Documentation
What the method does,
how it works.
Prosoche v1.0 is the method documented here — its worksheets, prompts, decision rules, and 23-prompt production library. It applies the nine-phase Prosoche procedure, the eight-type contradiction taxonomy, the four-phase propagation trace, and six analytical lenses to politically charged or contested-information material. Prosoche consolidates work previously developed under the working names Systematic Adversarial Methodology (S.A.M., 2023) and Sovereign Analyst Framework (SAF v2.x, 2024–2025); those are lineage references, not the current brand. This page is the technical reference.
Prosoche Phase 5
Propagation Trace — the adversarial discipline
When the target is a propagated institutional decision, Prosoche Phase 5 traces the chain through four steps — ANCHOR → INHERIT → COMPOUND → ARRIVE. The trace reads institutional documents against the grain, treating every claim as requiring verification rather than acceptance. It is the adversarial discipline at the centre of Prosoche, formerly developed under the working name Systematic Adversarial Methodology (S.A.M., 2023).
ANCHOR
Phase 1: False Premise Identification
ANCHOR is the foundational phase of the S.A.M. methodology. It identifies the origin points where false premises first emerge in a document corpus—the moments when speculation becomes assertion, hearsay becomes evidence, or assumption becomes fact. Most institutional failures can be traced to specific anchor points: claims that entered the system without adequate verification and subsequently propagated unchecked.
INHERIT
Phase 2: Propagation Tracking
INHERIT tracks how claims propagate across institutional boundaries without independent verification. When one agency’s assessment is adopted by another without re-evaluation, errors compound and gain apparent authority. This phase maps the transmission pathways—identifying which institutions adopted claims from whom, and whether any verification occurred at each handoff.
COMPOUND
Phase 3: Authority Accumulation
COMPOUND documents how claims gain weight through repetition rather than verification—what is termed "authority laundering." A statement repeated by four professionals appears more credible than one stated by a single source, even when all four trace to the same unverified origin. This phase quantifies how apparent authority accumulates and identifies the tipping points where unverified claims become "established facts."
ARRIVE
Phase 4: Outcome Mapping
ARRIVE maps catastrophic outcomes back to their originating false premises, establishing but-for causation: would the outcome have occurred if the anchor claim had been verified? This phase connects the analytical work of phases 1–3 to real-world consequences, demonstrating how initial errors cascaded into final decisions.
Prosoche Phase 4 · Contradiction Taxonomy
Eight Contradiction Types
Every inconsistency detected by the manual is classified against an eight-type taxonomy. The taxonomy distinguishes eight structurally distinct failure modes — from a document that contradicts itself to an unexplained position reversal by the same professional. Classification drives severity scoring and complaint routing.
A single document contradicts itself—different claims on different pages that cannot both be true.
Report states "no contact since March" on page 3, describes "weekly contact" on page 12.
Two or more documents make incompatible claims about the same event, person, or fact.
Police report: "subject was cooperative." Social work assessment: "subject refused to engage."
Dates, sequences, or durations that are logically impossible given other established facts.
Report "summarizes" a meeting that occurred three days after report was written.
Claims presented as factual that lack supporting evidence, or cited evidence actually contradicts the claim.
"The father has a history of violence"—no incidents, arrests, or evidence cited anywhere in record.
Possibility becomes probability becomes certainty—without new evidence to justify the shift.
Initial note: "parent may have substance issues." Final report: "history of substance abuse."
Selective citation that omits context, qualifications, or contradicting passages from source material.
Quotes "child expressed fear" but omits "in the context of a nightmare about monsters."
Conclusions that exceed the scope of the analysis or apply findings beyond their valid domain.
Single 2-hour observation leads to conclusion about "persistent parenting deficits."
A party changes position without explanation, or conclusions change without new evidence.
March: "No concerns about care." June: "Significant safeguarding concerns." No new incidents documented.
Analytical Lenses
Six Lenses Within the Framework
The methodology produces findings. The lenses operationalise them. Each lens applies a distinct analytical function; together they cover the full chain from identity resolution through to regulatory complaint packaging.
Entity Resolution
Canonical Identity Mapping
Creates a unified identity registry across your document corpus. Resolves aliases, tracks role changes, and maps relationships between individuals.
- Alias Detection
- Role Tracking
- Relationship Mapping
- Temporal Context
- Conflict Detection
Canonical Identity Card Canonical Name: Dr. Jane Smith Aliases: J. Smith, Jane Smith, Ms Smith, "the psychologist," JS Role: Clinical Psychologist (2019–present) Organisation: Regional Assessment Service Documents: 47 appearances across 23 documents First Seen: Doc 3, p.2 (14 March 2021) Last Seen: Doc 156, p.8 (9 October 2024) Relationships: Supervised by Prof. R. Williams; assessed Client A (12 sessions); authored reports E4.1, E4.3, E4.7 Flags: Role change: "Independent Expert" → "Trust Employee" at Doc 89 (no disclosure in subsequent reports)
Temporal Parser
Timeline Construction & Analysis
Constructs unified timelines from scattered date references. Identifies gaps, overlaps, and impossible sequences that indicate error or manipulation.
- Date Extraction
- Timeline Construction
- Gap Detection
- Sequence Validation
- Deadline Tracking
TEMPORAL CONTRADICTION DETECTED Event A: Assessment report authored Date: 15 March 2023 | Source: Doc 12, p.3 | Author: Dr. J. Smith Event B: Assessment session conducted Date: 22 March 2023 | Source: Doc 14, p.1 | Participants: Dr. J. Smith, Client A Finding: Report (Event A) predates the assessment it describes (Event B) by 7 days. CASCADE type: TEMPORAL | Severity: HIGH Gap detected: 14 June 2023 – 9 September 2023 No recorded activity for 87 days Statutory deadline (45-day review) exceeded Last actor: Social Worker B
Argumentation
Toulmin Structure Analysis
Deconstructs claims into their logical components using the Toulmin model. Identifies unsupported assertions, missing warrants, and logical gaps.
