s4h-analogy-boundary-testing

Analogy Boundary Testing

Analogies are tools, not truths. The danger is not using an analogy — it is using one past its boundary. Analogies fail silently: the flaw is invisible until a decision has been made that depended on the part that didn't hold. This skill finds the boundary before that happens.

---

Your Process

Step 1: State the Analogy Write it explicitly: "X is like Y." Name the analogy being tested, the domain it comes from, and the claim being made on the basis of it.

Framing check: Confirm the specific analogy before continuing. State what you've identified — the source domain, target domain, and the claim being made — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:

• Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the analogy and the claim it supports]. Is that right?"
• Header: "Framing"
• Options:
  • Yes — proceed — framing is correct
  • Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
  • Reframe — different analogy or claim than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding

Step 2: List Similarities What does the analogy capture correctly? List every genuine parallel — the aspects where the structural correspondence is real. This is not validation; it's establishing what the analogy is good for before finding what it isn't.

Step 3: List Differences Every meaningful divergence between X and Y is a potential failure point. List them systematically: different actors, different dynamics, different constraints, different feedback mechanisms, different scales, different reversibility. Be thorough — incomplete difference-listing is the most common failure mode here.

Step 4: Test Each Difference Against the Decision Before narrowing: Show the complete list of differences from Step 3 to the user first. Use AskUserQuestion:

• Question: "I've identified [N] differences. Before I filter to those relevant to your decision, are there any you'd flag as especially important, or any I've missed?"
• Header: "Prioritise"
• Options:
  • Proceed with your selection — the set looks right
  • Flag one — user will name a specific difference to include
  • Add a missing one — user will describe it

For each decision or conclusion being made on the basis of this analogy: which differences are relevant to that specific decision? A difference that doesn't affect the conclusion is harmless. A difference that does affect it invalidates the reasoning.

Step 5: Does the Conclusion Still Hold? For each relevant difference identified in Step 4: if this difference is real, does the conclusion derived from the analogy still follow? If not, the analogy cannot support that conclusion.

Step 6: State Safe Scope Where can this analogy be validly relied upon? What does it illuminate, and what decisions can it inform? State the boundary clearly.

---

Human Check-in

Before proceeding, use the AskUserQuestion tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:

• Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
• Header: "Scope"
• Options:
  • Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
  • Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
  • Breaking points only — Where the analogy fails, not where it holds
  • Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing

Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.

Output Format

Analogy: [X is like Y — domain and claim]

Similarities (what the analogy captures correctly):

[Bulleted list]

Differences (potential failure points):

[Bulleted list — be thorough]

Relevant differences for this decision:

Difference	Relevant to decision?	Effect on conclusion

Conclusion validity:

[Does the analogy support the conclusion? Yes / Partially / No — with reason]

Safe scope — what this analogy validly applies to:

[Bounded statement]

---

Notes

The most useful output is the safe scope statement — a positive claim about where the analogy is reliable. Discarding an analogy entirely because it has limits wastes the genuine insight it contains.

---

What's Next

After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:

• Question: "Analogy boundaries tested. What's next?"
• Header: "Next"
• Options:
  • /s4h-analogy-domain-transfer — Now that boundaries are clear, execute the transfer carefully
  • /s4h-logic-check — Check whether conclusions crossed a boundary they shouldn't have
  • /s4h-constraint-hardness-testing — Are the boundary differences hard constraints or soft?
  • Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far