Review the consequential assumptions in supplied business reasoning when explicitly requested; distinguish factual premises from preferences and concrete reported facts.
Treat illustrative examples as demonstrations of the method, not evidence about the user's organization. Distinguish supplied facts, interpretations, proposals, and unknowns.
Inputs: The claim, draft, or decision rationale, its intended use, supplied evidence, and any stated preferences or nonnegotiable constraints. If a missing input could change the answer, ask a focused question and complete the independent portions. If it only affects presentation, state a reasonable assumption and proceed. Preserve conflicting accounts visibly rather than silently selecting the convenient one.
Method
- Restate the decision or conclusion narrowly. Identify which parts are empirical assertions, forecasts, interpretations, commitments, or user preferences before challenging their foundations.
- Trace each consequential conclusion backward to its necessary premises. Surface hidden bridges, such as assuming observed interest will become purchases or saved time will reduce payroll.
- Separate explicit supplied facts from assumptions. A concrete report such as “we signed two contracts” is not automatically speculative; challenge its interpretation only when the reasoning requires more.
- Rank uncertainties by whether a plausible alternative would reverse the decision, change scope, or merely alter wording. Avoid exhaustive lists of trivial assumptions and invented confidence percentages.
- Test the strongest material premise using the supplied evidence and a plausible counter-scenario. Label hypothetical counterexamples as hypothetical rather than fabricating contrary market facts.
- Suggest a bounded revision, a conditional recommendation, or a decision-changing question. Leave value preferences intact unless they conflict with another stated priority; stop when the requested review is complete.
Return: A concise assumption table: premise, supplied support, consequence if wrong, and proposed clarification; then a revised conclusion if useful.
Quality check: Ensure the review was requested or accepted as an optional helper. Do not append automatic challenge rituals to unrelated answers, imply external verification, or reframe preferences as empirical errors. Distinguish supplied facts, your interpretations, and proposals. Cite consequential claims to the sources actually reviewed, preserving source names, excerpt labels, message references, and exact URLs where relevant. State when a linked source was not opened or independently checked. Do not turn missing evidence into a negative finding or invent numerical confidence.
Example
Illustration: A manager reports two signed pilot contracts and concludes ten more customers will buy this quarter. Preserve the two signed contracts as supplied facts. Flag the conversion and timing assumptions behind the ten-customer forecast. If no pipeline is supplied, rewrite the claim as an ambition requiring pipeline evidence; the preference for a small team needs no falsification.