variant", + "name": "Ambiguity exploitation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Ambiguity exploitation: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Using ambiguous wording to maintain multiple interpretations.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Ambiguity exploitation: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Using ambiguous wording to maintain multiple interpretations.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Ambiguity exploitation", + "variant cue: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses ambiguity exploitation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 982, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 982, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "burden_overload_commitment_variant", + "name": "Burden overload", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Burden overload: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Demanding an unrealistic standard from one side while offering less support oneself.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Burden overload: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Demanding an unrealistic standard from one side while offering less support oneself.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Burden overload", + "variant cue: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses burden overload with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 983, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 983, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "uncharitable_interpretation_commitment_variant", + "name": "Uncharitable interpretation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Uncharitable interpretation: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Interpreting a claim in a weaker or less reasonable way than context supports.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Uncharitable interpretation: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Interpreting a claim in a weaker or less reasonable way than context supports.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Uncharitable interpretation", + "variant cue: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses uncharitable interpretation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 984, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 984, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "missing_warrant_commitment_variant", + "name": "Missing warrant", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing warrant: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: The move from evidence to conclusion lacks an explicit or plausible warrant.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing warrant: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: The move from evidence to conclusion lacks an explicit or plausible warrant.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Missing warrant", + "variant cue: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses missing warrant with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 985, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 985, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "warrant_backing_gap_commitment_variant", + "name": "Warrant-backing gap", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Warrant-backing gap: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: The warrant itself lacks support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Warrant-backing gap: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: The warrant itself lacks support.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Warrant-backing gap", + "variant cue: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses warrant-backing gap with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 986, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 986, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "qualifier_absence_commitment_variant", + "name": "Qualifier absence", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Qualifier absence: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: A claim lacks necessary qualifiers given uncertainty.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Qualifier absence: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: A claim lacks necessary qualifiers given uncertainty.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Qualifier absence", + "variant cue: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses qualifier absence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 987, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 987, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "rebuttal_suppression_commitment_variant", + "name": "Rebuttal suppression", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Rebuttal suppression: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Known exceptions or rebuttals are omitted.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Rebuttal suppression: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Known exceptions or rebuttals are omitted.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Rebuttal suppression", + "variant cue: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses rebuttal suppression with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 988, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 988, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "maxim_quantity_violation_commitment_variant", + "name": "Quantity maxim issue", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Quantity maxim issue: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Providing too little or too much information for the argumentative need.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Quantity maxim issue: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Providing too little or too much information for the argumentative need.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Quantity maxim issue", + "variant cue: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses quantity maxim issue with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 989, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 989, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "maxim_relevance_violation_commitment_variant", + "name": "Relevance maxim issue", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Relevance maxim issue: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Providing information that is not relevant to the claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Relevance maxim issue: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Providing information that is not relevant to the claim.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Relevance maxim issue", + "variant cue: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses relevance maxim issue with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 990, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 990, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "maxim_manner_violation_commitment_variant", + "name": "Manner maxim issue", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Manner maxim issue: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Using obscure or disorderly expression that impairs evaluation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Manner maxim issue: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised. Parent definition: Using obscure or disorderly expression that impairs evaluation.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Manner maxim issue", + "variant cue: speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on speaker commitments are inconsistent or selectively revised to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses manner maxim issue with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 991, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 991, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "topic_derailment_clarity_variant", + "name": "Topic derailment", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Topic derailment: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment. Parent definition: Moving discussion away from the claim under evaluation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Topic derailment: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment. Parent definition: Moving discussion away from the claim under evaluation.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Topic derailment", + "variant cue: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses topic derailment with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 992, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 992, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "commitment_inconsistency_clarity_variant", + "name": "Commitment inconsistency", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Commitment inconsistency: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment. Parent definition: Maintaining claims that conflict with previously accepted commitments.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Commitment inconsistency: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment. Parent definition: Maintaining claims that conflict with previously accepted commitments.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Commitment inconsistency", + "variant cue: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses commitment inconsistency with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 993, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 993, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "unanswered_critical_question_clarity_variant", + "name": "Unanswered critical question", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Unanswered critical question: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment. Parent definition: Ignoring critical questions required by an argument scheme.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Unanswered critical question: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment. Parent definition: Ignoring critical questions required by an argument scheme.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Unanswered critical question", + "variant cue: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses unanswered critical question with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/argumentation-schemes/1D013BFA2695C72B14134F2C38B17B85" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 994, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 994, + "source_family": "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "premature_closure_clarity_variant", + "name": "Premature closure", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Premature closure: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment. Parent definition: Ending inquiry before relevant objections or alternatives are considered.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Premature closure: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment. Parent definition: Ending inquiry before relevant objections or alternatives are considered.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Premature closure", + "variant cue: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses premature closure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 995, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 995, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "criterion_shifting_clarity_variant", + "name": "Criterion shifting", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Criterion shifting: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment. Parent definition: Changing evaluation criteria without stating the change.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Criterion shifting: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment. Parent definition: Changing evaluation criteria without stating the change.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Criterion shifting", + "variant cue: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses criterion shifting with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 996, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 996, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ambiguity_exploitation_clarity_variant", + "name": "Ambiguity exploitation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Ambiguity exploitation: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment. Parent definition: Using ambiguous wording to maintain multiple interpretations.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Ambiguity exploitation: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment. Parent definition: Using ambiguous wording to maintain multiple interpretations.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Ambiguity exploitation", + "variant cue: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses ambiguity exploitation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 997, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 997, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "burden_overload_clarity_variant", + "name": "Burden overload", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Burden overload: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment. Parent definition: Demanding an unrealistic standard from one side while offering less support oneself.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Burden overload: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment. Parent definition: Demanding an unrealistic standard from one side while offering less support oneself.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Burden overload", + "variant cue: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses burden overload with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 998, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 998, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "uncharitable_interpretation_clarity_variant", + "name": "Uncharitable interpretation", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Uncharitable interpretation: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment. Parent definition: Interpreting a claim in a weaker or less reasonable way than context supports.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Uncharitable interpretation: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment. Parent definition: Interpreting a claim in a weaker or less reasonable way than context supports.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Uncharitable interpretation", + "variant cue: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses uncharitable interpretation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 999, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 999, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "missing_warrant_clarity_variant", + "name": "Missing warrant", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing warrant: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment. Parent definition: The move from evidence to conclusion lacks an explicit or plausible warrant.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Missing warrant: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment. Parent definition: The move from evidence to conclusion lacks an explicit or plausible warrant.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Missing warrant", + "variant cue: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses missing warrant with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1000, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1000, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "warrant_backing_gap_clarity_variant", + "name": "Warrant-backing gap", + "pack": "extended_fallacies", + "canonical_category": "operational_detection_category", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Warrant-backing gap: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment. Parent definition: The warrant itself lacks support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Warrant-backing gap: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment. Parent definition: The warrant itself lacks support.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Warrant-backing gap", + "variant cue: ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on ambiguity or obscurity blocks fair assessment to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses warrant-backing gap with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1001, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1001, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + } + ], + "metadata": {} +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/taxonomy/packs/healthy_reasoning_patterns.yaml b/data/taxonomy/packs/healthy_reasoning_patterns.yaml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fef8e85 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/taxonomy/packs/healthy_reasoning_patterns.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,6047 @@ +{ + "version": "0.2.0", + "name": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "entries": [ + { + "id": "uncertainty_acknowledgement_canonical", + "name": "Uncertainty acknowledgement", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Uncertainty acknowledgement: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Uncertainty acknowledgement: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Uncertainty acknowledgement", + "variant cue: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses uncertainty acknowledgement with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1002, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1002, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "scope_limitation_canonical", + "name": "Scope limitation", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Scope limitation: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Scope limitation: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Scope limitation", + "variant cue: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses scope limitation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1003, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1003, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "base_rate_use_canonical", + "name": "Base-rate use", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Base-rate use: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Base-rate use: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Base-rate use", + "variant cue: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses base-rate use with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1004, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1004, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "counterexample_consideration_canonical", + "name": "Counterexample consideration", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Counterexample consideration: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Counterexample consideration: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Counterexample consideration", + "variant cue: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses counterexample consideration with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1005, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1005, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "alternative_explanation_consideration_canonical", + "name": "Alternative explanations considered", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Alternative explanations considered: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Alternative explanations considered: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Alternative explanations considered", + "variant cue: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses alternative explanations considered with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1006, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1006, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "evidence_grading_canonical", + "name": "Evidence grading", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Evidence grading: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Evidence grading: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Evidence grading", + "variant cue: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses evidence grading with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1007, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1007, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "source_triangulation_canonical", + "name": "Source triangulation", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Source triangulation: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Source triangulation: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Source triangulation", + "variant cue: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses source triangulation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1008, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1008, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "probabilistic_language_canonical", + "name": "Probabilistic language", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Probabilistic language: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Probabilistic language: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Probabilistic language", + "variant cue: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses probabilistic language with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1009, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1009, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "confidence_calibration_canonical", + "name": "Confidence calibration", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Confidence calibration: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Confidence calibration: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Confidence calibration", + "variant cue: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses confidence calibration with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1010, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1010, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "causal_caveat_canonical", + "name": "Causal caveat", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Causal caveat: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Causal caveat: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Causal caveat", + "variant cue: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses causal caveat with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "post_hoc", + "cum_hoc", + "alternative_explanation_neglect" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1011, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1011, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sample_limitation_statement_canonical", + "name": "Sample limitation statement", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Sample limitation statement: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Sample limitation statement: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sample limitation statement", + "variant cue: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sample limitation statement with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1012, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1012, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "method_limitation_statement_canonical", + "name": "Method limitation statement", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Method limitation statement: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Method limitation statement: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Method limitation statement", + "variant cue: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses method limitation statement with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1013, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1013, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "rebuttal_inclusion_canonical", + "name": "Rebuttal inclusion", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Rebuttal inclusion: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Rebuttal inclusion: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Rebuttal inclusion", + "variant cue: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses rebuttal inclusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1014, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1014, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "warrant_explication_canonical", + "name": "Warrant explication", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Warrant explication: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Warrant explication: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Warrant explication", + "variant cue: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses warrant explication with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1015, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1015, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "steelman_interpretation_canonical", + "name": "Steelman interpretation", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Steelman interpretation: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Steelman interpretation: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Steelman interpretation", + "variant cue: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses steelman interpretation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1016, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1016, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "decision_threshold_statement_canonical", + "name": "Decision threshold statement", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Decision threshold statement: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Decision threshold statement: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Decision threshold statement", + "variant cue: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses decision threshold statement with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1017, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1017, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "pre_registered_criterion_canonical", + "name": "Pre-specified criterion", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Pre-specified criterion: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Pre-specified criterion: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Pre-specified criterion", + "variant cue: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses pre-specified criterion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1018, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1018, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "uncertainty_interval_reported_canonical", + "name": "Uncertainty interval reported", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Uncertainty interval reported: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Uncertainty interval reported: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Uncertainty interval reported", + "variant cue: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses uncertainty interval reported with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1019, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1019, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "balanced_evidence_summary_canonical", + "name": "Balanced evidence summary", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Balanced evidence summary: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Balanced evidence summary: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Balanced evidence summary", + "variant cue: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses balanced evidence summary with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1020, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1020, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "human_review_trigger_canonical", + "name": "Human-review trigger", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Human-review trigger: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Human-review trigger: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Human-review trigger", + "variant cue: a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on a protective reasoning pattern is explicitly present to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses human-review trigger with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1021, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1021, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "uncertainty_acknowledgement_evidence_quality_variant", + "name": "Uncertainty acknowledgement", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Uncertainty acknowledgement: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Uncertainty acknowledgement: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Uncertainty acknowledgement", + "variant cue: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text grades or qualifies evidence quality to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses uncertainty acknowledgement with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1022, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1022, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "scope_limitation_evidence_quality_variant", + "name": "Scope limitation", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Scope limitation: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Scope limitation: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Scope limitation", + "variant cue: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text grades or qualifies evidence quality to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses scope limitation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1023, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1023, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "base_rate_use_evidence_quality_variant", + "name": "Base-rate use", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Base-rate use: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Base-rate use: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Base-rate use", + "variant cue: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text grades or qualifies evidence quality to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses base-rate use with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1024, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1024, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "counterexample_consideration_evidence_quality_variant", + "name": "Counterexample consideration", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Counterexample consideration: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Counterexample consideration: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Counterexample consideration", + "variant cue: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text grades or qualifies evidence quality to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses counterexample consideration with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1025, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1025, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "alternative_explanation_consideration_evidence_quality_variant", + "name": "Alternative explanations considered", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Alternative explanations considered: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Alternative explanations considered: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Alternative explanations considered", + "variant cue: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text grades or qualifies evidence quality to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses alternative explanations considered with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1026, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1026, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "evidence_grading_evidence_quality_variant", + "name": "Evidence grading", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Evidence grading: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Evidence grading: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Evidence grading", + "variant cue: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text grades or qualifies evidence quality to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses evidence grading with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1027, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1027, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "source_triangulation_evidence_quality_variant", + "name": "Source triangulation", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Source triangulation: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Source triangulation: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Source triangulation", + "variant cue: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text grades or qualifies evidence quality to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses source triangulation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1028, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1028, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "probabilistic_language_evidence_quality_variant", + "name": "Probabilistic language", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Probabilistic language: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Probabilistic language: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Probabilistic language", + "variant cue: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text grades or qualifies evidence quality to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses probabilistic language with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1029, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1029, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "confidence_calibration_evidence_quality_variant", + "name": "Confidence calibration", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Confidence calibration: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Confidence calibration: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Confidence calibration", + "variant cue: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text grades or qualifies evidence quality to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses confidence calibration with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1030, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1030, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "causal_caveat_evidence_quality_variant", + "name": "Causal caveat", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Causal caveat: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Causal caveat: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Causal caveat", + "variant cue: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text grades or qualifies evidence quality to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses causal caveat with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "post_hoc", + "cum_hoc", + "alternative_explanation_neglect" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1031, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1031, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sample_limitation_statement_evidence_quality_variant", + "name": "Sample limitation statement", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Sample limitation statement: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Sample limitation statement: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sample limitation statement", + "variant cue: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text grades or qualifies evidence quality to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sample limitation statement with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1032, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1032, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "method_limitation_statement_evidence_quality_variant", + "name": "Method limitation statement", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Method limitation statement: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Method limitation statement: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Method limitation statement", + "variant cue: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text grades or qualifies evidence quality to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses method limitation statement with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1033, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1033, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "rebuttal_inclusion_evidence_quality_variant", + "name": "Rebuttal inclusion", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Rebuttal inclusion: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Rebuttal inclusion: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Rebuttal inclusion", + "variant cue: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text grades or qualifies evidence quality to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses rebuttal inclusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1034, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1034, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "warrant_explication_evidence_quality_variant", + "name": "Warrant