Bow Tie Kreative Writing System
Run the engine

Rules / argument

ARG-011 Hard constraint layer: paragraph

Source quality matches stakes

IF a claim is high-stakes, technical, medical, legal, financial, or scientific, THEN prefer primary authoritative evidence and independent corroboration ELSE use proportionate sourcing.

Why the rule exists

Evidence standards rise with consequence and specialization.

Condition

The rule fires when this evaluates true. Paths marked below must be present in the fact base; the engine reports the rest rather than guessing them.

  • claim.domain_or_stakes in [high, technical, medical, legal, financial, scientific]

Facts this rule reads

PathSource
claim.domain_or_stakes You supply it

Then

  1. filter — target claim.sources
  2. corroborate — target claim

Else

  1. retain — target current_text, No triggering condition is present.

LAKA

Smallest sufficient intervention
Yes
Primary axes

Sources

  • Technical Communication — Mike Markel; Stuart A. Selber
    Audience, design, ethics, research, and technical genres.
  • Advertising Substantiation Policy Statement — U.S. Federal Trade Commission link
    Objective claims require a reasonable evidentiary basis before dissemination.
The raw rule record

Verbatim from 14-argument-nonfiction-rules.json. Also available at /v1/rules/ARG-011.

{
  "id": "ARG-011",
  "name": "Source quality matches stakes",
  "domain": "argument",
  "layer": "paragraph",
  "strength": "hard_constraint",
  "human_logic": "IF a claim is high-stakes, technical, medical, legal, financial, or scientific, THEN prefer primary authoritative evidence and independent corroboration ELSE use proportionate sourcing.",
  "when": {
    "path": "claim.domain_or_stakes",
    "operator": "in",
    "value": [
      "high",
      "technical",
      "medical",
      "legal",
      "financial",
      "scientific"
    ]
  },
  "then": [
    {
      "action": "filter",
      "target": "claim.sources",
      "require": [
        "primary_or_authoritative",
        "current",
        "directly_relevant"
      ]
    },
    {
      "action": "corroborate",
      "target": "claim",
      "when": "consequence_high"
    }
  ],
  "else": [
    {
      "action": "retain",
      "target": "current_text",
      "reason": "No triggering condition is present."
    }
  ],
  "unless": [],
  "because": "Evidence standards rise with consequence and specialization.",
  "diagnostics": [],
  "examples": {},
  "source_ids": [
    "BK-026",
    "WEB-013"
  ],
  "laka": {
    "smallest_sufficient_intervention": true,
    "primary_axes": [
      "scope",
      "depth",
      "magnitude",
      "reversibility"
    ]
  }
}

Other argument rules

  1. ARG-001 Define the rhetorical situation IF author, audience, purpose, text, or setting is unknown, THEN define the missing element before drafting strategy ELSE proceed. Hard constraint
  2. ARG-002 One controlling thesis IF a document makes multiple unrelated controlling claims, THEN narrow, subordinate, or split them ELSE retain. Context default
  3. ARG-003 Classify claim before selecting evidence IF a claim is present, THEN classify it as factual, causal, evaluative, definitional, predictive, or policy before choosing support ELSE do not infer support requirements. Hard constraint
  4. ARG-004 Evidence matches claim type IF evidence type does not support the claim type, THEN replace, supplement, narrow, or remove the claim ELSE retain. Hard constraint
  5. ARG-005 Make the warrant available IF evidence does not obviously entail the claim for the intended audience, THEN state the connecting warrant ELSE retain. Context default
  6. ARG-006 Qualify to the evidence boundary IF claim scope exceeds evidence population, conditions, time, or uncertainty, THEN narrow or qualify the claim ELSE retain. Hard constraint
  7. ARG-007 Address strongest relevant counterargument IF a reasonable reader has a strong relevant objection, THEN represent it fairly and respond with evidence or concession ELSE omit peripheral objections. Context default
  8. ARG-008 Distinguish correlation from causation IF evidence is correlational AND the claim is causal, THEN add causal evidence, state a mechanism with tests, or change the claim to association ELSE retain. Hard constraint