The Symposis Framework
Not one pass, but five distinct acts of reasoning, each building on the last.
1. Issue Framing. Pinning down what is actually being asked, so the analysis answers the real question and not a nearby one.
2. Origins & Context. Establishing the factual ground the question rests on, before any argument is made about what it means.
3. Argument Analysis. Holding the strongest version of each competing position, not the weakest, and testing them against each other.
4. Comparative Precedent. Asking how comparable situations have actually unfolded, the move careful thinkers make and most people skip.
5. Assessment. Weighing everything above into a clear, honest judgment, including what remains uncertain.
Sources & References. The transparent, linkable record of evidence the entire analysis can be checked against.
Domain Lenses
By default, every analysis convenes the full table: all disciplines, all perspectives, weighted by their relevance to your topic. For deeper treatment from a particular angle, optional domain lenses adjust emphasis without removing any perspective.
A scientist using the Scientific lens still sees the philosophical arguments and historical precedents; they are just organized in a way that speaks their language. Lenses shape emphasis, not exclusion.
Source Grounding & Bias Flagging
Every source is classified by type (primary, secondary, tertiary), annotated with what it contributes to the analysis, and flagged with factual bias indicators: organizational affiliations, funding sources, and known editorial perspectives. Each source also carries a corroboration label assigned during the analysis: multi-source confirmed, single source, or unconfirmed.
The reference list is grounded by construction: built only from sources actually retrieved during the analysis, with anything else removed before you see it. Citations resolve to the actual retrieved sources they drew on. The content of each claim is not yet mechanically verified against its source; that verification is on the roadmap.