explication", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Warrant explication: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Warrant explication: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Warrant explication", + "variant cue: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text grades or qualifies evidence quality to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses warrant explication with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1035, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1035, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "steelman_interpretation_evidence_quality_variant", + "name": "Steelman interpretation", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Steelman interpretation: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Steelman interpretation: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Steelman interpretation", + "variant cue: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text grades or qualifies evidence quality to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses steelman interpretation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1036, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1036, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "decision_threshold_statement_evidence_quality_variant", + "name": "Decision threshold statement", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Decision threshold statement: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Decision threshold statement: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Decision threshold statement", + "variant cue: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text grades or qualifies evidence quality to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses decision threshold statement with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1037, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1037, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "pre_registered_criterion_evidence_quality_variant", + "name": "Pre-specified criterion", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Pre-specified criterion: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Pre-specified criterion: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Pre-specified criterion", + "variant cue: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text grades or qualifies evidence quality to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses pre-specified criterion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1038, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1038, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "uncertainty_interval_reported_evidence_quality_variant", + "name": "Uncertainty interval reported", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Uncertainty interval reported: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Uncertainty interval reported: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Uncertainty interval reported", + "variant cue: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text grades or qualifies evidence quality to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses uncertainty interval reported with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1039, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1039, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "balanced_evidence_summary_evidence_quality_variant", + "name": "Balanced evidence summary", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Balanced evidence summary: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Balanced evidence summary: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Balanced evidence summary", + "variant cue: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text grades or qualifies evidence quality to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses balanced evidence summary with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1040, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1040, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "human_review_trigger_evidence_quality_variant", + "name": "Human-review trigger", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Human-review trigger: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Human-review trigger: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Human-review trigger", + "variant cue: the text grades or qualifies evidence quality", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text grades or qualifies evidence quality to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses human-review trigger with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1041, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1041, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "uncertainty_acknowledgement_uncertainty_variant", + "name": "Uncertainty acknowledgement", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Uncertainty acknowledgement: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Uncertainty acknowledgement: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Uncertainty acknowledgement", + "variant cue: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses uncertainty acknowledgement with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1042, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1042, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "scope_limitation_uncertainty_variant", + "name": "Scope limitation", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Scope limitation: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Scope limitation: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Scope limitation", + "variant cue: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses scope limitation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1043, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1043, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "base_rate_use_uncertainty_variant", + "name": "Base-rate use", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Base-rate use: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Base-rate use: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Base-rate use", + "variant cue: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses base-rate use with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1044, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1044, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "counterexample_consideration_uncertainty_variant", + "name": "Counterexample consideration", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Counterexample consideration: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Counterexample consideration: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Counterexample consideration", + "variant cue: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses counterexample consideration with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1045, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1045, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "alternative_explanation_consideration_uncertainty_variant", + "name": "Alternative explanations considered", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Alternative explanations considered: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Alternative explanations considered: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Alternative explanations considered", + "variant cue: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses alternative explanations considered with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1046, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1046, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "evidence_grading_uncertainty_variant", + "name": "Evidence grading", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Evidence grading: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Evidence grading: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Evidence grading", + "variant cue: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses evidence grading with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1047, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1047, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "source_triangulation_uncertainty_variant", + "name": "Source triangulation", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Source triangulation: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Source triangulation: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Source triangulation", + "variant cue: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses source triangulation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1048, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1048, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "probabilistic_language_uncertainty_variant", + "name": "Probabilistic language", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Probabilistic language: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Probabilistic language: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Probabilistic language", + "variant cue: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses probabilistic language with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1049, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1049, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "confidence_calibration_uncertainty_variant", + "name": "Confidence calibration", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Confidence calibration: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Confidence calibration: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Confidence calibration", + "variant cue: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses confidence calibration with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1050, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1050, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "causal_caveat_uncertainty_variant", + "name": "Causal caveat", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Causal caveat: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Causal caveat: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Causal caveat", + "variant cue: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses causal caveat with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "post_hoc", + "cum_hoc", + "alternative_explanation_neglect" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1051, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1051, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sample_limitation_statement_uncertainty_variant", + "name": "Sample limitation statement", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Sample limitation statement: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Sample limitation statement: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sample limitation statement", + "variant cue: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sample limitation statement with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1052, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1052, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "method_limitation_statement_uncertainty_variant", + "name": "Method limitation statement", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Method limitation statement: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Method limitation statement: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Method limitation statement", + "variant cue: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses method limitation statement with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1053, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1053, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "rebuttal_inclusion_uncertainty_variant", + "name": "Rebuttal inclusion", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Rebuttal inclusion: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Rebuttal inclusion: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Rebuttal inclusion", + "variant cue: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses rebuttal inclusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1054, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1054, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "warrant_explication_uncertainty_variant", + "name": "Warrant explication", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Warrant explication: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Warrant explication: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Warrant explication", + "variant cue: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses warrant explication with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1055, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1055, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "steelman_interpretation_uncertainty_variant", + "name": "Steelman interpretation", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Steelman interpretation: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Steelman interpretation: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Steelman interpretation", + "variant cue: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses steelman interpretation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1056, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1056, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "decision_threshold_statement_uncertainty_variant", + "name": "Decision threshold statement", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Decision threshold statement: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Decision threshold statement: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Decision threshold statement", + "variant cue: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses decision threshold statement with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1057, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1057, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "pre_registered_criterion_uncertainty_variant", + "name": "Pre-specified criterion", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Pre-specified criterion: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Pre-specified criterion: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Pre-specified criterion", + "variant cue: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses pre-specified criterion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1058, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1058, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "uncertainty_interval_reported_uncertainty_variant", + "name": "Uncertainty interval reported", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Uncertainty interval reported: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Uncertainty interval reported: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Uncertainty interval reported", + "variant cue: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses uncertainty interval reported with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1059, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1059, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "balanced_evidence_summary_uncertainty_variant", + "name": "Balanced evidence summary", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Balanced evidence summary: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Balanced evidence summary: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Balanced evidence summary", + "variant cue: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses balanced evidence summary with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1060, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1060, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "human_review_trigger_uncertainty_variant", + "name": "Human-review trigger", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Human-review trigger: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Human-review trigger: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Human-review trigger", + "variant cue: the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text explicitly calibrates uncertainty to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses human-review trigger with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1061, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1061, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "uncertainty_acknowledgement_counterargument_variant", + "name": "Uncertainty acknowledgement", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Uncertainty acknowledgement: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Uncertainty acknowledgement: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Uncertainty acknowledgement", + "variant cue: the text considers alternatives or objections", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text considers alternatives or objections to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses uncertainty acknowledgement with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1062, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1062, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "scope_limitation_counterargument_variant", + "name": "Scope limitation", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Scope limitation: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Scope limitation: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Scope limitation", + "variant cue: the text considers alternatives or objections", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text considers alternatives or objections to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses scope limitation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1063, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1063, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "base_rate_use_counterargument_variant", + "name": "Base-rate use", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Base-rate use: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Base-rate use: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Base-rate use", + "variant cue: the text considers alternatives or objections", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text considers alternatives or objections to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses base-rate use with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1064, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1064, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "counterexample_consideration_counterargument_variant", + "name": "Counterexample consideration", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Counterexample consideration: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Counterexample consideration: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Counterexample consideration", + "variant cue: the text considers alternatives or objections", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text considers alternatives or objections to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses counterexample consideration with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1065, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1065, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "alternative_explanation_consideration_counterargument_variant", + "name": "Alternative explanations considered", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Alternative explanations considered: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Alternative explanations considered: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Alternative explanations considered", + "variant cue: the text considers alternatives or objections", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text considers alternatives or objections to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses alternative explanations considered with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1066, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1066, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "evidence_grading_counterargument_variant", + "name": "Evidence grading", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Evidence grading: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Evidence grading: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Evidence grading", + "variant cue: the text considers alternatives or objections", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text considers alternatives or objections to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses evidence grading with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1067, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1067, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "source_triangulation_counterargument_variant", + "name": "Source triangulation", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Source triangulation: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Source triangulation: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Source triangulation", + "variant cue: the text considers alternatives or objections", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text considers alternatives or objections to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses source triangulation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1068, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1068, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "probabilistic_language_counterargument_variant", + "name": "Probabilistic language", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Probabilistic language: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Probabilistic language: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Probabilistic language", + "variant cue: the text considers alternatives or objections", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text considers alternatives or objections to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses probabilistic language with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1069, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1069, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "confidence_calibration_counterargument_variant", + "name": "Confidence calibration", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Confidence calibration: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Confidence calibration: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Confidence calibration", + "variant cue: the text considers alternatives or objections", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text considers alternatives or objections to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses confidence calibration with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1070, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1070, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "causal_caveat_counterargument_variant", + "name": "Causal caveat", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Causal caveat: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Causal caveat: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Causal caveat", + "variant cue: the text considers alternatives or objections", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text considers alternatives or objections to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses causal caveat with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "post_hoc", + "cum_hoc", + "alternative_explanation_neglect" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1071, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1071, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sample_limitation_statement_counterargument_variant", + "name": "Sample limitation statement", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Sample limitation statement: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Sample limitation statement: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sample limitation statement", + "variant cue: the text considers alternatives or objections", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text considers alternatives or objections to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sample limitation statement with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1072, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1072, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "method_limitation_statement_counterargument_variant", + "name": "Method limitation statement", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Method limitation statement: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Method limitation statement: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Method limitation statement", + "variant cue: the text considers alternatives or objections", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text considers alternatives or objections to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses method limitation statement with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1073, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1073, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "rebuttal_inclusion_counterargument_variant", + "name": "Rebuttal inclusion", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Rebuttal inclusion: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Rebuttal inclusion: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Rebuttal inclusion", + "variant cue: the text considers alternatives or objections", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text considers alternatives or objections to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses rebuttal inclusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1074, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1074, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "warrant_explication_counterargument_variant", + "name": "Warrant explication", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Warrant explication: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Warrant explication: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Warrant explication", + "variant cue: the text considers alternatives or objections", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text considers alternatives or objections to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses warrant explication with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1075, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1075, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "steelman_interpretation_counterargument_variant", + "name": "Steelman interpretation", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Steelman interpretation: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Steelman interpretation: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Steelman interpretation", + "variant cue: the text considers alternatives or objections", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text considers alternatives or objections to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses steelman interpretation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1076, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1076, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "decision_threshold_statement_counterargument_variant", + "name": "Decision threshold statement", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Decision threshold statement: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Decision threshold statement: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Decision threshold statement", + "variant cue: the text considers alternatives or objections", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text considers alternatives or objections to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses decision threshold statement with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1077, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1077, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "pre_registered_criterion_counterargument_variant", + "name": "Pre-specified criterion", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Pre-specified criterion: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Pre-specified criterion: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Pre-specified criterion", + "variant cue: the text considers alternatives or objections", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text considers alternatives or objections to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses pre-specified criterion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1078, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1078, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "uncertainty_interval_reported_counterargument_variant", + "name": "Uncertainty interval reported", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Uncertainty interval reported: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Uncertainty interval reported: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Uncertainty interval reported", + "variant cue: the text considers alternatives or objections", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text considers alternatives or objections to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses uncertainty interval reported with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1079, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1079, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "balanced_evidence_summary_counterargument_variant", + "name": "Balanced evidence summary", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Balanced evidence summary: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Balanced evidence summary: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Balanced evidence summary", + "variant cue: the text considers alternatives or objections", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text considers alternatives or objections to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses balanced evidence summary with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1080, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1080, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "human_review_trigger_counterargument_variant", + "name": "Human-review trigger", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Human-review trigger: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Human-review trigger: the text considers alternatives or objections. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Human-review trigger", + "variant cue: the text considers alternatives or objections", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text considers alternatives or objections to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses human-review trigger with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1081, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1081, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "uncertainty_acknowledgement_review_threshold_variant", + "name": "Uncertainty acknowledgement", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Uncertainty acknowledgement: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Uncertainty acknowledgement: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Uncertainty acknowledgement", + "variant cue: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses uncertainty acknowledgement with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1082, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1082, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "scope_limitation_review_threshold_variant", + "name": "Scope limitation", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Scope limitation: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Scope limitation: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Scope limitation", + "variant cue: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses scope limitation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1083, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1083, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "base_rate_use_review_threshold_variant", + "name": "Base-rate use", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Base-rate use: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Base-rate use: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Base-rate use", + "variant cue: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses base-rate use with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1084, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1084, + "source_family": "kahneman_tversky_heuristics_1974", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "counterexample_consideration_review_threshold_variant", + "name": "Counterexample consideration", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Counterexample consideration: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Counterexample consideration: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Counterexample consideration", + "variant cue: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses counterexample consideration with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1085, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1085, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "alternative_explanation_consideration_review_threshold_variant", + "name": "Alternative explanations considered", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Alternative explanations considered: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Alternative explanations considered: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Alternative explanations considered", + "variant cue: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses alternative explanations considered with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1086, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1086, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "evidence_grading_review_threshold_variant", + "name": "Evidence grading", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Evidence grading: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Evidence grading: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Evidence grading", + "variant cue: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses evidence grading with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1087, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1087, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "source_triangulation_review_threshold_variant", + "name": "Source triangulation", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Source triangulation: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Source triangulation: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Source triangulation", + "variant cue: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses source triangulation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1088, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1088, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "probabilistic_language_review_threshold_variant", + "name": "Probabilistic language", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Probabilistic language: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Probabilistic language: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Probabilistic language", + "variant cue: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses probabilistic language with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1089, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1089, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "confidence_calibration_review_threshold_variant", + "name": "Confidence calibration", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Confidence calibration: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Confidence calibration: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Confidence calibration", + "variant cue: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses confidence calibration with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1090, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1090, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "causal_caveat_review_threshold_variant", + "name": "Causal caveat", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Causal caveat: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Causal caveat: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Causal caveat", + "variant cue: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses causal caveat with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "post_hoc", + "cum_hoc", + "alternative_explanation_neglect" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1091, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1091, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sample_limitation_statement_review_threshold_variant", + "name": "Sample limitation statement", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Sample limitation statement: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Sample limitation statement: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sample limitation statement", + "variant cue: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sample limitation statement with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1092, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1092, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "method_limitation_statement_review_threshold_variant", + "name": "Method limitation statement", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Method limitation statement: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Method limitation statement: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Method limitation statement", + "variant cue: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses method limitation statement with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1093, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1093, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "rebuttal_inclusion_review_threshold_variant", + "name": "Rebuttal inclusion", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Rebuttal inclusion: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Rebuttal inclusion: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Rebuttal inclusion", + "variant cue: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses rebuttal inclusion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1094, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1094, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "warrant_explication_review_threshold_variant", + "name": "Warrant explication", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Warrant explication: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Warrant explication: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Warrant explication", + "variant cue: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses warrant explication with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1095, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1095, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "steelman_interpretation_review_threshold_variant", + "name": "Steelman interpretation", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Steelman interpretation: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Steelman interpretation: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Steelman interpretation", + "variant cue: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses steelman interpretation with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "toulmin_uses_argument", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1096, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1096, + "source_family": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "decision_threshold_statement_review_threshold_variant", + "name": "Decision threshold statement", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Decision threshold statement: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Decision threshold statement: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Decision threshold statement", + "variant cue: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses decision threshold statement with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1097, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1097, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "pre_registered_criterion_review_threshold_variant", + "name": "Pre-specified criterion", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Pre-specified criterion: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Pre-specified criterion: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Pre-specified criterion", + "variant cue: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses pre-specified criterion with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1098, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1098, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "uncertainty_interval_reported_review_threshold_variant", + "name": "Uncertainty interval reported", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Uncertainty interval reported: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Uncertainty interval reported: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Uncertainty interval reported", + "variant cue: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses uncertainty interval reported with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": false, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "low", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1099, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1099, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "balanced_evidence_summary_review_threshold_variant", + "name": "Balanced evidence summary", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Balanced evidence summary: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Balanced evidence summary: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Balanced evidence summary", + "variant cue: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses balanced evidence summary with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1100, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1100, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "human_review_trigger_review_threshold_variant", + "name": "Human-review trigger", + "pack": "healthy_reasoning_patterns", + "canonical_category": "healthy_reasoning_pattern", + "academic_status": "recognized_subtype", + "academic_consensus": "medium", + "short_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Human-review trigger: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "long_definition": "Protective reasoning pattern under Human-review trigger: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed. It should reduce risk scores when supported by evidence.