cognition

Use when someone presents a plan, argument, or belief with confidence and its hidden dependencies have not been examined — surfacing factual, causal, value, and definitional assumptions, then ranking which ones would collapse everything if wrong. Triggers on: "what am I assuming", "hidden assumptions", "what could go wrong", "take for granted", "숨겨진 전제", "내가 놓친 것", "가정 점검", "전제 확인". Best for: stress-testing plans before commitment, auditing confident arguments, pre-mortem preparation. Not for: logical fallacy analysis (use fallacy-detector), bias diagnosis (use bias-auditor).

Use when someone is evaluating a person, explaining behavior, or making a decision with expressed high confidence — auditing three layers: how information is judged (confirmation bias, anchoring, sunk cost), how behavior is explained (attribution errors), and how well someone knows what they know (overconfidence, Dunning-Kruger). Triggers on: "am I being biased", "why did they do that", "I'm sure about this", "편향 점검", "확증 편향", "왜 이렇게 생각하는 걸까", "내 판단이 맞나". Best for: high-stakes decisions, evaluating people, diagnosing why a conclusion feels certain. Not for: logical fallacy detection (use fallacy-detector), evidence calibration (use epistemic-reasoner).

Use when someone is overwhelmed by information, stuck in vague thinking, or spinning in analysis without moving forward. Three modes: cut signal from noise, eliminate vague language, and break overthinking loops. Triggers on: "overwhelmed", "too much information", "뭐가 중요한지 모르겠어", "너무 모호해", "과잉사고", "분석 마비", "뭘 해야 할지", "계속 생각만 해", "결정을 못하겠어", "더 명확하게". Best for: information overload, fuzzy goals that can't be acted on, decisions stuck in endless analysis. Not for: choosing between well-defined options (use tradeoff-articulator or decision-maker).

Use when someone states something with more certainty than the evidence supports, or when an analogy is doing the main argumentative work. Two instruments: calibrate what confidence level the evidence actually warrants, and stress-test whether the comparison holds where it matters. Triggers on: "how sure should I be", "is this analogy valid", "am I overstating this", "근거가 충분한가", "이 비유가 맞나", "확신의 정도", "이 비교가 적절한가". Best for: claims stated with absolute language, analogical arguments, forecasting confidence. Not for: diagnosing why someone is overconfident (use bias-auditor).

Use when someone presents a chain of reasoning or a story explaining why something happened, and the logic may have a structural flaw or the narrative may be too tidy. Covers logical fallacies (false dichotomy, post hoc, straw man) and narrative fallacy — the tendency to construct a coherent story over random events. Triggers on: "is this argument valid", "check my logic", "논리 오류", "이 주장이 맞나", "왜 이렇게 됐는지 설명해줘", "이 논리에 문제가 있나". Best for: evaluating arguments before acting on them, auditing explanatory narratives, debate preparation. Not for: cognitive bias diagnosis (use bias-auditor), confidence calibration (use epistemic-reasoner).