Tools · Assumption Decomposition
Take a claim — an argument, or one of your own beliefs — and watch it come apart.
Almost no position is just one thing. It's several different claims bundled together: some that evidence can settle, some that come down to what you value, and some that are bets either way. The tool lays out both sides and separates each into those parts — so you can see what could actually change your mind, and what you simply have to decide for yourself.
How it works
Give it a topic, a claim, or a disagreement. It does three things.
It finds the referent. Every claim — an argument or one of your own beliefs — is about something: some underlying piece of reality the two sides are really contesting. The tool names that first, and checks it with you, because everything else depends on getting it right. "Should we raise the minimum wage?" isn't really about the law; it's about how wages and jobs respond when you raise a floor. That's the referent.
It sorts each assumption by how open it is to evidence. Some parts the world mostly settles. Some come down to what you weigh more heavily. Some are commitments — foundational stances held because you've decided to stand on them, not because they can be proven. Relative to the referent, each side is betting the underlying reality is △ changeable (responsive to intervention) or ▽ fixed (resistant) — and individual assumptions often cross-cut their own side, which is one of the most revealing things it shows.
It traces each assumption down. "Go deeper" follows an assumption toward its roots, and the kind of claim shifts as you descend: near the surface they're assumptions (empirical — could be wrong), a layer down they're choices (what to weigh more when goods conflict), and at the bottom they're commitments (stances you stand on, not hypotheses you test). The tool labels which is which — so you can see the exact point where evidence runs out and conviction begins.
It surfaces the real question. Trace both sides far enough and they usually meet at a single hard question about people or reality that no amount of data settles. That's the payoff: not who's right, but what the fight is actually about.
What it's actually doing
This tool is one move from a larger framework, made usable on its own. The idea behind it: not all claims are open to evidence in the same way. Some sit in tightly constrained territory, where reality does most of the work and careful people converge. Others sit in loose territory, where reality leaves room and the person has to supply the answer — which is exactly why thoughtful people land in different places without anyone being stupid or dishonest. Most real positions are a mix. The tool is a way of feeling that for yourself, on a question you actually care about.
It treats both sides as educated guesses and never picks a winner — including, deliberately, on your own positions. If that lands and you want the rest of it: the idea in full, and the whole project it comes from.
Type any claim or disagreement — one people fight about, or one of your own. The tool analyzes it live.