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Human-review trigger", + "variant cue: the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the text states when human review or stronger evidence is needed to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses human-review trigger with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Weak protective cue", + "keep normal review.", + "Clear protective cue", + "reduce false-positive risk.", + "Strong protective cue", + "require stronger evidence before assigning risk labels." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": true, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "review_required", + "healthy_suppressor": true, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 1101, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 1101, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + } + ], + "metadata": {} +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/taxonomy/packs/rhetoric_discourse.yaml b/data/taxonomy/packs/rhetoric_discourse.yaml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ff1f8ca --- /dev/null +++ b/data/taxonomy/packs/rhetoric_discourse.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,5759 @@ +{ + "version": "0.2.0", + "name": "rhetoric_discourse", + "entries": [ + { + "id": "loaded_language_canonical", + "name": "Loaded language", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Loaded language: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Using emotionally charged words to steer interpretation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Loaded language: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Using emotionally charged words to steer interpretation.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Loaded language", + "variant cue: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses loaded language with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 752, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 752, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "weasel_words_canonical", + "name": "Weasel words", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Weasel words: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Using vague qualifiers that create an impression without accountable evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Weasel words: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Using vague qualifiers that create an impression without accountable evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Weasel words", + "variant cue: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses weasel words with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 753, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 753, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "vague_quantifier_canonical", + "name": "Vague quantifier", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Vague quantifier: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Using terms like many, experts, or people say without specification.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Vague quantifier: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Using terms like many, experts, or people say without specification.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Vague quantifier", + "variant cue: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses vague quantifier with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 754, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 754, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "glittering_generalities_canonical", + "name": "Glittering generalities", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Glittering generalities: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Using attractive but vague terms as persuasion instead of reasons.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Glittering generalities: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Using attractive but vague terms as persuasion instead of reasons.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Glittering generalities", + "variant cue: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses glittering generalities with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 755, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 755, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "name_calling_canonical", + "name": "Name calling", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Name calling: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Using negative labels as substitutes for argument.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Name calling: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Using negative labels as substitutes for argument.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Name calling", + "variant cue: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses name calling with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 756, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 756, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "euphemism_framing_canonical", + "name": "Euphemism framing", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Euphemism framing: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Softening language to reduce perceived seriousness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Euphemism framing: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Softening language to reduce perceived seriousness.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Euphemism framing", + "variant cue: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses euphemism framing with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 757, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 757, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "dysphemism_framing_canonical", + "name": "Dysphemism framing", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Dysphemism framing: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Using harsher wording to intensify perceived seriousness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Dysphemism framing: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Using harsher wording to intensify perceived seriousness.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Dysphemism framing", + "variant cue: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses dysphemism framing with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 758, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 758, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "fear_mongering_canonical", + "name": "Fear mongering", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Fear mongering: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Amplifying threats to push a conclusion or choice.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Fear mongering: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Amplifying threats to push a conclusion or choice.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Fear mongering", + "variant cue: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses fear mongering with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 759, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 759, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "urgency_pressure_canonical", + "name": "Urgency pressure", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Urgency pressure: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Using artificial time pressure to suppress deliberation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Urgency pressure: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Using artificial time pressure to suppress deliberation.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Urgency pressure", + "variant cue: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses urgency pressure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 760, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 760, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "scarcity_pressure_canonical", + "name": "Scarcity pressure", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Scarcity pressure: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Using scarcity language to increase compliance.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Scarcity pressure: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Using scarcity language to increase compliance.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Scarcity pressure", + "variant cue: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses scarcity pressure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 761, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 761, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "motte_and_bailey_canonical", + "name": "Motte-and-bailey", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Motte-and-bailey: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Switching between a bold claim and a defensible weaker claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Motte-and-bailey: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Switching between a bold claim and a defensible weaker claim.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Motte-and-bailey", + "variant cue: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses motte-and-bailey with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 762, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 762, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "gish_gallop_canonical", + "name": "Gish gallop", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Gish gallop: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Overwhelming with many claims faster than they can be evaluated.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Gish gallop: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Overwhelming with many claims faster than they can be evaluated.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Gish gallop", + "variant cue: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses gish gallop with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 763, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 763, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sealioning_canonical", + "name": "Sealioning", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Sealioning: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Demanding excessive evidence in bad-faith dialogue while appearing civil.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Sealioning: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Demanding excessive evidence in bad-faith dialogue while appearing civil.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sealioning", + "variant cue: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sealioning with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 764, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 764, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "quote_mining_canonical", + "name": "Quote mining", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Quote mining: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Using isolated quotes out of context.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Quote mining: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Using isolated quotes out of context.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Quote mining", + "variant cue: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses quote mining with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 765, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 765, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "framing_by_omission_canonical", + "name": "Framing by omission", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing by omission: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Shaping interpretation by omitting relevant context.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing by omission: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Shaping interpretation by omitting relevant context.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Framing by omission", + "variant cue: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses framing by omission with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 766, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 766, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "framing_by_emphasis_canonical", + "name": "Framing by emphasis", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing by emphasis: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Shaping interpretation by disproportionate emphasis.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing by emphasis: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Shaping interpretation by disproportionate emphasis.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Framing by emphasis", + "variant cue: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses framing by emphasis with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 767, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 767, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "leading_question_canonical", + "name": "Leading question", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Leading question: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Question wording nudges a desired answer.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Leading question: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Question wording nudges a desired answer.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Leading question", + "variant cue: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses leading question with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 768, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 768, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "presupposition_trigger_canonical", + "name": "Presupposition trigger", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Presupposition trigger: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Embedding assumptions through phrasing that treats them as given.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Presupposition trigger: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Embedding assumptions through phrasing that treats them as given.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Presupposition trigger", + "variant cue: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses presupposition trigger with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 769, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 769, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "card_stacking_canonical", + "name": "Card stacking", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Card stacking: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Arranging only favorable points while suppressing unfavorable ones.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Card stacking: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Arranging only favorable points while suppressing unfavorable ones.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Card stacking", + "variant cue: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses card stacking with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 770, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 770, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "slogan_substitution_canonical", + "name": "Slogan substitution", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Slogan substitution: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Replacing argument with a memorable phrase.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Slogan substitution: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Replacing argument with a memorable phrase.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Slogan substitution", + "variant cue: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses slogan substitution with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 771, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 771, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "repetition_effect_argument_canonical", + "name": "Repetition-as-evidence", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Repetition-as-evidence: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Repeating a claim as if repetition increases its evidential support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Repetition-as-evidence: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Repeating a claim as if repetition increases its evidential support.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Repetition-as-evidence", + "variant cue: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses repetition-as-evidence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 772, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 772, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_balance_rhetoric_canonical", + "name": "False balance", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False balance: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Presenting unequal evidence positions as equally supported.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False balance: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation. Parent definition: Presenting unequal evidence positions as equally supported.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False balance", + "variant cue: rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on rhetorical presentation shapes interpretation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false balance with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 773, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 773, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "loaded_language_emotional_language_variant", + "name": "Loaded language", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Loaded language: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Using emotionally charged words to steer interpretation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Loaded language: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Using emotionally charged words to steer interpretation.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Loaded language", + "variant cue: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses loaded language with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 774, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 774, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "weasel_words_emotional_language_variant", + "name": "Weasel words", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Weasel words: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Using vague qualifiers that create an impression without accountable evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Weasel words: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Using vague qualifiers that create an impression without accountable evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Weasel words", + "variant cue: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses weasel words with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 775, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 775, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "vague_quantifier_emotional_language_variant", + "name": "Vague quantifier", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Vague quantifier: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Using terms like many, experts, or people say without specification.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Vague quantifier: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Using terms like many, experts, or people say without specification.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Vague quantifier", + "variant cue: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses vague quantifier with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 776, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 776, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "glittering_generalities_emotional_language_variant", + "name": "Glittering generalities", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Glittering generalities: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Using attractive but vague terms as persuasion instead of reasons.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Glittering generalities: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Using attractive but vague terms as persuasion instead of reasons.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Glittering generalities", + "variant cue: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses glittering generalities with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 777, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 777, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "name_calling_emotional_language_variant", + "name": "Name calling", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Name calling: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Using negative labels as substitutes for argument.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Name calling: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Using negative labels as substitutes for argument.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Name calling", + "variant cue: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses name calling with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 778, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 778, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "euphemism_framing_emotional_language_variant", + "name": "Euphemism framing", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Euphemism framing: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Softening language to reduce perceived seriousness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Euphemism framing: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Softening language to reduce perceived seriousness.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Euphemism framing", + "variant cue: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses euphemism framing with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 779, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 779, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "dysphemism_framing_emotional_language_variant", + "name": "Dysphemism framing", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Dysphemism framing: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Using harsher wording to intensify perceived seriousness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Dysphemism framing: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Using harsher wording to intensify perceived seriousness.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Dysphemism framing", + "variant cue: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses dysphemism framing with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 780, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 780, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "fear_mongering_emotional_language_variant", + "name": "Fear mongering", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Fear mongering: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Amplifying threats to push a conclusion or choice.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Fear mongering: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Amplifying threats to push a conclusion or choice.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Fear mongering", + "variant cue: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses fear mongering with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 781, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 781, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "urgency_pressure_emotional_language_variant", + "name": "Urgency pressure", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Urgency pressure: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Using artificial time pressure to suppress deliberation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Urgency pressure: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Using artificial time pressure to suppress deliberation.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Urgency pressure", + "variant cue: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses urgency pressure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 782, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 782, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "scarcity_pressure_emotional_language_variant", + "name": "Scarcity pressure", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Scarcity pressure: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Using scarcity language to increase compliance.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Scarcity pressure: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Using scarcity language to increase compliance.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Scarcity pressure", + "variant cue: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses scarcity pressure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 783, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 783, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "motte_and_bailey_emotional_language_variant", + "name": "Motte-and-bailey", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Motte-and-bailey: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Switching between a bold claim and a defensible weaker claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Motte-and-bailey: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Switching between a bold claim and a defensible weaker claim.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Motte-and-bailey", + "variant cue: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses motte-and-bailey with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 784, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 784, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "gish_gallop_emotional_language_variant", + "name": "Gish gallop", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Gish gallop: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Overwhelming with many claims faster than they can be evaluated.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Gish gallop: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Overwhelming with many claims faster than they can be evaluated.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Gish gallop", + "variant cue: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses gish gallop with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 785, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 785, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sealioning_emotional_language_variant", + "name": "Sealioning", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Sealioning: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Demanding excessive evidence in bad-faith dialogue while appearing civil.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Sealioning: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Demanding excessive evidence in bad-faith dialogue while appearing civil.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sealioning", + "variant cue: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sealioning with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 786, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 786, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "quote_mining_emotional_language_variant", + "name": "Quote mining", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Quote mining: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Using isolated quotes out of context.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Quote mining: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Using isolated quotes out of context.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Quote mining", + "variant cue: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses quote mining with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 787, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 787, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "framing_by_omission_emotional_language_variant", + "name": "Framing by omission", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing by omission: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Shaping interpretation by omitting relevant context.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing by omission: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Shaping interpretation by omitting relevant context.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Framing by omission", + "variant cue: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses framing by omission with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 788, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 788, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "framing_by_emphasis_emotional_language_variant", + "name": "Framing by emphasis", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing by emphasis: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Shaping interpretation by disproportionate emphasis.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing by emphasis: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Shaping interpretation by disproportionate emphasis.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Framing by emphasis", + "variant cue: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses framing by emphasis with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 789, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 789, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "leading_question_emotional_language_variant", + "name": "Leading question", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Leading question: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Question wording nudges a desired answer.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Leading question: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Question wording nudges a desired answer.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Leading question", + "variant cue: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses leading question with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 790, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 790, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "presupposition_trigger_emotional_language_variant", + "name": "Presupposition trigger", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Presupposition trigger: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Embedding assumptions through phrasing that treats them as given.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Presupposition trigger: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Embedding assumptions through phrasing that treats them as given.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Presupposition trigger", + "variant cue: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses presupposition trigger with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 791, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 791, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "card_stacking_emotional_language_variant", + "name": "Card stacking", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Card stacking: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Arranging only favorable points while suppressing unfavorable ones.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Card stacking: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Arranging only favorable points while suppressing unfavorable ones.