Skip to content
AL | Apatheia Labs

Framework

CASCADE: Eight Contradiction Types

CASCADE is Phronesis’s taxonomy for classifying inconsistencies across document corpora. Every contradiction found by the analysis engines is assigned one of eight types, enabling systematic tracking and prioritization. The taxonomy emerged from a practical observation: detecting contradictions is not enough. A timeline mismatch and a scope shift require different analytical responses. Classification enables the right response to the right problem.

1SELF

A single document contradicts itself—different claims on different pages that cannot both be true.

Example

Report states "no contact since March" on page 3, describes "weekly contact" on page 12.

Detection Methodology

  1. 1.Extract all factual claims with document positions
  2. 2.Cross-reference claims within same document
  3. 3.Flag logical incompatibilities (X and not-X)
  4. 4.Identify numeric inconsistencies
  5. 5.Detect temporal impossibilities within single narrative
2INTER_DOC

Two or more documents make incompatible claims about the same event, person, or fact.

Example

Police report: "subject was cooperative." Social work assessment: "subject refused to engage."

Detection Methodology

  1. 1.Extract claims with subject-predicate structure
  2. 2.Match claims across documents by subject entity
  3. 3.Compare predicates for logical compatibility
  4. 4.Assess temporal context (same time period?)
  5. 5.Rank severity based on claim importance
3TEMPORAL

Dates, sequences, or durations that are logically impossible given other established facts.

Example

Report "summarizes" a meeting that occurred three days after report was written.

Detection Methodology

  1. 1.Extract all temporal references (dates, times, durations)
  2. 2.Build unified timeline from all sources
  3. 3.Check for impossible sequences (effect before cause)
  4. 4.Verify durations sum correctly
  5. 5.Flag references to documents before their creation
4EVIDENTIARY

Claims presented as factual that lack supporting evidence, or cited evidence actually contradicts the claim.

Example

"The father has a history of violence"—no incidents, arrests, or evidence cited anywhere in record.

Detection Methodology

  1. 1.Identify claims with factual certainty markers
  2. 2.Locate cited sources and evidence
  3. 3.Verify evidence actually supports the claim
  4. 4.Flag claims with no supporting reference
  5. 5.Detect inverse citations (evidence says opposite)
5MODALITY

Possibility becomes probability becomes certainty—without new evidence to justify the shift.

Example

Initial note: "parent may have substance issues." Final report: "history of substance abuse."

Detection Methodology

  1. 1.Track claim certainty markers (may, might, possibly → likely → definitely)
  2. 2.Map certainty changes across documents
  3. 3.Check for new evidence justifying increased certainty
  4. 4.Flag unexplained shifts from hypothesis to fact
  5. 5.Identify where qualifiers are dropped
6SELECTIVE

Selective citation that omits context, qualifications, or contradicting passages from source material.

Example

Quotes "child expressed fear" but omits "in the context of a nightmare about monsters."

Detection Methodology

  1. 1.Compare cited passages against full source documents
  2. 2.Identify omitted qualifications and context
  3. 3.Flag selective quotation that changes meaning
  4. 4.Calculate bias score (pro/con omission ratio)
  5. 5.Detect pattern of one-sided citation
7SCOPE

Conclusions that exceed the scope of the analysis or apply findings beyond their valid domain.

Example

Single 2-hour observation leads to conclusion about "persistent parenting deficits."

Detection Methodology

  1. 1.Extract stated scope and limitations
  2. 2.Compare conclusions against stated scope
  3. 3.Flag recommendations exceeding assessment parameters
  4. 4.Identify extrapolation from limited data
  5. 5.Detect expertise boundary violations
8UNEXPLAINED

A party changes position without explanation, or conclusions change without new evidence.

Example

March: "No concerns about care." June: "Significant safeguarding concerns." No new incidents documented.

Detection Methodology

  1. 1.Track position statements by author/entity over time
  2. 2.Identify significant position changes
  3. 3.Search for explanatory evidence between positions
  4. 4.Flag reversals with no documented justification
  5. 5.Detect patterns of strategic position changes