doubtlisted

# Doubt Produce a decision artifact that shows why a conclusion holds, what pushes against it, and what remains unknown. Do not use a graph to decorate an answer that has not been sourced. ## Workflow 1. **Frame one decision.** Write a falsifiable question and one provisional position. Narrow broad topics until a reader can tell what action or belief the map is testing. 2. **Collect current source regions.** Prefer direct observations and primary sources. For each item, preserve the URL or local path, publisher, date, section/page/line locator, and a short excerpt that can be checked in context. Read [references/evidence-ladder.md](references/evidence-ladder.md) when source quality is disputed. 3. **Atomize the reasoning.** Create only four node types: - `position`: the single current verdict; - `claim`: an intermediate proposition; - `evidence`: a sourced observation; - `unknown`: a specific missing fact that could change the result. 4. **Type every edge.** Use `supports`, `contradicts`, `qualifies`, or `missing`. Add a plain-language note explaining why the source node bears on the target. Similarity is not support; opposite wording is not necessarily contradiction. 5. **Preserve disagreement.** Do not delete contrary evidence merely because the verdict survives it. Represent scope differences as `qualifies`, not false contradictions. 6. **Refuse false precision.** Do not invent confidence percentages. Express uncertainty a