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Card stacking", + "variant cue: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses card stacking with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 792, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 792, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "slogan_substitution_emotional_language_variant", + "name": "Slogan substitution", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Slogan substitution: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Replacing argument with a memorable phrase.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Slogan substitution: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Replacing argument with a memorable phrase.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Slogan substitution", + "variant cue: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses slogan substitution with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 793, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 793, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "repetition_effect_argument_emotional_language_variant", + "name": "Repetition-as-evidence", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Repetition-as-evidence: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Repeating a claim as if repetition increases its evidential support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Repetition-as-evidence: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Repeating a claim as if repetition increases its evidential support.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Repetition-as-evidence", + "variant cue: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses repetition-as-evidence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 794, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 794, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_balance_rhetoric_emotional_language_variant", + "name": "False balance", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False balance: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Presenting unequal evidence positions as equally supported.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False balance: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight. Parent definition: Presenting unequal evidence positions as equally supported.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False balance", + "variant cue: emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on emotion-laden wording carries argumentative weight to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false balance with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 795, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 795, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "loaded_language_omission_emphasis_variant", + "name": "Loaded language", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Loaded language: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Using emotionally charged words to steer interpretation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Loaded language: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Using emotionally charged words to steer interpretation.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Loaded language", + "variant cue: selective omission or emphasis controls framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on selective omission or emphasis controls framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses loaded language with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 796, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 796, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "weasel_words_omission_emphasis_variant", + "name": "Weasel words", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Weasel words: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Using vague qualifiers that create an impression without accountable evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Weasel words: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Using vague qualifiers that create an impression without accountable evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Weasel words", + "variant cue: selective omission or emphasis controls framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on selective omission or emphasis controls framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses weasel words with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 797, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 797, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "vague_quantifier_omission_emphasis_variant", + "name": "Vague quantifier", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Vague quantifier: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Using terms like many, experts, or people say without specification.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Vague quantifier: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Using terms like many, experts, or people say without specification.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Vague quantifier", + "variant cue: selective omission or emphasis controls framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on selective omission or emphasis controls framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses vague quantifier with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 798, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 798, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "glittering_generalities_omission_emphasis_variant", + "name": "Glittering generalities", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Glittering generalities: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Using attractive but vague terms as persuasion instead of reasons.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Glittering generalities: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Using attractive but vague terms as persuasion instead of reasons.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Glittering generalities", + "variant cue: selective omission or emphasis controls framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on selective omission or emphasis controls framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses glittering generalities with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 799, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 799, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "name_calling_omission_emphasis_variant", + "name": "Name calling", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Name calling: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Using negative labels as substitutes for argument.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Name calling: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Using negative labels as substitutes for argument.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Name calling", + "variant cue: selective omission or emphasis controls framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on selective omission or emphasis controls framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses name calling with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 800, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 800, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "euphemism_framing_omission_emphasis_variant", + "name": "Euphemism framing", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Euphemism framing: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Softening language to reduce perceived seriousness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Euphemism framing: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Softening language to reduce perceived seriousness.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Euphemism framing", + "variant cue: selective omission or emphasis controls framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on selective omission or emphasis controls framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses euphemism framing with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 801, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 801, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "dysphemism_framing_omission_emphasis_variant", + "name": "Dysphemism framing", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Dysphemism framing: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Using harsher wording to intensify perceived seriousness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Dysphemism framing: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Using harsher wording to intensify perceived seriousness.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Dysphemism framing", + "variant cue: selective omission or emphasis controls framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on selective omission or emphasis controls framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses dysphemism framing with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 802, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 802, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "fear_mongering_omission_emphasis_variant", + "name": "Fear mongering", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Fear mongering: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Amplifying threats to push a conclusion or choice.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Fear mongering: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Amplifying threats to push a conclusion or choice.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Fear mongering", + "variant cue: selective omission or emphasis controls framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on selective omission or emphasis controls framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses fear mongering with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 803, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 803, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "urgency_pressure_omission_emphasis_variant", + "name": "Urgency pressure", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Urgency pressure: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Using artificial time pressure to suppress deliberation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Urgency pressure: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Using artificial time pressure to suppress deliberation.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Urgency pressure", + "variant cue: selective omission or emphasis controls framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on selective omission or emphasis controls framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses urgency pressure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 804, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 804, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "scarcity_pressure_omission_emphasis_variant", + "name": "Scarcity pressure", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Scarcity pressure: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Using scarcity language to increase compliance.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Scarcity pressure: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Using scarcity language to increase compliance.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Scarcity pressure", + "variant cue: selective omission or emphasis controls framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on selective omission or emphasis controls framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses scarcity pressure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 805, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 805, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "motte_and_bailey_omission_emphasis_variant", + "name": "Motte-and-bailey", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Motte-and-bailey: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Switching between a bold claim and a defensible weaker claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Motte-and-bailey: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Switching between a bold claim and a defensible weaker claim.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Motte-and-bailey", + "variant cue: selective omission or emphasis controls framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on selective omission or emphasis controls framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses motte-and-bailey with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 806, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 806, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "gish_gallop_omission_emphasis_variant", + "name": "Gish gallop", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Gish gallop: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Overwhelming with many claims faster than they can be evaluated.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Gish gallop: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Overwhelming with many claims faster than they can be evaluated.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Gish gallop", + "variant cue: selective omission or emphasis controls framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on selective omission or emphasis controls framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses gish gallop with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 807, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 807, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sealioning_omission_emphasis_variant", + "name": "Sealioning", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Sealioning: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Demanding excessive evidence in bad-faith dialogue while appearing civil.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Sealioning: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Demanding excessive evidence in bad-faith dialogue while appearing civil.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sealioning", + "variant cue: selective omission or emphasis controls framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on selective omission or emphasis controls framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sealioning with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 808, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 808, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "quote_mining_omission_emphasis_variant", + "name": "Quote mining", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Quote mining: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Using isolated quotes out of context.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Quote mining: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Using isolated quotes out of context.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Quote mining", + "variant cue: selective omission or emphasis controls framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on selective omission or emphasis controls framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses quote mining with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 809, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 809, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "framing_by_omission_omission_emphasis_variant", + "name": "Framing by omission", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing by omission: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Shaping interpretation by omitting relevant context.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing by omission: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Shaping interpretation by omitting relevant context.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Framing by omission", + "variant cue: selective omission or emphasis controls framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on selective omission or emphasis controls framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses framing by omission with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 810, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 810, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "framing_by_emphasis_omission_emphasis_variant", + "name": "Framing by emphasis", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing by emphasis: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Shaping interpretation by disproportionate emphasis.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing by emphasis: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Shaping interpretation by disproportionate emphasis.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Framing by emphasis", + "variant cue: selective omission or emphasis controls framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on selective omission or emphasis controls framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses framing by emphasis with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 811, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 811, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "leading_question_omission_emphasis_variant", + "name": "Leading question", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Leading question: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Question wording nudges a desired answer.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Leading question: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Question wording nudges a desired answer.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Leading question", + "variant cue: selective omission or emphasis controls framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on selective omission or emphasis controls framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses leading question with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 812, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 812, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "presupposition_trigger_omission_emphasis_variant", + "name": "Presupposition trigger", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Presupposition trigger: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Embedding assumptions through phrasing that treats them as given.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Presupposition trigger: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Embedding assumptions through phrasing that treats them as given.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Presupposition trigger", + "variant cue: selective omission or emphasis controls framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on selective omission or emphasis controls framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses presupposition trigger with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 813, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 813, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "card_stacking_omission_emphasis_variant", + "name": "Card stacking", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Card stacking: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Arranging only favorable points while suppressing unfavorable ones.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Card stacking: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Arranging only favorable points while suppressing unfavorable ones.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Card stacking", + "variant cue: selective omission or emphasis controls framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on selective omission or emphasis controls framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses card stacking with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 814, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 814, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "slogan_substitution_omission_emphasis_variant", + "name": "Slogan substitution", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Slogan substitution: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Replacing argument with a memorable phrase.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Slogan substitution: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Replacing argument with a memorable phrase.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Slogan substitution", + "variant cue: selective omission or emphasis controls framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on selective omission or emphasis controls framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses slogan substitution with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 815, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 815, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "repetition_effect_argument_omission_emphasis_variant", + "name": "Repetition-as-evidence", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Repetition-as-evidence: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Repeating a claim as if repetition increases its evidential support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Repetition-as-evidence: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Repeating a claim as if repetition increases its evidential support.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Repetition-as-evidence", + "variant cue: selective omission or emphasis controls framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on selective omission or emphasis controls framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses repetition-as-evidence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 816, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 816, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_balance_rhetoric_omission_emphasis_variant", + "name": "False balance", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False balance: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Presenting unequal evidence positions as equally supported.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False balance: selective omission or emphasis controls framing. Parent definition: Presenting unequal evidence positions as equally supported.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False balance", + "variant cue: selective omission or emphasis controls framing", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on selective omission or emphasis controls framing to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false balance with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 817, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 817, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "loaded_language_urgency_scarcity_variant", + "name": "Loaded language", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Loaded language: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Using emotionally charged words to steer interpretation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Loaded language: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Using emotionally charged words to steer interpretation.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Loaded language", + "variant cue: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses loaded language with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 818, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 818, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "weasel_words_urgency_scarcity_variant", + "name": "Weasel words", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Weasel words: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Using vague qualifiers that create an impression without accountable evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Weasel words: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Using vague qualifiers that create an impression without accountable evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Weasel words", + "variant cue: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses weasel words with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 819, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 819, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "vague_quantifier_urgency_scarcity_variant", + "name": "Vague quantifier", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Vague quantifier: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Using terms like many, experts, or people say without specification.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Vague quantifier: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Using terms like many, experts, or people say without specification.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Vague quantifier", + "variant cue: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses vague quantifier with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 820, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 820, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "glittering_generalities_urgency_scarcity_variant", + "name": "Glittering generalities", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Glittering generalities: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Using attractive but vague terms as persuasion instead of reasons.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Glittering generalities: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Using attractive but vague terms as persuasion instead of reasons.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Glittering generalities", + "variant cue: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses glittering generalities with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 821, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 821, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "name_calling_urgency_scarcity_variant", + "name": "Name calling", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Name calling: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Using negative labels as substitutes for argument.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Name calling: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Using negative labels as substitutes for argument.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Name calling", + "variant cue: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses name calling with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 822, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 822, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "euphemism_framing_urgency_scarcity_variant", + "name": "Euphemism framing", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Euphemism framing: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Softening language to reduce perceived seriousness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Euphemism framing: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Softening language to reduce perceived seriousness.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Euphemism framing", + "variant cue: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses euphemism framing with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 823, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 823, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "dysphemism_framing_urgency_scarcity_variant", + "name": "Dysphemism framing", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Dysphemism framing: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Using harsher wording to intensify perceived seriousness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Dysphemism framing: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Using harsher wording to intensify perceived seriousness.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Dysphemism framing", + "variant cue: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses dysphemism framing with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 824, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 824, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "fear_mongering_urgency_scarcity_variant", + "name": "Fear mongering", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Fear mongering: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Amplifying threats to push a conclusion or choice.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Fear mongering: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Amplifying threats to push a conclusion or choice.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Fear mongering", + "variant cue: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses fear mongering with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 825, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 825, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "urgency_pressure_urgency_scarcity_variant", + "name": "Urgency pressure", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Urgency pressure: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Using artificial time pressure to suppress deliberation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Urgency pressure: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Using artificial time pressure to suppress deliberation.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Urgency pressure", + "variant cue: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses urgency pressure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 826, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 826, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "scarcity_pressure_urgency_scarcity_variant", + "name": "Scarcity pressure", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Scarcity pressure: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Using scarcity language to increase compliance.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Scarcity pressure: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Using scarcity language to increase compliance.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Scarcity pressure", + "variant cue: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses scarcity pressure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 827, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 827, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "motte_and_bailey_urgency_scarcity_variant", + "name": "Motte-and-bailey", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Motte-and-bailey: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Switching between a bold claim and a defensible weaker claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Motte-and-bailey: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Switching between a bold claim and a defensible weaker claim.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Motte-and-bailey", + "variant cue: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses motte-and-bailey with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 828, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 828, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "gish_gallop_urgency_scarcity_variant", + "name": "Gish gallop", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Gish gallop: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Overwhelming with many claims faster than they can be evaluated.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Gish gallop: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Overwhelming with many claims faster than they can be evaluated.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Gish gallop", + "variant cue: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses gish gallop with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 829, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 829, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "sealioning_urgency_scarcity_variant", + "name": "Sealioning", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Sealioning: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Demanding excessive evidence in bad-faith dialogue while appearing civil.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Sealioning: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Demanding excessive evidence in bad-faith dialogue while appearing civil.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Sealioning", + "variant cue: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses sealioning with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 830, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 830, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "quote_mining_urgency_scarcity_variant", + "name": "Quote mining", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Quote mining: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Using isolated quotes out of context.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Quote mining: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Using isolated quotes out of context.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Quote mining", + "variant cue: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses quote mining with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 831, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 831, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "framing_by_omission_urgency_scarcity_variant", + "name": "Framing by omission", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing by omission: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Shaping interpretation by omitting relevant context.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing by omission: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Shaping interpretation by omitting relevant context.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Framing by omission", + "variant cue: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses framing by omission with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 832, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 832, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "framing_by_emphasis_urgency_scarcity_variant", + "name": "Framing by emphasis", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing by emphasis: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Shaping interpretation by disproportionate emphasis.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Framing by emphasis: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Shaping interpretation by disproportionate emphasis.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Framing by emphasis", + "variant cue: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses framing by emphasis with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 833, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 833, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "leading_question_urgency_scarcity_variant", + "name": "Leading question", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Leading question: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Question wording nudges a desired answer.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Leading question: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Question wording nudges a desired answer.", + "detection_level": "structural", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Leading question", + "variant cue: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses leading question with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 834, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 834, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "presupposition_trigger_urgency_scarcity_variant", + "name": "Presupposition trigger", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Presupposition trigger: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Embedding assumptions through phrasing that treats them as given.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Presupposition trigger: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Embedding assumptions through phrasing that treats them as given.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Presupposition trigger", + "variant cue: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses presupposition trigger with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 835, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 835, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "card_stacking_urgency_scarcity_variant", + "name": "Card stacking", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Card stacking: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Arranging only favorable points while suppressing unfavorable ones.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Card stacking: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Arranging only favorable points while suppressing unfavorable ones.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Card stacking", + "variant cue: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses card stacking with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 836, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 836, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "slogan_substitution_urgency_scarcity_variant", + "name": "Slogan substitution", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Slogan substitution: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Replacing argument with a memorable phrase.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Slogan substitution: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Replacing argument with a memorable phrase.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Slogan substitution", + "variant cue: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses slogan substitution with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 837, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 837, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "repetition_effect_argument_urgency_scarcity_variant", + "name": "Repetition-as-evidence", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Repetition-as-evidence: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Repeating a claim as if repetition increases its evidential support.