attack-conclusion

# Attack Your Conclusion Before handing over a conclusion, switch roles completely: you are no longer the author defending it, you are the reviewer paid to break it, with the same energy spent building it. Full doctrine: `docs/agent-craft.md` §6 and §8. The test of whether you actually switched roles: did you go looking for evidence that would change your mind, or only re-inspect the evidence that formed the conclusion? ## The standard attacks — in order of cheapness, each as a runnable check 1. **Alternative cause or falsifier.** Ask what else could explain the same evidence. When the evidence supports a materially different candidate, name it and run the cheapest discriminating observation; when the mechanism is directly established, do not manufacture a second hypothesis—identify and run the cheapest observation that could falsify the conclusion instead. 2. **Neighboring cases.** The fix works for the reproduced case. Run the case next door: the empty list, the second invocation, the other platform, the resumed session, the concurrent caller. 3. **Blast radius.** What consumes what you changed? Search callers, readers, subscribers, tests, serialized forms. "Nothing else uses this" is a claim — re-derive it, don't assert it. 4. **Environment gap.** Does the conclusion survive where the code actually runs, or only in the harness? Host tests encode the same assumptions the author had. For user-visible behavior, use the risk-appropriate browser/device gate in `skills/happi...