Methodology
Analytical Frameworks
Phronesis is built on two complementary frameworks: the Systematic Adversarial Methodology (S.A.M.) for tracing claims to their origins, and CASCADE for classifying the contradictions you find along the way.
S.A.M. and CASCADE were not designed in the abstract. They emerged from a specific problem: a document corpus where multiple agencies had adopted the same unverified claims, contradictions were buried in volume, and selective citation masked systematic bias. The frameworks exist because the problem demanded them. See the full story or explore the intellectual foundations.
Why Two Frameworks
S.A.M. is a process. It defines the sequence of analytical steps: identify where a claim originated, track how it propagated, measure how it accumulated authority, and map the outcomes it produced. S.A.M. answers “how did this happen?”
CASCADE is a taxonomy. It classifies the inconsistencies you find along the way into eight distinct types — from internal contradictions to unexplained position changes. CASCADE answers “what exactly went wrong?”
You need both. S.A.M. without CASCADE finds problems but can’t classify them. CASCADE without S.A.M. classifies problems but can’t trace their origins. The frameworks are designed to operate together, with S.A.M. directing the investigation and CASCADE structuring the findings.
S.A.M. — Systematic Adversarial Methodology
S.A.M. reads institutional documents “against the grain”—treating every claim as requiring verification rather than acceptance. Four phases trace claims from origin to outcome.
CASCADE — Eight Contradiction Types
A taxonomy for classifying inconsistencies detected across document corpora. Every contradiction found by Phronesis is assigned a CASCADE type.
A single document contradicts itself—different claims on different pages that cannot both be true.
INTER_DOCTwo or more documents make incompatible claims about the same event, person, or fact.
TEMPORALDates, sequences, or durations that are logically impossible given other established facts.
EVIDENTIARYClaims presented as factual that lack supporting evidence, or cited evidence actually contradicts the claim.
MODALITYPossibility becomes probability becomes certainty—without new evidence to justify the shift.
SELECTIVESelective citation that omits context, qualifications, or contradicting passages from source material.
SCOPEConclusions that exceed the scope of the analysis or apply findings beyond their valid domain.
UNEXPLAINEDA party changes position without explanation, or conclusions change without new evidence.
From Methodology to Engines
The frameworks produce findings. The six engines operationalise them.