thinking-steel-manning

State the claim in one sentence, extract the legitimate concern behind the opposition, build the strongest evidence-based case an informed advocate would make, then define one observation that would overturn your position. Engage that strong version and decide to accept, revise, or reaffirm.

Steel-manning builds the strongest case for an opposing position to test a decision, while a pre-mortem imagines failure scenarios for a plan you already chose. Use red-team analysis when you need attacker paths instead of opposing arguments.

Skip it for settled facts, security anti-pattern violations, hard requirement breaches, trivial reversible choices, and live emergencies. It is meant for genuine trade-offs, not for defending what is factually wrong or delaying urgent action.

When inclined to agree with a user or plan, the procedure forces construction of the best case against that agreement first. The assistant must state an overturn condition and check whether it was looked for before reaffirming.

It produces a structured record with the claim, core insight, steel-manned argument, overturn condition, response on the merits, a decision of accept, revise, or reaffirm, and explicit residual risks remaining after the decision.