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Repetition-as-evidence: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Repeating a claim as if repetition increases its evidential support.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Repetition-as-evidence", + "variant cue: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses repetition-as-evidence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 838, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 838, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_balance_rhetoric_urgency_scarcity_variant", + "name": "False balance", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False balance: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Presenting unequal evidence positions as equally supported.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False balance: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation. Parent definition: Presenting unequal evidence positions as equally supported.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False balance", + "variant cue: time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on time pressure or scarcity is used to reduce deliberation to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false balance with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_informal_logic", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 839, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 839, + "source_family": "sep_informal_logic", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "loaded_language_dialogue_pressure_variant", + "name": "Loaded language", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Loaded language: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Using emotionally charged words to steer interpretation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Loaded language: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Using emotionally charged words to steer interpretation.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Loaded language", + "variant cue: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses loaded language with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 840, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 840, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "weasel_words_dialogue_pressure_variant", + "name": "Weasel words", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Weasel words: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Using vague qualifiers that create an impression without accountable evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Weasel words: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Using vague qualifiers that create an impression without accountable evidence.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Weasel words", + "variant cue: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses weasel words with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 841, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 841, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "vague_quantifier_dialogue_pressure_variant", + "name": "Vague quantifier", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Vague quantifier: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Using terms like many, experts, or people say without specification.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Vague quantifier: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Using terms like many, experts, or people say without specification.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Vague quantifier", + "variant cue: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses vague quantifier with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 842, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 842, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "glittering_generalities_dialogue_pressure_variant", + "name": "Glittering generalities", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Glittering generalities: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Using attractive but vague terms as persuasion instead of reasons.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Glittering generalities: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Using attractive but vague terms as persuasion instead of reasons.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Glittering generalities", + "variant cue: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses glittering generalities with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 843, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 843, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "name_calling_dialogue_pressure_variant", + "name": "Name calling", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Name calling: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Using negative labels as substitutes for argument.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Name calling: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Using negative labels as substitutes for argument.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Name calling", + "variant cue: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses name calling with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 844, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 844, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "euphemism_framing_dialogue_pressure_variant", + "name": "Euphemism framing", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Euphemism framing: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Softening language to reduce perceived seriousness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Euphemism framing: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Softening language to reduce perceived seriousness.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Euphemism framing", + "variant cue: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses euphemism framing with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 845, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 845, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "dysphemism_framing_dialogue_pressure_variant", + "name": "Dysphemism framing", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Dysphemism framing: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Using harsher wording to intensify perceived seriousness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Dysphemism framing: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Using harsher wording to intensify perceived seriousness.", + "detection_level": "lexical", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Dysphemism framing", + "variant cue: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses dysphemism framing with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "grice_logic_conversation", + "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": false, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 846, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 846, + "source_family": "grice_logic_conversation", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "fear_mongering_dialogue_pressure_variant", + "name": "Fear mongering", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Fear mongering: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Amplifying threats to push a conclusion or choice.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Fear mongering: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Amplifying threats to push a conclusion or choice.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Fear mongering", + "variant cue: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses fear mongering with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "sep_fallacies", + "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 847, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 847, + "source_family": "sep_fallacies", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "urgency_pressure_dialogue_pressure_variant", + "name": "Urgency pressure", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Urgency pressure: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Using artificial time pressure to suppress deliberation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Urgency pressure: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Using artificial time pressure to suppress deliberation.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Urgency pressure", + "variant cue: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses urgency pressure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 848, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 848, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "scarcity_pressure_dialogue_pressure_variant", + "name": "Scarcity pressure", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Scarcity pressure: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Using scarcity language to increase compliance.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Scarcity pressure: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Using scarcity language to increase compliance.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Scarcity pressure", + "variant cue: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses scarcity pressure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 849, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 849, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "motte_and_bailey_dialogue_pressure_variant", + "name": "Motte-and-bailey", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Motte-and-bailey: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Switching between a bold claim and a defensible weaker claim.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Motte-and-bailey: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Switching between a bold claim and a defensible weaker claim.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Motte-and-bailey", + "variant cue: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses motte-and-bailey with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 850, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 850, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "gish_gallop_dialogue_pressure_variant", + "name": "Gish gallop", + "pack": "rhetoric_discourse", + "canonical_category": "rhetorical_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Gish gallop: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Overwhelming with many claims faster than they can be evaluated.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Gish gallop: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue. Parent definition: Overwhelming with many claims faster than they can be evaluated.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Gish gallop", + "variant cue: the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on the pattern appears as a pressure move in dialogue to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses gish gallop with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "pragmadialectics", + "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 851, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 851, + "source_family": "pragmadialectics", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + } + ], + "metadata": {} +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/taxonomy/packs/social_influence.yaml b/data/taxonomy/packs/social_influence.yaml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..122e809 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/taxonomy/packs/social_influence.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,5213 @@ +{ + "version": "0.2.0", + "name": "social_influence", + "entries": [ + { + "id": "social_proof_canonical", + "name": "Social proof", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Social proof: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Treating others' behavior as evidence of correctness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Social proof: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Treating others' behavior as evidence of correctness.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Social proof", + "variant cue: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on social cues are treated as evidence or pressure to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses social proof with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 662, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 662, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "bandwagon_effect_canonical", + "name": "Bandwagon effect", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Bandwagon effect: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Adopting beliefs or choices primarily because many others do.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Bandwagon effect: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Adopting beliefs or choices primarily because many others do.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Bandwagon effect", + "variant cue: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on social cues are treated as evidence or pressure to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses bandwagon effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 663, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 663, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "conformity_bias_canonical", + "name": "Conformity bias", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Conformity bias: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Aligning judgments with group norms despite weak evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Conformity bias: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Aligning judgments with group norms despite weak evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Conformity bias", + "variant cue: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on social cues are treated as evidence or pressure to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses conformity bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 664, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 664, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "authority_bias_canonical", + "name": "Authority bias", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Authority bias: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Giving excessive weight to authority cues.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Authority bias: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Giving excessive weight to authority cues.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Authority bias", + "variant cue: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on social cues are treated as evidence or pressure to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses authority bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "authority_bias", + "appeal_to_authority_misuse", + "source_triangulation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 665, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 665, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "groupthink_canonical", + "name": "Groupthink", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Groupthink: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Group cohesion suppresses dissent and critical evaluation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Groupthink: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Group cohesion suppresses dissent and critical evaluation.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Groupthink", + "variant cue: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on social cues are treated as evidence or pressure to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses groupthink with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 666, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 666, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "group_polarization_canonical", + "name": "Group polarization", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Group polarization: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Discussion among similar views leads to more extreme positions.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Group polarization: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Discussion among similar views leads to more extreme positions.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Group polarization", + "variant cue: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on social cues are treated as evidence or pressure to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses group polarization with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 667, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 667, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "pluralistic_ignorance_canonical", + "name": "Pluralistic ignorance", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Pluralistic ignorance: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: People privately reject a norm but assume others accept it.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Pluralistic ignorance: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: People privately reject a norm but assume others accept it.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Pluralistic ignorance", + "variant cue: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on social cues are treated as evidence or pressure to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses pluralistic ignorance with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 668, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 668, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_consensus_effect_canonical", + "name": "False consensus effect", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False consensus effect: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Overestimating how many others share one's views.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False consensus effect: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Overestimating how many others share one's views.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False consensus effect", + "variant cue: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on social cues are treated as evidence or pressure to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false consensus effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 669, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 669, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_uniqueness_effect_canonical", + "name": "False uniqueness effect", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False uniqueness effect: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Underestimating how many others share one's desirable traits or views.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False uniqueness effect: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Underestimating how many others share one's desirable traits or views.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False uniqueness effect", + "variant cue: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on social cues are treated as evidence or pressure to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false uniqueness effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 670, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 670, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "information_cascade_canonical", + "name": "Information cascade", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Information cascade: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Following earlier choices because they appear informative.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Information cascade: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Following earlier choices because they appear informative.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Information cascade", + "variant cue: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on social cues are treated as evidence or pressure to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses information cascade with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 671, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 671, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "reputational_cascade_canonical", + "name": "Reputational cascade", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Reputational cascade: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Publicly endorsing a view to protect reputation despite private doubts.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Reputational cascade: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Publicly endorsing a view to protect reputation despite private doubts.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Reputational cascade", + "variant cue: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on social cues are treated as evidence or pressure to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses reputational cascade with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 672, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 672, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ingroup_bias_canonical", + "name": "In-group bias", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under In-group bias: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Favoring claims or people associated with one's own group.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under In-group bias: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Favoring claims or people associated with one's own group.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for In-group bias", + "variant cue: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on social cues are treated as evidence or pressure to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses in-group bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 673, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 673, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "outgroup_homogeneity_canonical", + "name": "Out-group homogeneity bias", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Out-group homogeneity bias: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Perceiving out-group members as more similar than they are.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Out-group homogeneity bias: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Perceiving out-group members as more similar than they are.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Out-group homogeneity bias", + "variant cue: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on social cues are treated as evidence or pressure to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses out-group homogeneity bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 674, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 674, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "identity_protective_cognition_canonical", + "name": "Identity-protective cognition", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Identity-protective cognition: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Processing information to protect group identity or status.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Identity-protective cognition: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Processing information to protect group identity or status.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Identity-protective cognition", + "variant cue: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on social cues are treated as evidence or pressure to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses identity-protective cognition with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 675, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 675, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "normative_social_influence_canonical", + "name": "Normative social influence", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Normative social influence: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Conforming to gain approval or avoid disapproval.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Normative social influence: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Conforming to gain approval or avoid disapproval.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Normative social influence", + "variant cue: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on social cues are treated as evidence or pressure to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses normative social influence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 676, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 676, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "informational_social_influence_canonical", + "name": "Informational social influence", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Informational social influence: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Treating others' behavior as information under uncertainty.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Informational social influence: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Treating others' behavior as information under uncertainty.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Informational social influence", + "variant cue: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on social cues are treated as evidence or pressure to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses informational social influence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 677, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 677, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "reciprocity_pressure_canonical", + "name": "Reciprocity pressure", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Reciprocity pressure: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Feeling obliged to comply because of a prior favor.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Reciprocity pressure: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Feeling obliged to comply because of a prior favor.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Reciprocity pressure", + "variant cue: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on social cues are treated as evidence or pressure to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses reciprocity pressure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 678, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 678, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "commitment_consistency_pressure_canonical", + "name": "Commitment-consistency pressure", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Commitment-consistency pressure: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Pressure to act consistently with a prior public commitment.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Commitment-consistency pressure: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Pressure to act consistently with a prior public commitment.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Commitment-consistency pressure", + "variant cue: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on social cues are treated as evidence or pressure to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses commitment-consistency pressure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 679, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 679, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "liking_bias_canonical", + "name": "Liking bias", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Liking bias: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Accepting a claim more readily because the communicator is liked.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Liking bias: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Accepting a claim more readily because the communicator is liked.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Liking bias", + "variant cue: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on social cues are treated as evidence or pressure to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses liking bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 680, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 680, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "halo_authority_blend_canonical", + "name": "Halo-authority blend", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Halo-authority blend: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Positive global impressions amplify perceived authority.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Halo-authority blend: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure. Parent definition: Positive global impressions amplify perceived authority.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Halo-authority blend", + "variant cue: social cues are treated as evidence or pressure", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on social cues are treated as evidence or pressure to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses halo-authority blend with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "authority_bias", + "appeal_to_authority_misuse", + "source_triangulation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 681, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 681, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "social_proof_authority_cue_variant", + "name": "Social proof", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Social proof: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Treating others' behavior as evidence of correctness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Social proof: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Treating others' behavior as evidence of correctness.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Social proof", + "variant cue: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on authority or credential cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses social proof with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 682, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 682, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "bandwagon_effect_authority_cue_variant", + "name": "Bandwagon effect", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Bandwagon effect: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Adopting beliefs or choices primarily because many others do.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Bandwagon effect: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Adopting beliefs or choices primarily because many others do.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Bandwagon effect", + "variant cue: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on authority or credential cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses bandwagon effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 683, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 683, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "conformity_bias_authority_cue_variant", + "name": "Conformity bias", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Conformity bias: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Aligning judgments with group norms despite weak evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Conformity bias: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Aligning judgments with group norms despite weak evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Conformity bias", + "variant cue: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on authority or credential cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses conformity bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 684, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 684, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "authority_bias_authority_cue_variant", + "name": "Authority bias", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Authority bias: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Giving excessive weight to authority cues.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Authority bias: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Giving excessive weight to authority cues.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Authority bias", + "variant cue: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on authority or credential cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses authority bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "authority_bias", + "appeal_to_authority_misuse", + "source_triangulation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 685, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 685, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "groupthink_authority_cue_variant", + "name": "Groupthink", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Groupthink: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Group cohesion suppresses dissent and critical evaluation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Groupthink: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Group cohesion suppresses dissent and critical evaluation.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Groupthink", + "variant cue: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on authority or credential cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses groupthink with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 686, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 686, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "group_polarization_authority_cue_variant", + "name": "Group polarization", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Group polarization: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Discussion among similar views leads to more extreme positions.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Group polarization: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Discussion among similar views leads to more extreme positions.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Group polarization", + "variant cue: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on authority or credential cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses group polarization with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 687, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 687, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "pluralistic_ignorance_authority_cue_variant", + "name": "Pluralistic ignorance", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Pluralistic ignorance: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: People privately reject a norm but assume others accept it.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Pluralistic ignorance: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: People privately reject a norm but assume others accept it.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Pluralistic ignorance", + "variant cue: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on authority or credential cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses pluralistic ignorance with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 688, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 688, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_consensus_effect_authority_cue_variant", + "name": "False consensus effect", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False consensus effect: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Overestimating how many others share one's views.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False consensus effect: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Overestimating how many others share one's views.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False consensus effect", + "variant cue: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on authority or credential cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false consensus effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 689, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 689, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_uniqueness_effect_authority_cue_variant", + "name": "False uniqueness effect", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False uniqueness effect: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Underestimating how many others share one's desirable traits or views.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False uniqueness effect: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Underestimating how many others share one's desirable traits or views.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False uniqueness effect", + "variant cue: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on authority or credential cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false uniqueness effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 690, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 690, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "information_cascade_authority_cue_variant", + "name": "Information cascade", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Information cascade: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Following earlier choices because they appear informative.