- Claim Extraction
- Warrant Analysis
- Gap Detection
- Rebuttal Mapping
- Strength Scoring
Contradiction
Cross-Document Inconsistency Detection
Systematically detects inconsistencies across your document corpus using the CASCADE 8-type framework. Surfaces conflicts that undermine institutional conclusions.
- CASCADE Detection
- Source Comparison
- Conflict Mapping
- Confidence Scoring
- Severity Rating
Bias Detection
Statistical Imbalance Analysis
Performs statistical analysis of directional bias in reporting. Calculates omission ratios, measures framing imbalance, and quantifies selective presentation.
- Directional Scoring
- Omission Analysis
- Framing Metrics
- Selection Bias Detection
- Pattern Identification
DOCUMENT: Editorial Investigation Report SOURCE MATERIALS: 12 documents analysed OMISSION INVENTORY: Total omissions detected: 8 Pro-prosecution: 8 | Pro-defence: 0 DIRECTIONAL BIAS SCORE: +1.0 (All omissions favour prosecution narrative) STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Binomial test (H0: random omission direction) p = 0.004 (significant at p < 0.01) Probability of this pattern by chance: 0.4% FRAMING RATIO: Subject-as-suspect: 132 minutes | Subject-as-cleared: 10 minutes Ratio: 13.2:1 PATTERN: 100% prosecution-favoring omission pattern across all source materials.
Accountability
Duty Mapping & Violation Detection
Maps statutory duty violations to specific actors and regulatory bodies. Links evidence to relevant professional standards and complaint pathways.
- Duty Mapping
- Actor Attribution
- Regulatory Routing
- Breach Detection
- Evidence Packaging
ACTOR: Dr. Jane Smith | ROLE: Clinical Psychologist | REGULATOR: HCPC BREACH 1: HCPC Standards of Proficiency §2.7 (evidence-based practice) Finding: 4 evaluative claims with no evidential basis Evidence: Doc 23 p.7, Doc 31 p.4, Doc 31 p.12, Doc 45 p.2 Strength scores: 0.08, 0.12, 0.05, 0.15 BREACH 2: BPS Code of Ethics §3.4 (balanced consideration) Finding: Directional bias score +0.87 across authored reports Evidence: 7 exculpatory findings omitted; binomial test p = 0.008 BREACH 3: HCPC Standards of Conduct §9 (duty of candour) Finding: Role change from independent expert to trust employee undisclosed Evidence: Doc 89 header vs Doc 92 header; no disclosure in Docs 90–156 COMPLAINT PACKAGE: 3 breaches, 11 supporting documents, 14 specific findings. ROUTE: HCPC Fitness to Practise
Applying the Method
A Four-Step Workflow
The method is structured around a repeatable four-step process. Each step has a defined scope and produces a specific deliverable. You complete one step before moving to the next.
Load
Assemble your document corpus and set up your working files.
Collect all relevant documents into a single corpus. Use the intake worksheet to record sources, dates, authors, and institutional roles. At this step you are establishing the evidentiary record you will audit — not yet reading for content.
Audit
Run the Prosoche procedure against your corpus.
Work through Phases 0 through 8 in sequence — declaring the target-type bucket in Phase 0, rating sources in Phase 1, running the Fallacy Firewall in Phase 2, classifying contradictions in Phase 4, and (where the bucket warrants it) running the four-phase propagation trace ANCHOR → INHERIT → COMPOUND → ARRIVE in Phase 5. For each phase, apply the corresponding prompt set from the production library. Record findings in the claim registry. Flag every unverified anchor point before proceeding.
Cross-examine
Apply the six analytical lenses to the findings from your audit.
Run Entity Resolution first to unify your actor registry. Temporal Parser second to surface timeline anomalies. Then Argumentation and Contradiction in parallel. Bias Detection and Accountability last — they consume findings from the earlier lenses. Use the Phase 4 eight-type contradiction taxonomy to classify every inconsistency found.
Ship
Package and deliver your analytical output.
Compile findings into the structured output format the method provides: a contradiction inventory, a bias score card, and (where applicable) an accountability brief with regulatory routing. The method includes output templates calibrated to professional, legal, and journalistic contexts.
FAQ
Common Questions
Do I need an LLM provider to apply the method?+
The worksheets and decision frameworks are standalone documents — no external dependency. The 23-prompt production library is designed for use with any instruction-following language model (Claude, GPT-4-class, or similar). The prompts are plain text; they do not require any API integration. You paste them into your preferred interface.
Is the methodology proprietary?+
The Prosoche v1.0 procedure — together with the eight-type contradiction taxonomy and the CASCADE propagation-trace discipline (formerly developed under the working name S.A.M.) — is documented in the public record through this reference page. The intellectual architecture is open; the value is in the structured application: the worksheets, prompts, and production library that operationalise the procedure for non-specialist analysts.
What does a finished audit look like?+
A finished audit produces three structured outputs: a contradiction inventory (each finding classified by one of the eight taxonomy types — SELF, INTER_DOC, TEMPORAL, EVIDENTIARY, MODALITY_SHIFT, SELECTIVE_CITATION, SCOPE_SHIFT, UNEXPLAINED_CHANGE — with source citations and severity score), a bias scorecard (directional analysis with omission inventory and statistical note), and — where applicable — an accountability brief (breaches mapped to specific actors and regulatory bodies). The method provides templates for each output.
See the method applied.
The method is documented here in full. See it applied end-to-end in the published audits.