s4h-logic-causality-mapping

Logic Causal Reasoning

Correlation isn't causation. Neither is sequence. "This happened, then that happened" is not the same as "this caused that" — but it's treated as equivalent constantly, and it produces wrong diagnoses, failed fixes, and surprised engineers.

This skill makes causal structure explicit: what actually depends on what, what change produces what effect, and what must be true for a plan to hold.

---

Four Modes

Use the mode that matches the question.

Framing check: Confirm the specific causal situation before selecting a mode. State what you've identified — the system or situation, the observed effect or proposed change, and the core causal question — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:

• Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the specific situation and causal question]. 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 situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding

Mode 1: Root Cause Tracing

"Why did this happen?"

Work backwards from an observed effect to its cause — and to the cause of that cause.

Process:

1. State the observed effect precisely. Not "the system is slow" — "p95 latency increased from 120ms to 840ms after the Tuesday deploy."
2. Ask: what are the immediate causes that could produce this effect? List all plausible candidates.
3. For each candidate: what evidence would confirm or rule it out?
4. Eliminate candidates. For the survivors: what caused them?
5. Continue until you reach a cause that has no upstream cause within scope — or a point where further tracing requires different expertise or data.
6. Distinguish: root cause (the origin), proximate cause (the immediate trigger), contributing factors (conditions that allowed it).

Mode 2: Impact Mapping

"What breaks if I change X?"

Work forwards from a proposed change through its downstream effects.

Process:

1. State the change precisely.
2. Identify direct dependents: what immediately relies on the thing being changed?
3. For each dependent: what behaviour changes, and what downstream systems rely on that behaviour?
4. Continue for two to three levels of dependency.
5. Mark irreversible effects — changes that, once made, cannot be cleanly undone.
6. Mark cascade risks — places where a small effect triggers a large one.

Mode 3: Dependency Mapping

"What must be true for this to work?"

Identify the full set of conditions a plan depends on.

Process:

1. State the plan or goal.
2. Ask: what must be true in the environment for this to succeed? List all dependencies.
3. For each dependency: is it guaranteed, assumed, or unknown?
4. For each assumed dependency: what is the cost if the assumption is wrong?
5. Surface single points of failure — dependencies that, if they break, cause total plan failure with no fallback.

Mode 4: Counterfactual Testing

"Would Y still have happened without X?"

Test a causal claim by reasoning about the counterfactual world.

Process:

1. State the causal claim: "X caused Y."
2. Imagine removing X. Would Y still happen via another path?
3. If yes: X is a contributing factor, not the root cause.
4. If no: X is necessary for Y — strong causal evidence.
5. Consider: was X sufficient alone, or did it require other conditions?

---

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
  • Direct causes only — Map first-order causal links, skip downstream consequences
  • 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

Mode: [Root Cause / Impact Mapping / Dependency Mapping / Counterfactual]

Question: [the specific causal question being answered]

[Mode-appropriate structure]

For Root Cause:

• Proximate cause: [immediate trigger]
• Root cause: [origin]
• Contributing factors: [conditions that enabled it]
• Evidence: [what confirms this vs what was ruled out]

For Impact Mapping:

• Direct effects: [level 1 dependencies affected]
• Downstream effects: [level 2-3]
• Irreversible effects: [flagged]
• Cascade risks: [flagged]

For Dependency Mapping:

• Dependencies: [each, with status: guaranteed / assumed / unknown]
• Single points of failure: [flagged]
• Highest-risk assumptions: [ranked]

For Counterfactual:

• Causal claim tested: [X caused Y]
• Counterfactual: [would Y happen without X?]
• Verdict: [necessary / contributing / coincidental]
• Conditions required alongside X: [if X alone wasn't sufficient]

Summary [2-3 sentences on what the causal analysis reveals and what action it implies]

---

Notes

Causal reasoning is always provisional — it produces the best available model given current evidence, not a proof. State explicitly what evidence would change the analysis. In complex systems, multiple causal chains often contribute to a single effect; resist the urge to stop at the first plausible explanation.

---

What's Next

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

• Question: "Causal chain mapped. What's next?"
• Header: "Next"
• Options:
  • /s4h-systems-feedback-mapping — Turn the causal map into a feedback loop analysis
  • /s4h-historical-precedent-analysis — Check whether this causal chain has played out before
  • /s4h-constraint-hardness-testing — Test which causal link is the weakest and most brittle
  • Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far