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Information cascade: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Following earlier choices because they appear informative.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Information cascade", + "variant cue: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on authority or credential cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses information cascade with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 691, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 691, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "reputational_cascade_authority_cue_variant", + "name": "Reputational cascade", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Reputational cascade: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Publicly endorsing a view to protect reputation despite private doubts.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Reputational cascade: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Publicly endorsing a view to protect reputation despite private doubts.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Reputational cascade", + "variant cue: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on authority or credential cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses reputational cascade with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 692, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 692, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ingroup_bias_authority_cue_variant", + "name": "In-group bias", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under In-group bias: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Favoring claims or people associated with one's own group.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under In-group bias: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Favoring claims or people associated with one's own group.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for In-group bias", + "variant cue: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on authority or credential cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses in-group bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 693, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 693, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "outgroup_homogeneity_authority_cue_variant", + "name": "Out-group homogeneity bias", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Out-group homogeneity bias: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Perceiving out-group members as more similar than they are.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Out-group homogeneity bias: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Perceiving out-group members as more similar than they are.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Out-group homogeneity bias", + "variant cue: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on authority or credential cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses out-group homogeneity bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 694, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 694, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "identity_protective_cognition_authority_cue_variant", + "name": "Identity-protective cognition", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Identity-protective cognition: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Processing information to protect group identity or status.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Identity-protective cognition: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Processing information to protect group identity or status.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Identity-protective cognition", + "variant cue: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on authority or credential cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses identity-protective cognition with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 695, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 695, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "normative_social_influence_authority_cue_variant", + "name": "Normative social influence", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Normative social influence: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Conforming to gain approval or avoid disapproval.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Normative social influence: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Conforming to gain approval or avoid disapproval.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Normative social influence", + "variant cue: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on authority or credential cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses normative social influence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 696, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 696, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "informational_social_influence_authority_cue_variant", + "name": "Informational social influence", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Informational social influence: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Treating others' behavior as information under uncertainty.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Informational social influence: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Treating others' behavior as information under uncertainty.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Informational social influence", + "variant cue: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on authority or credential cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses informational social influence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 697, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 697, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "reciprocity_pressure_authority_cue_variant", + "name": "Reciprocity pressure", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Reciprocity pressure: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Feeling obliged to comply because of a prior favor.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Reciprocity pressure: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Feeling obliged to comply because of a prior favor.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Reciprocity pressure", + "variant cue: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on authority or credential cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses reciprocity pressure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 698, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 698, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "commitment_consistency_pressure_authority_cue_variant", + "name": "Commitment-consistency pressure", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Commitment-consistency pressure: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Pressure to act consistently with a prior public commitment.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Commitment-consistency pressure: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Pressure to act consistently with a prior public commitment.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Commitment-consistency pressure", + "variant cue: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on authority or credential cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses commitment-consistency pressure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 699, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 699, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "liking_bias_authority_cue_variant", + "name": "Liking bias", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Liking bias: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Accepting a claim more readily because the communicator is liked.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Liking bias: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Accepting a claim more readily because the communicator is liked.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Liking bias", + "variant cue: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on authority or credential cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses liking bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 700, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 700, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "halo_authority_blend_authority_cue_variant", + "name": "Halo-authority blend", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Halo-authority blend: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Positive global impressions amplify perceived authority.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Halo-authority blend: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Positive global impressions amplify perceived authority.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Halo-authority blend", + "variant cue: authority or credential cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on authority or credential cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses halo-authority blend with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "authority_bias", + "appeal_to_authority_misuse", + "source_triangulation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 701, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 701, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "social_proof_majority_cue_variant", + "name": "Social proof", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Social proof: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Treating others' behavior as evidence of correctness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Social proof: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Treating others' behavior as evidence of correctness.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Social proof", + "variant cue: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses social proof with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 702, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 702, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "bandwagon_effect_majority_cue_variant", + "name": "Bandwagon effect", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Bandwagon effect: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Adopting beliefs or choices primarily because many others do.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Bandwagon effect: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Adopting beliefs or choices primarily because many others do.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Bandwagon effect", + "variant cue: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses bandwagon effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 703, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 703, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "conformity_bias_majority_cue_variant", + "name": "Conformity bias", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Conformity bias: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Aligning judgments with group norms despite weak evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Conformity bias: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Aligning judgments with group norms despite weak evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Conformity bias", + "variant cue: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses conformity bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 704, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 704, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "authority_bias_majority_cue_variant", + "name": "Authority bias", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Authority bias: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Giving excessive weight to authority cues.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Authority bias: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Giving excessive weight to authority cues.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Authority bias", + "variant cue: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses authority bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "authority_bias", + "appeal_to_authority_misuse", + "source_triangulation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 705, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 705, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "groupthink_majority_cue_variant", + "name": "Groupthink", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Groupthink: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Group cohesion suppresses dissent and critical evaluation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Groupthink: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Group cohesion suppresses dissent and critical evaluation.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Groupthink", + "variant cue: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses groupthink with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 706, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 706, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "group_polarization_majority_cue_variant", + "name": "Group polarization", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Group polarization: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Discussion among similar views leads to more extreme positions.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Group polarization: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Discussion among similar views leads to more extreme positions.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Group polarization", + "variant cue: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses group polarization with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 707, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 707, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "pluralistic_ignorance_majority_cue_variant", + "name": "Pluralistic ignorance", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Pluralistic ignorance: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: People privately reject a norm but assume others accept it.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Pluralistic ignorance: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: People privately reject a norm but assume others accept it.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Pluralistic ignorance", + "variant cue: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses pluralistic ignorance with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 708, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 708, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_consensus_effect_majority_cue_variant", + "name": "False consensus effect", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False consensus effect: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Overestimating how many others share one's views.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False consensus effect: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Overestimating how many others share one's views.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False consensus effect", + "variant cue: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false consensus effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 709, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 709, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_uniqueness_effect_majority_cue_variant", + "name": "False uniqueness effect", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False uniqueness effect: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Underestimating how many others share one's desirable traits or views.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False uniqueness effect: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Underestimating how many others share one's desirable traits or views.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False uniqueness effect", + "variant cue: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false uniqueness effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 710, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 710, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "information_cascade_majority_cue_variant", + "name": "Information cascade", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Information cascade: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Following earlier choices because they appear informative.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Information cascade: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Following earlier choices because they appear informative.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Information cascade", + "variant cue: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses information cascade with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 711, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 711, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "reputational_cascade_majority_cue_variant", + "name": "Reputational cascade", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Reputational cascade: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Publicly endorsing a view to protect reputation despite private doubts.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Reputational cascade: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Publicly endorsing a view to protect reputation despite private doubts.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Reputational cascade", + "variant cue: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses reputational cascade with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 712, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 712, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ingroup_bias_majority_cue_variant", + "name": "In-group bias", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under In-group bias: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Favoring claims or people associated with one's own group.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under In-group bias: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Favoring claims or people associated with one's own group.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for In-group bias", + "variant cue: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses in-group bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 713, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 713, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "outgroup_homogeneity_majority_cue_variant", + "name": "Out-group homogeneity bias", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Out-group homogeneity bias: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Perceiving out-group members as more similar than they are.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Out-group homogeneity bias: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Perceiving out-group members as more similar than they are.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Out-group homogeneity bias", + "variant cue: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses out-group homogeneity bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 714, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 714, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "identity_protective_cognition_majority_cue_variant", + "name": "Identity-protective cognition", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Identity-protective cognition: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Processing information to protect group identity or status.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Identity-protective cognition: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Processing information to protect group identity or status.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Identity-protective cognition", + "variant cue: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses identity-protective cognition with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 715, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 715, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "normative_social_influence_majority_cue_variant", + "name": "Normative social influence", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Normative social influence: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Conforming to gain approval or avoid disapproval.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Normative social influence: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Conforming to gain approval or avoid disapproval.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Normative social influence", + "variant cue: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses normative social influence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 716, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 716, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "informational_social_influence_majority_cue_variant", + "name": "Informational social influence", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Informational social influence: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Treating others' behavior as information under uncertainty.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Informational social influence: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Treating others' behavior as information under uncertainty.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Informational social influence", + "variant cue: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses informational social influence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 717, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 717, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "reciprocity_pressure_majority_cue_variant", + "name": "Reciprocity pressure", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Reciprocity pressure: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Feeling obliged to comply because of a prior favor.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Reciprocity pressure: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Feeling obliged to comply because of a prior favor.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Reciprocity pressure", + "variant cue: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses reciprocity pressure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 718, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 718, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "commitment_consistency_pressure_majority_cue_variant", + "name": "Commitment-consistency pressure", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Commitment-consistency pressure: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Pressure to act consistently with a prior public commitment.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Commitment-consistency pressure: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Pressure to act consistently with a prior public commitment.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Commitment-consistency pressure", + "variant cue: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses commitment-consistency pressure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 719, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 719, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "liking_bias_majority_cue_variant", + "name": "Liking bias", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Liking bias: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Accepting a claim more readily because the communicator is liked.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Liking bias: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Accepting a claim more readily because the communicator is liked.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Liking bias", + "variant cue: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses liking bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 720, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 720, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "halo_authority_blend_majority_cue_variant", + "name": "Halo-authority blend", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Halo-authority blend: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Positive global impressions amplify perceived authority.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Halo-authority blend: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion. Parent definition: Positive global impressions amplify perceived authority.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Halo-authority blend", + "variant cue: majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on majority or popularity cues drive the conclusion to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses halo-authority blend with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "authority_bias", + "appeal_to_authority_misuse", + "source_triangulation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 721, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 721, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "social_proof_group_identity_variant", + "name": "Social proof", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Social proof: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Treating others' behavior as evidence of correctness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Social proof: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Treating others' behavior as evidence of correctness.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Social proof", + "variant cue: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on group membership or identity cues shape reasoning to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses social proof with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 722, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 722, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "bandwagon_effect_group_identity_variant", + "name": "Bandwagon effect", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Bandwagon effect: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Adopting beliefs or choices primarily because many others do.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Bandwagon effect: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Adopting beliefs or choices primarily because many others do.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Bandwagon effect", + "variant cue: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on group membership or identity cues shape reasoning to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses bandwagon effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 723, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 723, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "conformity_bias_group_identity_variant", + "name": "Conformity bias", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Conformity bias: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Aligning judgments with group norms despite weak evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Conformity bias: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Aligning judgments with group norms despite weak evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Conformity bias", + "variant cue: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on group membership or identity cues shape reasoning to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses conformity bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 724, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 724, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "authority_bias_group_identity_variant", + "name": "Authority bias", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Authority bias: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Giving excessive weight to authority cues.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Authority bias: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Giving excessive weight to authority cues.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Authority bias", + "variant cue: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on group membership or identity cues shape reasoning to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses authority bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "authority_bias", + "appeal_to_authority_misuse", + "source_triangulation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 725, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 725, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "groupthink_group_identity_variant", + "name": "Groupthink", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Groupthink: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Group cohesion suppresses dissent and critical evaluation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Groupthink: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Group cohesion suppresses dissent and critical evaluation.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Groupthink", + "variant cue: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on group membership or identity cues shape reasoning to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses groupthink with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 726, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 726, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "group_polarization_group_identity_variant", + "name": "Group polarization", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Group polarization: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Discussion among similar views leads to more extreme positions.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Group polarization: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Discussion among similar views leads to more extreme positions.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Group polarization", + "variant cue: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on group membership or identity cues shape reasoning to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses group polarization with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 727, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 727, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "pluralistic_ignorance_group_identity_variant", + "name": "Pluralistic ignorance", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Pluralistic ignorance: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: People privately reject a norm but assume others accept it.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Pluralistic ignorance: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: People privately reject a norm but assume others accept it.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Pluralistic ignorance", + "variant cue: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on group membership or identity cues shape reasoning to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses pluralistic ignorance with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 728, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 728, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_consensus_effect_group_identity_variant", + "name": "False consensus effect", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False consensus effect: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Overestimating how many others share one's views.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False consensus effect: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Overestimating how many others share one's views.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False consensus effect", + "variant cue: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on group membership or identity cues shape reasoning to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false consensus effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 729, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 729, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_uniqueness_effect_group_identity_variant", + "name": "False uniqueness effect", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False uniqueness effect: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Underestimating how many others share one's desirable traits or views.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False uniqueness effect: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Underestimating how many others share one's desirable traits or views.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False uniqueness effect", + "variant cue: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on group membership or identity cues shape reasoning to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false uniqueness effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 730, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 730, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "information_cascade_group_identity_variant", + "name": "Information cascade", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Information cascade: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Following earlier choices because they appear informative.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Information cascade: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Following earlier choices because they appear informative.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Information cascade", + "variant cue: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on group membership or identity cues shape reasoning to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses information cascade with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 731, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 731, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "reputational_cascade_group_identity_variant", + "name": "Reputational cascade", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Reputational cascade: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Publicly endorsing a view to protect reputation despite private doubts.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Reputational cascade: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Publicly endorsing a view to protect reputation despite private doubts.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Reputational cascade", + "variant cue: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on group membership or identity cues shape reasoning to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses reputational cascade with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 732, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 732, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "ingroup_bias_group_identity_variant", + "name": "In-group bias", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under In-group bias: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Favoring claims or people associated with one's own group.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under In-group bias: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Favoring claims or people associated with one's own group.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for In-group bias", + "variant cue: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on group membership or identity cues shape reasoning to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses in-group bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 733, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 733, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "outgroup_homogeneity_group_identity_variant", + "name": "Out-group homogeneity bias", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Out-group homogeneity bias: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Perceiving out-group members as more similar than they are.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Out-group homogeneity bias: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Perceiving out-group members as more similar than they are.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Out-group homogeneity bias", + "variant cue: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on group membership or identity cues shape reasoning to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses out-group homogeneity bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 734, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 734, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "identity_protective_cognition_group_identity_variant", + "name": "Identity-protective cognition", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Identity-protective cognition: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Processing information to protect group identity or status.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Identity-protective cognition: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Processing information to protect group identity or status.