Simulation: the Argument Simulator (Route B)
Planning (DPE)
When no real panel exists yet, the Argument Simulator (Route B) generates realistic expert and observer arguments for the designed theses. It is orientation-aware (N/S/R/E/D/D+) and produces structured arguments that the DAE pipeline reads (CP-1…CP-20). The purpose is to test the theses and panel logic before a real panel — or to provide material to analyse when no panel is available.
This does not replace a real panel. The arguments are synthetic, GenAI-disclosed drafts that require an audit. The actual interpretation happens in DAE under quality gates — simulation provides source material, not conclusions.
How it proceeds — six phases
The simulator activates once the planning context has passed the QG-SIM-TRANSFER gate (orientation, question structure, panel logic, theses). Then:
- Individual arguments — one argument per role per thesis. Dialectical (N/S/R/D): thesis + antithesis + synthesis view. Abductive (E/D+): observation → explanation → anticipation.
- Quick analysis — distributions, the 7×3 epistemic profile (knowledge base × function), conditional asymmetry.
- Dialogues — 5–8 thesis tensions or observation clusters: position → concessions → synthesis insight.
- Analysis dimensions — tension architecture, CLA pre-profile (causal layers), the 7×3 epistemic cross-tab, MLP pre-profile (multi-level).
- Anomaly check & supplementation — an automatic blind-spot check (see below). Where needed, the panel is supplemented with missing viewpoints (marked
source: supplement, ≤25 % of the panel). - Summary & handoff — the overall result, a keystone candidate and readiness for the DAE pipeline (→ CP-1 panel validation).
Each transition produces a light Learning Note that carries lessons from planning through simulation into DAE.
Anomaly check — surfacing blind spots
After phase 4 the simulator automatically checks whether the material leans unhealthily:
| Trigger | Threshold |
|---|---|
| Any 7×3 knowledge base = 0 | empty cell |
| Opening (AVA) arguments < 3 | frame not opened |
| CLA litany layer > 80 % | surface dominates |
| CLA deep layers (L3+L4) < 10 % | worldview/myth missing |
| MLP regime > 60 % | incumbent system dominates |
| D–P gap < 0.3 on all theses | too much consensus |
A trigger leads to a supplementation protocol: roles are designed to bring the missing viewpoints and a supplementary simulation is run — the same logic as supplementing a real panel (see Building the panel).
Worked example — Food Paradigm 2050
The Documentation Sprint's worked example shows Route B in practice:
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Orientation | D (N + S + R) — multi-actor adaptation |
| Route | B (Argument Simulator) |
| Time horizon | 2050 (decisive window 2026–2035) |
| Perspective layer | Active (Hautamäki), PHS 12/12 |
| Panel | 19 simulated roles (post-audit) |
| Theses | 8 R1 dialectical + 4 R2 perspective theses + invitation + blind-spot |
| Quality | 94.5/100, 27/27 quality gates passed |
The phenomenon: five competing food-system paradigms (techno-capitalist, distributed bio-economic, fragmentation, multipath cultural-pluralism, post-smallholder), entry tension technological autonomy ↔ environmental sustainability. The example shows how a D orientation propagates coherently from the goal hierarchy to the theses, and how the perspective layer integrates without friction.
Sources: Argument Simulator v2.5 (metodix-planning-simulation); worked example CASE_202605_FOOD-2050-WE-001 (Documentation Sprint).