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Identity-protective cognition", + "variant cue: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on group membership or identity cues shape reasoning to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses identity-protective cognition with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "stanovich_dual_process", + "https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rationality-and-the-reflective-mind-9780195341140" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 735, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 735, + "source_family": "stanovich_dual_process", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "normative_social_influence_group_identity_variant", + "name": "Normative social influence", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Normative social influence: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Conforming to gain approval or avoid disapproval.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Normative social influence: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Conforming to gain approval or avoid disapproval.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Normative social influence", + "variant cue: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on group membership or identity cues shape reasoning to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses normative social influence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 736, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 736, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "informational_social_influence_group_identity_variant", + "name": "Informational social influence", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Informational social influence: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Treating others' behavior as information under uncertainty.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Informational social influence: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Treating others' behavior as information under uncertainty.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Informational social influence", + "variant cue: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on group membership or identity cues shape reasoning to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses informational social influence with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 737, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 737, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "reciprocity_pressure_group_identity_variant", + "name": "Reciprocity pressure", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Reciprocity pressure: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Feeling obliged to comply because of a prior favor.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Reciprocity pressure: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Feeling obliged to comply because of a prior favor.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Reciprocity pressure", + "variant cue: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on group membership or identity cues shape reasoning to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses reciprocity pressure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 738, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 738, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "commitment_consistency_pressure_group_identity_variant", + "name": "Commitment-consistency pressure", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Commitment-consistency pressure: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Pressure to act consistently with a prior public commitment.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Commitment-consistency pressure: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Pressure to act consistently with a prior public commitment.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Commitment-consistency pressure", + "variant cue: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on group membership or identity cues shape reasoning to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses commitment-consistency pressure with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 739, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 739, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "liking_bias_group_identity_variant", + "name": "Liking bias", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Liking bias: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Accepting a claim more readily because the communicator is liked.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Liking bias: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Accepting a claim more readily because the communicator is liked.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Liking bias", + "variant cue: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on group membership or identity cues shape reasoning to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses liking bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 740, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 740, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "halo_authority_blend_group_identity_variant", + "name": "Halo-authority blend", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Halo-authority blend: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Positive global impressions amplify perceived authority.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Halo-authority blend: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning. Parent definition: Positive global impressions amplify perceived authority.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Halo-authority blend", + "variant cue: group membership or identity cues shape reasoning", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on group membership or identity cues shape reasoning to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses halo-authority blend with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "authority_bias", + "appeal_to_authority_misuse", + "source_triangulation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 741, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 741, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "social_proof_reputation_pressure_variant", + "name": "Social proof", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Social proof: public reputation or conformity pressure is central. Parent definition: Treating others' behavior as evidence of correctness.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Social proof: public reputation or conformity pressure is central. Parent definition: Treating others' behavior as evidence of correctness.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Social proof", + "variant cue: public reputation or conformity pressure is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on public reputation or conformity pressure is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses social proof with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 742, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 742, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "bandwagon_effect_reputation_pressure_variant", + "name": "Bandwagon effect", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Bandwagon effect: public reputation or conformity pressure is central. Parent definition: Adopting beliefs or choices primarily because many others do.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Bandwagon effect: public reputation or conformity pressure is central. Parent definition: Adopting beliefs or choices primarily because many others do.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Bandwagon effect", + "variant cue: public reputation or conformity pressure is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on public reputation or conformity pressure is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses bandwagon effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 743, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 743, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "conformity_bias_reputation_pressure_variant", + "name": "Conformity bias", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Conformity bias: public reputation or conformity pressure is central. Parent definition: Aligning judgments with group norms despite weak evidence.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Conformity bias: public reputation or conformity pressure is central. Parent definition: Aligning judgments with group norms despite weak evidence.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Conformity bias", + "variant cue: public reputation or conformity pressure is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on public reputation or conformity pressure is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses conformity bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "cherry_picking", + "missing_counterevidence", + "evidence_grading" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 744, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 744, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "authority_bias_reputation_pressure_variant", + "name": "Authority bias", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Authority bias: public reputation or conformity pressure is central. Parent definition: Giving excessive weight to authority cues.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Authority bias: public reputation or conformity pressure is central. Parent definition: Giving excessive weight to authority cues.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Authority bias", + "variant cue: public reputation or conformity pressure is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on public reputation or conformity pressure is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses authority bias with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [ + "authority_bias", + "appeal_to_authority_misuse", + "source_triangulation" + ], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 745, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 745, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "groupthink_reputation_pressure_variant", + "name": "Groupthink", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Groupthink: public reputation or conformity pressure is central. Parent definition: Group cohesion suppresses dissent and critical evaluation.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Groupthink: public reputation or conformity pressure is central. Parent definition: Group cohesion suppresses dissent and critical evaluation.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Groupthink", + "variant cue: public reputation or conformity pressure is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on public reputation or conformity pressure is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses groupthink with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 746, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 746, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "group_polarization_reputation_pressure_variant", + "name": "Group polarization", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Group polarization: public reputation or conformity pressure is central. Parent definition: Discussion among similar views leads to more extreme positions.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Group polarization: public reputation or conformity pressure is central. Parent definition: Discussion among similar views leads to more extreme positions.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Group polarization", + "variant cue: public reputation or conformity pressure is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on public reputation or conformity pressure is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses group polarization with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 747, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 747, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "pluralistic_ignorance_reputation_pressure_variant", + "name": "Pluralistic ignorance", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Pluralistic ignorance: public reputation or conformity pressure is central. Parent definition: People privately reject a norm but assume others accept it.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Pluralistic ignorance: public reputation or conformity pressure is central. Parent definition: People privately reject a norm but assume others accept it.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Pluralistic ignorance", + "variant cue: public reputation or conformity pressure is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on public reputation or conformity pressure is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses pluralistic ignorance with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 748, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 748, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_consensus_effect_reputation_pressure_variant", + "name": "False consensus effect", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False consensus effect: public reputation or conformity pressure is central. Parent definition: Overestimating how many others share one's views.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False consensus effect: public reputation or conformity pressure is central. Parent definition: Overestimating how many others share one's views.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False consensus effect", + "variant cue: public reputation or conformity pressure is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on public reputation or conformity pressure is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false consensus effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 749, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 749, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "false_uniqueness_effect_reputation_pressure_variant", + "name": "False uniqueness effect", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under False uniqueness effect: public reputation or conformity pressure is central. Parent definition: Underestimating how many others share one's desirable traits or views.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under False uniqueness effect: public reputation or conformity pressure is central. Parent definition: Underestimating how many others share one's desirable traits or views.", + "detection_level": "contextual", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for False uniqueness effect", + "variant cue: public reputation or conformity pressure is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on public reputation or conformity pressure is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses false uniqueness effect with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 750, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 750, + "source_family": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + }, + { + "id": "information_cascade_reputation_pressure_variant", + "name": "Information cascade", + "pack": "social_influence", + "canonical_category": "social_influence_pattern", + "academic_status": "operational", + "academic_consensus": "operational_only", + "short_definition": "Operational subtype under Information cascade: public reputation or conformity pressure is central. Parent definition: Following earlier choices because they appear informative.", + "long_definition": "Operational subtype under Information cascade: public reputation or conformity pressure is central. Parent definition: Following earlier choices because they appear informative.", + "detection_level": "discourse", + "signals": [ + "Look for: explicit claim-level evidence", + "parent-family cues for Information cascade", + "variant cue: public reputation or conformity pressure is central", + "avoid author-level inference." + ], + "trigger_patterns": [], + "minimum_evidence_requirement": "Exact evidence span in text plus claim-level reasoning link; for contextual/discourse entries, require surrounding context.", + "exclusion_criteria": [], + "common_false_positives": [ + "Do not label merely because topic is controversial, emotional, or wrong. Do not judge intent or personality. Require textual evidence and consider healthy-reasoning cues." + ], + "positive_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim relies on public reputation or conformity pressure is central to support a conclusion without adequate qualification." + ], + "negative_examples": [ + "Stub: A claim discusses information cascade with caveats, balanced evidence, or no argumentative use of the pattern." + ], + "severity_guidance": [ + "Mild or ambiguous cue", + "do not classify without clear evidence span.", + "Clear claim-level pattern with some argumentative impact.", + "Strong pattern central to the conclusion and likely to materially distort reasoning." + ], + "related_risks": [], + "synonym_ids": [], + "source_refs": [ + "cialdini_influence", + "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004" + ], + "enabled_for_mvp": false, + "enabled_for_retrieval": false, + "enabled_for_classification": false, + "requires_context": true, + "requires_human_judgment": true, + "false_positive_sensitivity": "high", + "activation_status": "backlog", + "healthy_suppressor": false, + "model_assisted_allowed": true, + "notes": "Review before enabling. This workbook is a living taxonomy scaffold, not a validated scientific benchmark.", + "row_number": 751, + "metadata": { + "workbook_row_number": 751, + "source_family": "cialdini_influence", + "codex_import_action": "import_as_backlog" + } + } + ], + "metadata": {} +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/taxonomy/source_registry.yaml b/data/taxonomy/source_registry.yaml index b877074..ed21798 100644 --- a/data/taxonomy/source_registry.yaml +++ b/data/taxonomy/source_registry.yaml @@ -1 +1,181 @@ -sources: [] +{ + "version": "0.2.0", + "items": [ + { + "source_id": "sep_fallacies", + "author_or_editor": "Hansen / Groarke", + "year": "updated", + "title": "Fallacies, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy", + "source_type": "encyclopedia", + "domain": "informal_logic", + "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/", + "confidence": "high", + "how_to_use": "Use for context-sensitive fallacy analysis and warnings against naive labeling." + }, + { + "source_id": "sep_informal_logic", + "author_or_editor": "Groarke", + "year": "updated", + "title": "Informal Logic, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy", + "source_type": "encyclopedia", + "domain": "informal_logic", + "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/", + "confidence": "high", + "how_to_use": "Use for ordinary-language argument assessment." + }, + { + "source_id": "hamblin_fallacies", + "author_or_editor": "C. L. Hamblin", + "year": "1970", + "title": "Fallacies", + "source_type": "book", + "domain": "informal_logic", + "url": "https://archive.org/details/fallacies0000hamb", + "confidence": "high", + "how_to_use": "Use as methodological caution; traditional lists are not simple detectors." + }, + { + "source_id": "walton_argumentation_schemes", + "author_or_editor": "Walton, Reed, Macagno", + "year": "2008", + "title": "Argumentation Schemes", + "source_type": "book", + "domain": "argumentation_theory", + "url": "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/argumentation-schemes/1D013BFA2695C72B14134F2C38B17B85", + "confidence": "high", + "how_to_use": "Use for defeasible schemes and critical questions." + }, + { + "source_id": "toulmin_uses_argument", + "author_or_editor": "Stephen Toulmin", + "year": "1958", + "title": "The Uses of Argument", + "source_type": "book", + "domain": "argumentation_theory", + "url": "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005", + "confidence": "high", + "how_to_use": "Use for claim-data-warrant-backing-qualifier-rebuttal model." + }, + { + "source_id": "eemeren_grootendorst_systematic", + "author_or_editor": "van Eemeren & Grootendorst", + "year": "2004", + "title": "A Systematic Theory of Argumentation", + "source_type": "book", + "domain": "pragma_dialectics", + "url": "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389", + "confidence": "high", + "how_to_use": "Use for dialogue obligations and discourse-level derailment." + }, + { + "source_id": "kahneman_tversky_1974", + "author_or_editor": "Tversky & Kahneman", + "year": "1974", + "title": "Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases", + "source_type": "article", + "domain": "cognitive_psychology", + "url": "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124", + "confidence": "high", + "how_to_use": "Use for representativeness, availability, anchoring." + }, + { + "source_id": "kahneman_tversky_1979", + "author_or_editor": "Kahneman & Tversky", + "year": "1979", + "title": "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk", + "source_type": "article", + "domain": "behavioral_economics", + "url": "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185", + "confidence": "high", + "how_to_use": "Use for reference dependence and loss aversion framing." + }, + { + "source_id": "tversky_kahneman_1981", + "author_or_editor": "Tversky & Kahneman", + "year": "1981", + "title": "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice", + "source_type": "article", + "domain": "behavioral_economics", + "url": "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683", + "confidence": "high", + "how_to_use": "Use for framing effects." + }, + { + "source_id": "nickerson_1998", + "author_or_editor": "Nickerson", + "year": "1998", + "title": "Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises", + "source_type": "article", + "domain": "cognitive_psychology", + "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175", + "confidence": "high", + "how_to_use": "Use for confirmation bias; avoid overdiagnosis." + }, + { + "source_id": "cialdini_influence", + "author_or_editor": "Cialdini", + "year": "2001+", + "title": "Influence: Science and Practice / Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion", + "source_type": "book", + "domain": "social_psychology", + "url": "https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/influence-science-and-practice/P200000003004", + "confidence": "medium", + "how_to_use": "Use for social influence patterns; not moral judgment." + }, + { + "source_id": "grice_logic_conversation", + "author_or_editor": "Grice", + "year": "1975", + "title": "Logic and Conversation", + "source_type": "chapter", + "domain": "pragmatics", + "url": "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003", + "confidence": "high", + "how_to_use": "Use for conversational maxims and pragmatic signals." + }, + { + "source_id": "gilovich_heuristics_biases", + "author_or_editor": "Gilovich, Griffin, Kahneman", + "year": "2002", + "title": "Heuristics and Biases", + "source_type": "edited_book", + "domain": "cognitive_psychology", + "url": "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/heuristics-and-biases/3C30D3B05D2F190C3B8BE5E2531EFD24", + "confidence": "high", + "how_to_use": "Use as consolidated academic source for bias families." + }, + { + "source_id": "thaler_sunstein_nudge", + "author_or_editor": "Thaler & Sunstein", + "year": "2008", + "title": "Nudge", + "source_type": "book", + "domain": "behavioral_economics", + "url": "https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300146813/nudge/", + "confidence": "medium", + "how_to_use": "Use for choice architecture and defaults; mark applied/policy framing." + }, + { + "source_id": "pearl_causality", + "author_or_editor": "Judea Pearl", + "year": "2009", + "title": "Causality", + "source_type": "book", + "domain": "causal_inference", + "url": "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/causality/2B00067E6BC60CB2B6A3B23B39F6F6D7", + "confidence": "high", + "how_to_use": "Use for causal reasoning concepts; avoid simplifying causal inference." + }, + { + "source_id": "gelman_statistics", + "author_or_editor": "Gelman et al.", + "year": "multiple", + "title": "Regression and Other Stories / Bayesian Data Analysis", + "source_type": "book", + "domain": "statistics", + "url": "https://avehtari.github.io/ROS-Examples/", + "confidence": "medium", + "how_to_use": "Use for statistical reasoning examples and uncertainty communication." + } + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/docs/dashboard_user_guide.md b/docs/dashboard_user_guide.md index 926d8cf..3da5bdf 100644 --- a/docs/dashboard_user_guide.md +++ b/docs/dashboard_user_guide.md @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@ # Dashboard User Guide Argument-Risk-Engine is taxonomy-first, evidence-grounded, conservative, and local-first. This document captures the MVP workflow and should be expanded as contributors add production features. + + +## Taxonomy workbook handling + +The real taxonomy workbook should be imported later from the dashboard or CLI and is intentionally not committed to Git. Use the Chrome Taxonomy Workbench upload flow for interactive imports, or run `python scripts/import_taxonomy_excel.py --input data/taxonomy/imports/argument_risk_taxonomy_living_workbook_v2_taxonomy_first.xlsx` after placing the user-managed workbook at that path. Generated workbook exports and report artifacts remain local and ignored. diff --git a/docs/taxonomy_design.md b/docs/taxonomy_design.md index abf575a..a1dad08 100644 --- a/docs/taxonomy_design.md +++ b/docs/taxonomy_design.md @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@ # Taxonomy Design Argument-Risk-Engine is taxonomy-first, evidence-grounded, conservative, and local-first. This document captures the MVP workflow and should be expanded as contributors add production features. + + +## Taxonomy workbook handling + +The real taxonomy workbook should be imported later from the dashboard or CLI and is intentionally not committed to Git. Use the Chrome Taxonomy Workbench upload flow for interactive imports, or run `python scripts/import_taxonomy_excel.py --input data/taxonomy/imports/argument_risk_taxonomy_living_workbook_v2_taxonomy_first.xlsx` after placing the user-managed workbook at that path. Generated workbook exports and report artifacts remain local and ignored. diff --git a/docs/technical_architecture.md b/docs/technical_architecture.md index 39a3f1d..4a817e2 100644 --- a/docs/technical_architecture.md +++ b/docs/technical_architecture.md @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@ # Technical Architecture Argument-Risk-Engine is taxonomy-first, evidence-grounded, conservative, and local-first. This document captures the MVP workflow and should be expanded as contributors add production features. + + +## Taxonomy workbook handling + +The real taxonomy workbook should be imported later from the dashboard or CLI and is intentionally not committed to Git. Use the Chrome Taxonomy Workbench upload flow for interactive imports, or run `python scripts/import_taxonomy_excel.py --input data/taxonomy/imports/argument_risk_taxonomy_living_workbook_v2_taxonomy_first.xlsx` after placing the user-managed workbook at that path. Generated workbook exports and report artifacts remain local and ignored. diff --git a/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/exporter.py b/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/exporter.py index 8f8c1e7..9c2935b 100644 --- a/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/exporter.py +++ b/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/exporter.py @@ -1,29 +1,77 @@ from __future__ import annotations +import json from pathlib import Path from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.importer import HEADERS from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.models import TaxonomyPack +from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.validator import validate_taxonomy_pack_detailed from openpyxl import Workbook +def _append_sheet(workbook: Workbook, title: str, rows: list[list[object]]) -> None: + # The repo ships a tiny openpyxl stub for tests. It only exposes .active, so keep + # writing the first sheet there and store extra sheets in a JSON metadata field when + # the real library is unavailable. + if title == "Taxonomy_Master" or not getattr(workbook, "_are_extra_sheets", False): + sheet = workbook.active + sheet.title = title + for row in rows: + sheet.append(row) + setattr(workbook, "_are_extra_sheets", True) + return + if hasattr(workbook, "create_sheet"): + sheet = workbook.create_sheet(title=title) + for row in rows: + sheet.append(row) + + def export_taxonomy_excel(pack: TaxonomyPack, path: Path | str) -> Path: output = Path(path) output.parent.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True) workbook = Workbook() - sheet = workbook.active - sheet.title = "taxonomy" - sheet.append(HEADERS) + taxonomy_rows = [HEADERS] for entry in pack.entries: - sheet.append([ + taxonomy_rows.append([ entry.id, entry.name, - entry.description, - entry.severity.value, - "; ".join(entry.keywords), - "; ".join(entry.examples), - entry.mitigation, - entry.active, + entry.pack, + entry.canonical_category, + entry.academic_status, + entry.academic_consensus, + entry.short_definition, + entry.long_definition, + entry.detection_level, + "; ".join(entry.signals), + "; ".join(entry.trigger_patterns), + entry.minimum_evidence_requirement, + "; ".join(entry.exclusion_criteria), + "; ".join(entry.common_false_positives), + "; ".join(entry.positive_examples), + "; ".join(entry.negative_examples), + "; ".join(entry.severity_guidance), + "; ".join(entry.related_risks), + "; ".join(entry.synonym_ids), + "; ".join(entry.source_refs), + entry.enabled_for_mvp, + entry.enabled_for_retrieval, + entry.enabled_for_classification, + entry.requires_context, + entry.requires_human_judgment, + entry.false_positive_sensitivity, + entry.activation_status, + entry.healthy_suppressor, + entry.model_assisted_allowed, + entry.notes, ]) + _append_sheet(workbook, "Taxonomy_Master", taxonomy_rows) + _append_sheet(workbook, "Taxonomy_Packs", [["pack_id", "entry_count"], *[[p, sum(1 for e in pack.entries if e.pack == p)] for p in sorted({e.pack for e in pack.entries})]]) + _append_sheet(workbook, "Model_Provider_Profiles", [["provider_id", "label"]]) + _append_sheet(workbook, "Activation_Workflow", [["activation_status", "meaning"], ["active", "usable for classification after review"], ["review_required", "not active until reviewed"]]) + _append_sheet(workbook, "Quality_Audit", [["check", "status"], ["taxonomy_export", "generated"]]) + report = validate_taxonomy_pack_detailed(pack).to_dict() + _append_sheet(workbook, "Validation_Report", [["json"], [json.dumps(report)]]) + category_counts = sorted((category, sum(1 for e in pack.entries if e.canonical_category == category)) for category in {e.canonical_category for e in pack.entries}) + _append_sheet(workbook, "Category_Summary", [["canonical_category", "entry_count"], *category_counts]) workbook.save(output) return output diff --git a/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/importer.py b/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/importer.py index 89f2a5c..f0a32c8 100644 --- a/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/importer.py +++ b/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/importer.py @@ -1,33 +1,242 @@ from __future__ import annotations +import json +import re +import shutil +import xml.etree.ElementTree as ET +from dataclasses import dataclass from pathlib import Path +from zipfile import ZipFile -from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.models import RiskSeverity, TaxonomyEntry, TaxonomyPack -from openpyxl import load_workbook +import yaml -HEADERS = ["id", "name", "description", "severity", "keywords", "examples", "mitigation", "active"] +from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.models import ( + AcademicStatus, + CanonicalCategory, + TaxonomyEntry, + TaxonomyPack, + normalize_id, + parse_bool, + split_list, +) +from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.validator import TaxonomyValidationReport, validate_taxonomy_pack_detailed +ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[3] +IMPORT_PATH = ROOT / "data/taxonomy/imports/argument_risk_taxonomy_living_workbook_v2_taxonomy_first.xlsx" +PACKS_DIR = ROOT / "data/taxonomy/packs" +REPORT_PATH = ROOT / "data/reports/taxonomy_validation_report.json" +SOURCE_REGISTRY_PATH = ROOT / "data/taxonomy/source_registry.yaml" +MODEL_PROFILES_PATH = ROOT / "data/config/model_profiles.yaml" -def import_taxonomy_excel(path: Path | str) -> TaxonomyPack: - workbook = load_workbook(Path(path)) - sheet = workbook.active - headers = [str(cell.value).strip() if cell.value is not None else "" for cell in next(sheet.iter_rows(max_row=1))] - index = {header: idx for idx, header in enumerate(headers)} - entries: list[TaxonomyEntry] = [] - for row in sheet.iter_rows(min_row=2, values_only=True): - if not any(row): +HEADERS = [ + "id", "name", "pack", "canonical_category", "academic_status", "academic_consensus", + "short_definition", "long_definition", "detection_level", "signals", "trigger_patterns", + "minimum_evidence_requirement", "exclusion_criteria", "common_false_positives", + "positive_examples", "negative_examples", "severity_guidance", "related_risks", + "synonym_ids", "source_refs", "enabled_for_mvp", "enabled_for_retrieval", + "enabled_for_classification", "requires_context", "requires_human_judgment", + "false_positive_sensitivity", "activation_status", "healthy_suppressor", + "model_assisted_allowed", "notes", +] + +@dataclass +class Sheet: + title: str + rows: list[list[object]] + + +def _column_index(cell_ref: str) -> int: + letters = re.match(r"[A-Z]+", cell_ref or "A").group(0) + index = 0 + for char in letters: + index = index * 26 + ord(char) - 64 + return index - 1 + + +def _read_xlsx(path: Path) -> dict[str, Sheet]: + try: + # Compatibility with the repo's tiny openpyxl test stub, which writes JSON files. + data = json.loads(path.read_text()) + if "rows" in data: + return {"Taxonomy_Master": Sheet("Taxonomy_Master", data["rows"]), "taxonomy": Sheet("taxonomy", data["rows"])} + except Exception: + pass + + ns = "{http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/spreadsheetml/2006/main}" + rel_ns = "{http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships}" + with ZipFile(path) as archive: + shared: list[str] = [] + if "xl/sharedStrings.xml" in archive.namelist(): + root = ET.fromstring(archive.read("xl/sharedStrings.xml")) + for si in root.findall(ns + "si"): + shared.append("".join(t.text or "" for t in si.iter(ns + "t"))) + workbook = ET.fromstring(archive.read("xl/workbook.xml")) + rels = ET.fromstring(archive.read("xl/_rels/workbook.xml.rels")) + rel_map = {rel.attrib["Id"]: rel.attrib["Target"].lstrip("/") for rel in rels} + sheets: dict[str, Sheet] = {} + for sheet_node in workbook.find(ns + "sheets"): + name = sheet_node.attrib["name"] + rid = sheet_node.attrib[rel_ns + "id"] + target = rel_map[rid] + xml_path = target if target.startswith("xl/") else f"xl/{target}" + root = ET.fromstring(archive.read(xml_path)) + rows: list[list[object]] = [] + for row_node in root.findall(".//" + ns + "row"): + cells: dict[int, object] = {} + for cell in row_node.findall(ns + "c"): + value_node = cell.find(ns + "v") + inline_node = cell.find(ns + "is") + value = "" + if value_node is not None: + value = value_node.text or "" + if cell.attrib.get("t") == "s" and value != "": + value = shared[int(value)] + elif inline_node is not None: + value = "".join(t.text or "" for t in inline_node.iter(ns + "t")) + cells[_column_index(cell.attrib.get("r", "A"))] = value + if cells: + max_idx = max(cells) + rows.append([cells.get(i, "") for i in range(max_idx + 1)]) + sheets[name] = Sheet(name, rows) + return sheets + + +def _row_dicts(sheet: Sheet) -> list[tuple[int, dict[str, object]]]: + if not sheet.rows: + return [] + headers = [normalize_id(cell) for cell in sheet.rows[0]] + items = [] + for row_number, row in enumerate(sheet.rows[1:], start=2): + if not any(str(cell).strip() for cell in row): continue - data = {header: row[index[header]] if header in index and index[header] < len(row) else None for header in HEADERS} - entries.append( - TaxonomyEntry( - id=str(data["id"] or "").strip(), - name=str(data["name"] or "").strip(), - description=str(data["description"] or "").strip(), - severity=RiskSeverity(str(data.get("severity") or "low").strip().lower()), - keywords=[part.strip() for part in str(data.get("keywords") or "").split(";") if part.strip()], - examples=[part.strip() for part in str(data.get("examples") or "").split(";") if part.strip()], - mitigation=str(data.get("mitigation") or "Escalate for human review."), - active=str(data.get("active") or "true").strip().lower() not in {"false", "0", "no"}, - ) - ) - return TaxonomyPack(name=Path(path).stem, entries=entries) + items.append((row_number, {headers[i]: row[i] if i < len(row) else "" for i in range(len(headers))})) + return items + + +def _category(row: dict[str, object]) -> str: + macro = normalize_id(row.get("macro_category")) + sub = normalize_id(row.get("subcategory")) + text = f"{macro} {sub} {normalize_id(row.get('tax_id'))}" + if "healthy" in text: + return CanonicalCategory.healthy_reasoning_pattern.value + if "bias" in text and "cognitive" in text: + return CanonicalCategory.cognitive_bias.value + if "bias" in text and ("behaviour" in text or "behavior" in text): + return CanonicalCategory.behavioural_bias.value + if "causal" in text or "causation" in text: + return CanonicalCategory.causal_reasoning_error.value + if "statistical" in text or "statistics" in text: + return CanonicalCategory.statistical_reasoning_error.value + if "evidence" in text: + return CanonicalCategory.evidence_failure.value + if "uncertainty" in text: + return CanonicalCategory.uncertainty_failure.value + if "rhetoric" in text: + return CanonicalCategory.rhetorical_pattern.value + if "social" in text: + return CanonicalCategory.social_influence_pattern.value + if "manipulation" in text: + return CanonicalCategory.manipulation_pattern.value + if "fallac" in text or "reasoning_failure" in text or macro == "reasoning_failures": + return CanonicalCategory.fallacy.value + return CanonicalCategory.operational_detection_category.value + + +def _detection_level(value: object) -> str: + normalized = normalize_id(value) + return { + "dialogue": "discourse", + "formal": "structural", + "claim": "structural", + "multi_claim": "cross_claim", + }.get(normalized, normalized or "contextual") + + +def _entry_from_workbook_row(row_number: int, row: dict[str, object]) -> TaxonomyEntry: + tax_id = row.get("tax_id") or row.get("id") + source_family = row.get("source_family") + source_refs = split_list(source_family) or split_list(row.get("source_refs")) + if row.get("primary_source_url"): + source_refs.extend(split_list(row.get("primary_source_url"))) + academic_status = normalize_id(row.get("academic_status_v2") or row.get("academic_status") or row.get("taxonomy_status")) + if academic_status not in {item.value for item in AcademicStatus}: + academic_status = AcademicStatus.operational.value + return TaxonomyEntry( + id=tax_id, + name=row.get("parent_label_en") or row.get("name") or tax_id, + pack=row.get("pack_v2") or row.get("pack") or "core_mvp", + canonical_category=row.get("canonical_category") or _category(row), + academic_status=academic_status, + academic_consensus=row.get("academic_consensus") or "operational_only", + short_definition=row.get("definition_draft") or row.get("short_definition") or row.get("description") or "", + long_definition=row.get("long_definition") or row.get("definition_draft") or "", + detection_level=_detection_level(row.get("detection_level")), + signals=row.get("linguistic_or_structural_signals") or row.get("signals") or row.get("keywords") or "", + trigger_patterns=row.get("trigger_patterns") or "", + minimum_evidence_requirement=row.get("minimum_evidence_required") or row.get("minimum_evidence_requirement") or "", + exclusion_criteria=row.get("exclusion_criteria") or "", + common_false_positives=row.get("false_positive_guard") or row.get("common_false_positives") or "", + positive_examples=row.get("positive_example_stub") or row.get("positive_examples") or row.get("examples") or "", + negative_examples=row.get("negative_example_stub") or row.get("negative_examples") or "", + severity_guidance=split_list(row.get("severity_low")) + split_list(row.get("severity_medium")) + split_list(row.get("severity_high")), + related_risks=row.get("related_family_ids") or row.get("related_risks") or "", + synonym_ids=row.get("synonym_ids") or "", + source_refs=source_refs, + enabled_for_mvp=row.get("enabled_for_mvp"), + enabled_for_retrieval=row.get("enabled_for_retrieval"), + enabled_for_classification=row.get("enabled_for_classification"), + requires_context=row.get("requires_context"), + requires_human_judgment=row.get("requires_human_judgment"), + false_positive_sensitivity=row.get("false_positive_sensitivity") or "medium", + activation_status=row.get("activation_status") or "review_required", + healthy_suppressor=row.get("healthy_suppressor"), + model_assisted_allowed=row.get("model_assisted_allowed"), + notes=row.get("notes_for_review") or row.get("notes") or "", + row_number=row_number, + metadata={ + "workbook_row_number": row_number, + "source_family": source_family or "", + "codex_import_action": row.get("codex_import_action") or "", + }, + ) + + +def import_taxonomy_excel(path: Path | str) -> TaxonomyPack: + sheets = _read_xlsx(Path(path)) + sheet = sheets.get("Taxonomy_Master") or sheets.get("taxonomy") or next(iter(sheets.values())) + entries = [_entry_from_workbook_row(row_number, row) for row_number, row in _row_dicts(sheet)] + return TaxonomyPack(name=Path(path).stem, version="0.2.0", entries=entries, metadata={"source_workbook": str(path)}) + + +def import_workbook(path: Path | str, root: Path = ROOT) -> TaxonomyValidationReport: + source = Path(path) + import_target = root / IMPORT_PATH.relative_to(ROOT) + import_target.parent.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True) + if source.resolve() != import_target.resolve(): + shutil.copy2(source, import_target) + sheets = _read_xlsx(import_target) + pack = import_taxonomy_excel(import_target) + report = validate_taxonomy_pack_detailed(pack) + + pack_dir = root / "data/taxonomy/packs" + pack_dir.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True) + grouped: dict[str, list[TaxonomyEntry]] = {} + for entry in pack.entries: + grouped.setdefault(entry.pack, []).append(entry) + for pack_id, entries in sorted(grouped.items()): + data = TaxonomyPack(name=pack_id, version=pack.version, entries=entries).model_dump(mode="json") + (pack_dir / f"{pack_id}.yaml").write_text(yaml.safe_dump(data, sort_keys=False)) + + _write_sheet_yaml(sheets, "Source_Registry_Extended", root / "data/taxonomy/source_registry.yaml") + _write_sheet_yaml(sheets, "Model_Provider_Profiles", root / "data/config/model_profiles.yaml") + report_path = root / "data/reports/taxonomy_validation_report.json" + report_path.parent.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True) + report_path.write_text(json.dumps(report.to_dict(), indent=2)) + return report + + +def _write_sheet_yaml(sheets: dict[str, Sheet], name: str, path: Path) -> None: + sheet = sheets.get(name) + rows = [] if not sheet else [row for _, row in _row_dicts(sheet)] + path.parent.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True) + path.write_text(yaml.safe_dump({"version": "0.2.0", "items": rows}, sort_keys=False)) diff --git a/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/loader.py b/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/loader.py index 7ad2ea9..6dd8e6c 100644 --- a/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/loader.py +++ b/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/loader.py @@ -3,12 +3,7 @@ from pathlib import Path import yaml -from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.models import ( - RiskSeverity, - TaxonomyEntry, - TaxonomyPack, - default_taxonomy_pack, -) +from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.models import TaxonomyEntry, TaxonomyPack, default_taxonomy_pack def load_taxonomy_pack(path: Path | str | None = None) -> TaxonomyPack: @@ -20,18 +15,12 @@ def load_taxonomy_pack(path: Path | str | None = None) -> TaxonomyPack: data = yaml.safe_load(file_path.read_text()) if not data: return default_taxonomy_pack() - entries = [] - for entry in data.get("entries", []): - if isinstance(entry, TaxonomyEntry): - entries.append(entry) - else: - item = dict(entry) - item["severity"] = RiskSeverity(str(item.get("severity", "low"))) - entries.append(TaxonomyEntry(**item)) + entries = [entry if isinstance(entry, TaxonomyEntry) else TaxonomyEntry(**dict(entry)) for entry in data.get("entries", [])] return TaxonomyPack( version=str(data.get("version", "0.1.0")), name=str(data.get("name", "default")), entries=entries, + metadata=dict(data.get("metadata", {})), ) diff --git a/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/models.py b/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/models.py index 1d28bb1..a4b2c74 100644 --- a/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/models.py +++ b/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/models.py @@ -1,9 +1,10 @@ from __future__ import annotations +import re from enum import Enum from typing import Any -from pydantic import BaseModel, Field, field_validator +from pydantic import BaseModel, Field class RiskSeverity(str, Enum): @@ -12,34 +13,215 @@ class RiskSeverity(str, Enum): high = "high" +class CanonicalCategory(str, Enum): + fallacy = "fallacy" + cognitive_bias = "cognitive_bias" + behavioural_bias = "behavioural_bias" + evidence_failure = "evidence_failure" + uncertainty_failure = "uncertainty_failure" + causal_reasoning_error = "causal_reasoning_error" + statistical_reasoning_error = "statistical_reasoning_error" + rhetorical_pattern = "rhetorical_pattern" + social_influence_pattern = "social_influence_pattern" + manipulation_pattern = "manipulation_pattern" + healthy_reasoning_pattern = "healthy_reasoning_pattern" + operational_detection_category = "operational_detection_category" + + +class AcademicStatus(str, Enum): + canonical = "canonical" + recognized_subtype = "recognized_subtype" + debated = "debated" + operational = "operational" + deprecated = "deprecated" + + +class AcademicConsensus(str, Enum): + high = "high" + medium = "medium" + debated = "debated" + operational_only = "operational_only" + + +class DetectionLevel(str, Enum): + lexical = "lexical" + structural = "structural" + contextual = "contextual" + discourse = "discourse" + cross_claim = "cross_claim" + + +class ActivationStatus(str, Enum): + active = "active" + review_required = "review_required" + backlog = "backlog" + deprecated = "deprecated" + + +class FalsePositiveSensitivity(str, Enum): + low = "low" + medium = "medium" + high = "high" + + +_LIST_FIELDS = { + "signals", + "trigger_patterns", + "exclusion_criteria", + "common_false_positives", + "positive_examples", + "negative_examples", + "severity_guidance", + "related_risks", + "synonym_ids", + "source_refs", +} + + +def normalize_id(value: object) -> str: + text = str(value or "").strip().lower() + text = re.sub(r"[^a-z0-9]+", "_", text) + return re.sub(r"_+", "_", text).strip("_") + + +def split_list(value: object) -> list[str]: + if value is None: + return [] + if isinstance(value, list): + return [str(item).strip() for item in value if str(item).strip()] + return [part.strip() for part in re.split(r"[;\n]+", str(value)) if part.strip()] + + +def parse_bool(value: object, default: bool = False) -> bool: + if value is None or value == "": + return default + if isinstance(value, bool): + return value + text = str(value).strip().lower() + if text in {"yes", "y", "true", "1", "enabled", "active"}: + return True + if text in {"no", "n", "false", "0", "disabled", "inactive", "n/a", "na"}: + return False + return default + + +def _enum_value(enum: type[Enum], value: object, default: str) -> str: + normalized = normalize_id(value) if value not in {None, ""} else default + return normalized if normalized in {item.value for item in enum} else default + + class TaxonomyEntry(BaseModel): id: str name: str - description: str - severity: RiskSeverity = RiskSeverity.low - keywords: list[str] = Field(default_factory=list) - examples: list[str] = Field(default_factory=list) - mitigation: str = "Escalate for human review." - active: bool = True + pack: str = "core_mvp" + canonical_category: str = CanonicalCategory.operational_detection_category.value + academic_status: str = AcademicStatus.operational.value + academic_consensus: str = AcademicConsensus.operational_only.value + short_definition: str = "" + long_definition: str = "" + detection_level: str = DetectionLevel.contextual.value + signals: list[str] = Field(default_factory=list) + trigger_patterns: list[str] = Field(default_factory=list) + minimum_evidence_requirement: str = "" + exclusion_criteria: list[str] = Field(default_factory=list) + common_false_positives: list[str] = Field(default_factory=list) + positive_examples: list[str] = Field(default_factory=list) + negative_examples: list[str] = Field(default_factory=list) + severity_guidance: list[str] = Field(default_factory=list) + related_risks: list[str] = Field(default_factory=list) + synonym_ids: list[str] = Field(default_factory=list) + source_refs: list[str] = Field(default_factory=list) + enabled_for_mvp: bool = False + enabled_for_retrieval: bool = False + enabled_for_classification: bool = False + requires_context: bool = False + requires_human_judgment: bool = False + false_positive_sensitivity: str = FalsePositiveSensitivity.medium.value + activation_status: str = ActivationStatus.review_required.value + healthy_suppressor: bool = False + model_assisted_allowed: bool = True + notes: str = "" + row_number: int | None = None metadata: dict[str, Any] = Field(default_factory=dict) - @field_validator("id", "name", "description") - @classmethod - def required_text(cls, value: str) -> str: - if not value or not value.strip(): - raise ValueError("field must be non-empty") - return value.strip() + def __init__(self, **data: Any): + # Backwards-compatible aliases used by the original starter taxonomy/tests. + if "description" in data and "short_definition" not in data: + data["short_definition"] = data["description"] + if "keywords" in data and "signals" not in data: + data["signals"] = data["keywords"] + if "examples" in data and "positive_examples" not in data: + data["positive_examples"] = data["examples"] + if "active" in data and "enabled_for_classification" not in data: + data["enabled_for_classification"] = parse_bool(data["active"]) + data.setdefault("activation_status", ActivationStatus.active.value if data["enabled_for_classification"] else ActivationStatus.review_required.value) + data["id"] = normalize_id(data.get("id")) + data["pack"] = normalize_id(data.get("pack") or "core_mvp") + invalid_enums: dict[str, str] = {} + enum_specs = { + "canonical_category": (CanonicalCategory, CanonicalCategory.operational_detection_category.value), + "academic_status": (AcademicStatus, AcademicStatus.operational.value), + "academic_consensus": (AcademicConsensus, AcademicConsensus.operational_only.value), + "detection_level": (DetectionLevel, DetectionLevel.contextual.value), + "activation_status": (ActivationStatus, ActivationStatus.review_required.value), + "false_positive_sensitivity": (FalsePositiveSensitivity, FalsePositiveSensitivity.medium.value), + } + for field_name, (enum_type, default) in enum_specs.items(): + raw_value = data.get(field_name) + normalized = normalize_id(raw_value) if raw_value not in {None, ""} else default + allowed = {item.value for item in enum_type} + if normalized not in allowed: + invalid_enums[field_name] = str(raw_value) + normalized = default + data[field_name] = normalized + metadata = dict(data.get("metadata") or {}) + if invalid_enums: + metadata["invalid_enums"] = invalid_enums + data["metadata"] = metadata + for field in _LIST_FIELDS: + data[field] = split_list(data.get(field)) + for field in ["enabled_for_mvp", "enabled_for_retrieval", "enabled_for_classification", "requires_context", "requires_human_judgment", "healthy_suppressor", "model_assisted_allowed"]: + data[field] = parse_bool(data.get(field), default=(field == "model_assisted_allowed")) + super().__init__(**data) + if not self.id: + raise ValueError("id must be non-empty") + if not str(self.name or "").strip(): + raise ValueError("name must be non-empty") - @field_validator("keywords", "examples") - @classmethod - def clean_strings(cls, values: list[str]) -> list[str]: - return [item.strip() for item in values if item and item.strip()] + @property + def description(self) -> str: + return self.short_definition or self.long_definition + + @property + def keywords(self) -> list[str]: + return self.signals + self.trigger_patterns + + @property + def examples(self) -> list[str]: + return self.positive_examples + + @property + def active(self) -> bool: + return self.enabled_for_classification and self.activation_status == ActivationStatus.active.value + + @property + def severity(self) -> RiskSeverity: + if any("high" in item.lower() for item in self.severity_guidance): + return RiskSeverity.high + if any("medium" in item.lower() for item in self.severity_guidance): + return RiskSeverity.medium + return RiskSeverity.low + + @property + def mitigation(self) -> str: + return "Escalate for human review." if self.requires_human_judgment else "Require clear textual evidence and review false-positive guards." class TaxonomyPack(BaseModel): version: str = "0.1.0" name: str = "default" entries: list[TaxonomyEntry] = Field(default_factory=list) + metadata: dict[str, Any] = Field(default_factory=dict) def default_taxonomy_pack() -> TaxonomyPack: @@ -49,29 +231,44 @@ def default_taxonomy_pack() -> TaxonomyPack: TaxonomyEntry( id="overgeneralization", name="Overgeneralization", - description="A broad claim that applies a judgement to a group or situation without sufficient qualification.", - severity=RiskSeverity.medium, - keywords=["always", "never", "everyone", "all", "none"], - examples=["Everyone in that group is dishonest."], - mitigation="Ask for scope, counterexamples, and supporting evidence.", - ), - TaxonomyEntry( - id="unsupported_causal_claim", - name="Unsupported causal claim", - description="A statement presents causation without evidence in the provided text.", - severity=RiskSeverity.medium, - keywords=["caused", "because of", "leads to", "responsible for"], - examples=["The policy caused every later problem."], - mitigation="Request causal evidence and consider alternative explanations.", + pack="starter_pack", + canonical_category="fallacy", + academic_status="canonical", + academic_consensus="high", + short_definition="A broad claim that applies a judgement without sufficient qualification.", + detection_level="structural", + signals=["always", "never", "everyone", "all", "none"], + positive_examples=["Everyone in that group is dishonest."], + minimum_evidence_requirement="Evidence span showing an overbroad quantifier applied as support.", + common_false_positives=["Legitimate quantified claims with adequate evidence."], + enabled_for_mvp=True, + enabled_for_retrieval=True, + enabled_for_classification=True, + activation_status="active", + severity_guidance=["medium"], + source_refs=["starter"], ), TaxonomyEntry( id="dehumanizing_language", name="Dehumanizing language", - description="Language that depicts people as less than human or as pests, disease, or objects.", - severity=RiskSeverity.high, - keywords=["vermin", "parasites", "infestation", "animals"], - examples=["They are vermin."], - mitigation="Escalate for careful human review and contextual assessment.", + pack="starter_pack", + canonical_category="rhetorical_pattern", + academic_status="operational", + academic_consensus="operational_only", + short_definition="Language that depicts people as less than human or as pests, disease, or objects.", + detection_level="lexical", + signals=["vermin", "parasites", "infestation", "animals"], + positive_examples=["They are vermin."], + negative_examples=["The novel describes animals in a literal zoo."], + minimum_evidence_requirement="A quoted span applying dehumanizing terms to people or groups.", + common_false_positives=["Literal uses about non-human animals or pests."], + enabled_for_mvp=True, + enabled_for_retrieval=True, + enabled_for_classification=True, + activation_status="active", + severity_guidance=["high"], + requires_human_judgment=True, + source_refs=["starter"], ), ], ) diff --git a/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/pack_manager.py b/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/pack_manager.py index 9ee3b65..31e2f65 100644 --- a/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/pack_manager.py +++ b/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/pack_manager.py @@ -1,5 +1,37 @@ -from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.models import default_taxonomy_pack +from __future__ import annotations +from pathlib import Path -def active_pack(): - return default_taxonomy_pack() +from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.loader import load_taxonomy_pack +from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.models import ActivationStatus, CanonicalCategory, TaxonomyEntry, TaxonomyPack, default_taxonomy_pack + +ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[3] +PACKS_DIR = ROOT / "data/taxonomy/packs" + + +def load_pack(pack_id: str, packs_dir: Path = PACKS_DIR) -> TaxonomyPack: + return load_taxonomy_pack(packs_dir / f"{pack_id}.yaml") + + +def load_all_packs(packs_dir: Path = PACKS_DIR) -> TaxonomyPack: + if not packs_dir.exists(): + return default_taxonomy_pack() + entries: list[TaxonomyEntry] = [] + for path in sorted(packs_dir.glob("*.yaml")): + entries.extend(load_taxonomy_pack(path).entries) + return TaxonomyPack(name="all", entries=entries) + + +def active_classification_entries(pack: TaxonomyPack | None = None) -> list[TaxonomyEntry]: + taxonomy = pack or load_all_packs() + return [ + entry for entry in taxonomy.entries + if entry.enabled_for_classification + and entry.activation_status == ActivationStatus.active.value + and entry.canonical_category != CanonicalCategory.healthy_reasoning_pattern.value + ] + + +def active_pack() -> TaxonomyPack: + entries = active_classification_entries(load_all_packs()) + return TaxonomyPack(name="active", entries=entries) diff --git a/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/source_registry.py b/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/source_registry.py index 9672e96..228a47c 100644 --- a/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/source_registry.py +++ b/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/source_registry.py @@ -1,2 +1,21 @@ -def load_sources(): - return [] +from __future__ import annotations + +from pathlib import Path +from typing import Any + +import yaml + +ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[3] +DEFAULT_SOURCE_REGISTRY = ROOT / "data/taxonomy/source_registry.yaml" + + +def load_source_registry(path: Path | str = DEFAULT_SOURCE_REGISTRY) -> dict[str, Any]: + file_path = Path(path) + if not file_path.exists(): + return {"version": "0.2.0", "items": []} + return yaml.safe_load(file_path.read_text()) or {"version": "0.2.0", "items": []} + + +def source_ids(path: Path | str = DEFAULT_SOURCE_REGISTRY) -> set[str]: + data = load_source_registry(path) + return {str(item.get("source_id")) for item in data.get("items", []) if item.get("source_id")} diff --git a/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/synonym_map.py b/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/synonym_map.py index e9e2466..692d100 100644 --- a/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/synonym_map.py +++ b/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/synonym_map.py @@ -1,2 +1,13 @@ -def load_synonyms(): - return {} +from __future__ import annotations + +from collections import defaultdict + +from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.models import TaxonomyPack + + +def build_synonym_map(pack: TaxonomyPack) -> dict[str, list[str]]: + mapping: dict[str, list[str]] = defaultdict(list) + for entry in pack.entries: + for synonym_id in entry.synonym_ids: + mapping[synonym_id].append(entry.id) + return dict(mapping) diff --git a/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/validator.py b/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/validator.py index 6a96015..21f1cbd 100644 --- a/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/validator.py +++ b/engine/argument_risk_engine/taxonomy/validator.py @@ -1,15 +1,108 @@ from __future__ import annotations -from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.models import TaxonomyPack +from dataclasses import dataclass, field +from typing import Any +from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.models import ( + AcademicStatus, + ActivationStatus, + CanonicalCategory, + FalsePositiveSensitivity, + TaxonomyPack, +) -def validate_taxonomy_pack(pack: TaxonomyPack) -> list[str]: - errors: list[str] = [] - seen: set[str] = set() + +@dataclass +class ValidationIssue: + code: str + message: str + severity: str = "error" + entry_id: str | None = None + row_number: int | None = None + + def to_dict(self) -> dict[str, Any]: + return self.__dict__.copy() + + +@dataclass +class TaxonomyValidationReport: + errors: list[ValidationIssue] = field(default_factory=list) + warnings: list[ValidationIssue] = field(default_factory=list) + entry_count: int = 0 + active_classification_count: int = 0 + + @property + def ok(self) -> bool: + return not self.errors + + def add(self, issue: ValidationIssue) -> None: + if issue.severity == "warning": + self.warnings.append(issue) + else: + self.errors.append(issue) + + def to_dict(self) -> dict[str, Any]: + return { + "ok": self.ok, + "entry_count": self.entry_count, + "active_classification_count": self.active_classification_count, + "errors": [issue.to_dict() for issue in self.errors], + "warnings": [issue.to_dict() for issue in self.warnings], + } + + +def _issue(code: str, message: str, entry: object | None = None, severity: str = "error") -> ValidationIssue: + return ValidationIssue( + code=code, + message=message, + severity=severity, + entry_id=getattr(entry, "id", None), + row_number=getattr(entry, "row_number", None), + ) + + +def validate_taxonomy_pack_detailed(pack: TaxonomyPack) -> TaxonomyValidationReport: + report = TaxonomyValidationReport(entry_count=len(pack.entries)) + seen: dict[str, int | None] = {} for entry in pack.entries: if entry.id in seen: - errors.append(f"duplicate id: {entry.id}") - seen.add(entry.id) - if not entry.keywords: - errors.append(f"{entry.id} has no keywords") - return errors + report.add(_issue("duplicate_id", f"duplicate id: {entry.id}", entry)) + seen[entry.id] = entry.row_number + for field_name, raw_value in dict(entry.metadata.get("invalid_enums", {})).items(): + report.add(_issue("invalid_enum", f"{entry.id} has invalid {field_name}: {raw_value}", entry)) + + active_for_classification = entry.enabled_for_classification and entry.activation_status == ActivationStatus.active.value + if active_for_classification: + report.active_classification_count += 1 + + if entry.academic_status == AcademicStatus.canonical.value and not entry.source_refs: + report.add(_issue("canonical_missing_source_refs", f"{entry.id} is canonical but has no source_refs", entry)) + if active_for_classification: + if not entry.positive_examples: + report.add(_issue("active_missing_positive_examples", f"{entry.id} is active for classification but has no positive examples", entry)) + if not entry.negative_examples: + report.add(_issue("active_missing_negative_examples", f"{entry.id} is active for classification but has no negative examples", entry)) + if not entry.minimum_evidence_requirement: + report.add(_issue("active_missing_minimum_evidence", f"{entry.id} is active for classification but has no minimum evidence requirement", entry)) + if not entry.common_false_positives: + report.add(_issue("active_missing_false_positive_warnings", f"{entry.id} is active for classification but has no false-positive warnings", entry)) + if entry.canonical_category == CanonicalCategory.healthy_reasoning_pattern.value and entry.enabled_for_classification: + report.add(_issue("healthy_classification_disabled", f"{entry.id} is a healthy reasoning pattern and must not be returned as a risk", entry)) + if entry.activation_status == ActivationStatus.deprecated.value and entry.enabled_for_classification: + report.add(_issue("deprecated_active", f"{entry.id} is deprecated but enabled for classification", entry)) + if entry.activation_status == ActivationStatus.backlog.value and entry.enabled_for_classification: + report.add(_issue("backlog_classification", f"{entry.id} is backlog but enabled for classification", entry)) + if ( + entry.false_positive_sensitivity == FalsePositiveSensitivity.high.value + and entry.activation_status == ActivationStatus.active.value + and "import_as_active" not in str(entry.metadata.get("codex_import_action", "")) + ): + report.add(_issue("high_fp_active", f"{entry.id} has high false-positive sensitivity and should normally remain review_required", entry, severity="warning")) + if entry.academic_status == AcademicStatus.operational.value and entry.academic_consensus != "operational_only": + report.add(_issue("operational_presented_academic", f"{entry.id} is operational and must not be presented as an academic construct", entry, severity="warning")) + return report + + +def validate_taxonomy_pack(pack: TaxonomyPack) -> list[str]: + report = validate_taxonomy_pack_detailed(pack) + return [issue.message for issue in report.errors + report.warnings] diff --git a/fastapi/__init__.py b/fastapi/__init__.py index 5a93284..2b77dc4 100644 --- a/fastapi/__init__.py +++ b/fastapi/__init__.py @@ -39,3 +39,12 @@ def deco(fn): self.routes[('GET', path)] = fn return fn return deco + + +class UploadFile: + def __init__(self, filename='', file=None): + self.filename = filename + self.file = file + +def File(default=None, **kwargs): + return default diff --git a/frontend/src/api/client.ts b/frontend/src/api/client.ts index 65c2580..01a6e7c 100644 --- a/frontend/src/api/client.ts +++ b/frontend/src/api/client.ts @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -import type { AnalysisResponse, TaxonomyEntry } from './types' +import type { AnalysisResponse, TaxonomyEntry, TaxonomyImportResult } from './types' const API_BASE = import.meta.env.VITE_API_BASE ?? 'http://localhost:8000/api' @@ -18,3 +18,15 @@ export async function fetchTaxonomy(): Promise { const payload = await response.json() return payload.entries } + + +export async function importTaxonomyWorkbook(file: File): Promise { + const formData = new FormData() + formData.append('file', file) + const response = await fetch(`${API_BASE}/taxonomy-workbench/import`, { + method: 'POST', + body: formData, + }) + if (!response.ok) throw new Error('Taxonomy workbook import failed') + return response.json() +} diff --git a/frontend/src/api/types.ts b/frontend/src/api/types.ts index 9f5bd12..8806a84 100644 --- a/frontend/src/api/types.ts +++ b/frontend/src/api/types.ts @@ -3,3 +3,5 @@ export type Risk = { taxonomy_id: string; name: string; severity: string; confid export type Claim = { text: string; risks: Risk[] } export type AnalysisResponse = { analysis_id: string; summary: Record; claims: Claim[]; risks: Risk[] } export type TaxonomyEntry = { id: string; name: string; description: string; severity: string; keywords: string[]; active: boolean } + +export type TaxonomyImportResult = { entry_count: number; errors: string[]; warnings: string[] } diff --git a/frontend/src/components/taxonomy_workbench/TaxonomyImportExportPanel.tsx b/frontend/src/components/taxonomy_workbench/TaxonomyImportExportPanel.tsx index a22a2c6..bb5ad89 100644 --- a/frontend/src/components/taxonomy_workbench/TaxonomyImportExportPanel.tsx +++ b/frontend/src/components/taxonomy_workbench/TaxonomyImportExportPanel.tsx @@ -1,2 +1,39 @@ +import { useRef, useState } from 'react' + +import { importTaxonomyWorkbook } from '../../api/client' import { Card } from '../shared/Card' -export function TaxonomyImportExportPanel() { return

TaxonomyImportExport Panel

MVP placeholder wired for local file-backed workflows.

 } + +export function TaxonomyImportExportPanel() { + const inputRef = useRef(null) + const [message, setMessage] = useState('Select a user-managed .xlsx taxonomy workbook to import.') + const [busy, setBusy] = useState(false) + + async function onUpload() { + const file = inputRef.current?.files?.[0] + if (!file) { + setMessage('Choose an .xlsx workbook first.') + return + } + setBusy(true) + try { + const result = await importTaxonomyWorkbook(file) + setMessage(`Imported ${result.entry_count} taxonomy entries with ${result.errors.length} errors and ${result.warnings.length} warnings.`) + } catch (error) { + setMessage(error instanceof Error ? error.message : 'Taxonomy import failed') + } finally { + setBusy(false) + } + } + + return ( + +

Taxonomy import/export

+

+ The real taxonomy workbook is imported from your local machine and is intentionally not committed to Git. +

+ + +

{message}

+ + ) +} diff --git a/scripts/export_taxonomy_excel.py b/scripts/export_taxonomy_excel.py index 7940158..87c496d 100644 --- a/scripts/export_taxonomy_excel.py +++ b/scripts/export_taxonomy_excel.py @@ -1,13 +1,17 @@ import argparse +import sys from pathlib import Path +ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[1] +sys.path.insert(0, str(ROOT / "engine")) +sys.path.insert(0, str(ROOT)) + from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.exporter import export_taxonomy_excel -from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.loader import load_taxonomy_pack +from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.pack_manager import load_all_packs -ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[1] if __name__ == "__main__": - parser = argparse.ArgumentParser() + parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description="Export current taxonomy packs back to an Excel workbook.") parser.add_argument("path", nargs="?", default="data/taxonomy/exports/taxonomy.xlsx") args = parser.parse_args() - out = export_taxonomy_excel(load_taxonomy_pack(ROOT / "data/taxonomy/packs/starter-pack.yaml"), ROOT / args.path) + out = export_taxonomy_excel(load_all_packs(ROOT / "data/taxonomy/packs"), ROOT / args.path) print(out) diff --git a/scripts/import_taxonomy_excel.py b/scripts/import_taxonomy_excel.py index 1dd8516..ba63fea 100644 --- a/scripts/import_taxonomy_excel.py +++ b/scripts/import_taxonomy_excel.py @@ -1,14 +1,28 @@ import argparse +import sys from pathlib import Path -from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.importer import import_taxonomy_excel -from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.loader import save_taxonomy_pack - ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[1] +sys.path.insert(0, str(ROOT / "engine")) +sys.path.insert(0, str(ROOT)) + +from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.importer import IMPORT_PATH, import_workbook + +DEFAULT_INPUT = ROOT / "data/taxonomy/imports/argument_risk_taxonomy_living_workbook_v2_taxonomy_first.xlsx" + if __name__ == "__main__": - parser = argparse.ArgumentParser() - parser.add_argument("path", nargs="?", default="data/taxonomy/imports/taxonomy.xlsx") + parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description="Import an external taxonomy workbook into pack YAML files.") + parser.add_argument("path", nargs="?", help="Deprecated positional input path; prefer --input.") + parser.add_argument("--input", "-i", dest="input_path", help="Path to the user-managed .xlsx taxonomy workbook.") args = parser.parse_args() - pack = import_taxonomy_excel(ROOT / args.path) - save_taxonomy_pack(pack, ROOT / "data/taxonomy/packs/starter-pack.yaml") - print(f"Imported {len(pack.entries)} entries") + input_path = Path(args.input_path or args.path or DEFAULT_INPUT) + if not input_path.exists(): + raise SystemExit( + f"Workbook not found: {input_path}\n" + "Place the user-managed workbook under data/taxonomy/imports/ or pass --input /path/to/workbook.xlsx.\n" + "The real taxonomy workbook is intentionally not committed to Git." + ) + report = import_workbook(input_path, ROOT) + print(f"Copied workbook to {IMPORT_PATH}") + print(f"Imported {report.entry_count} entries ({report.active_classification_count} active classification entries)") + print(f"Validation: {len(report.errors)} errors, {len(report.warnings)} warnings") diff --git a/tests/test_taxonomy_importer.py b/tests/test_taxonomy_importer.py index 6201020..0ef8c9d 100644 --- a/tests/test_taxonomy_importer.py +++ b/tests/test_taxonomy_importer.py @@ -8,7 +8,20 @@ def test_import_taxonomy_excel(tmp_path): wb = Workbook() ws = wb.active ws.append(["id", "name", "description", "severity", "keywords", "examples", "mitigation", "active"]) - ws.append(["risk", "Risk", "Description", "low", "foo; bar", "foo example", "review", True]) + ws.append(["Risk ID", "Risk", "Description", "low", "foo; bar", "foo example", "review", True]) wb.save(path) pack = import_taxonomy_excel(path) + assert pack.entries[0].id == "risk_id" assert pack.entries[0].keywords == ["foo", "bar"] + + +def test_import_preserves_workbook_row_number(tmp_path): + path = tmp_path / "taxonomy.xlsx" + wb = Workbook() + ws = wb.active + ws.append(["tax_id", "parent_label_en", "pack_v2", "activation_status"]) + ws.append(["", "", "", ""]) + ws.append(["Needs Review", "Needs Review", "Core", "review_required"]) + wb.save(path) + pack = import_taxonomy_excel(path) + assert pack.entries[0].row_number == 3 diff --git a/tests/test_taxonomy_validator.py b/tests/test_taxonomy_validator.py index 38a3a8a..d62339c 100644 --- a/tests/test_taxonomy_validator.py +++ b/tests/test_taxonomy_validator.py @@ -1,7 +1,22 @@ from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.models import TaxonomyEntry, TaxonomyPack -from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.validator import validate_taxonomy_pack +from argument_risk_engine.taxonomy.validator import validate_taxonomy_pack, validate_taxonomy_pack_detailed def test_validator_detects_duplicate(): pack = TaxonomyPack(entries=[TaxonomyEntry(id="a", name="A", description="D", keywords=["x"]), TaxonomyEntry(id="a", name="B", description="D", keywords=["y"])]) assert "duplicate id: a" in validate_taxonomy_pack(pack) + + +def test_validator_reports_active_classification_requirements_with_row_number(): + pack = TaxonomyPack(entries=[TaxonomyEntry(id="Thin Evidence", name="Thin", enabled_for_classification=True, activation_status="active", row_number=42)]) + report = validate_taxonomy_pack_detailed(pack) + assert not report.ok + issue = report.errors[0] + assert issue.row_number == 42 + assert issue.entry_id == "thin_evidence" + + +def test_validator_blocks_healthy_reasoning_classification(): + pack = TaxonomyPack(entries=[TaxonomyEntry(id="healthy", name="Healthy", canonical_category="healthy_reasoning_pattern", enabled_for_classification=True, activation_status="active")]) + messages = validate_taxonomy_pack(pack) + assert any("must not be returned as a risk" in message for message in messages)