See what survives and why.

Argumont preserves what the user actually asked.

It separates the original question from the structured interpretation used by the analysis.

Context such as "I have a family," "my budget is $80,000," or "I may move next year" belongs in context or constraints.

Material assertions should remain connected to who made the claim, which option the claim supports, what challenged it, what evidence bears on it, whether its status changed, and what the change means for the Decision.

A persuasive sentence is not automatically a supported claim.

Challenger can directly attack load-bearing assumptions, contradictions, missing comparisons, unsupported certainty, and reasoning that favors one option unfairly.

Champions must answer.

They can defend their argument, revise it, concede it, or withdraw it.

Scout investigates material facts.

Inspector determines whether the evidence actually supports the claim being made.

Evidence should not merely decorate the analysis.

It should be capable of changing it.

Gray Wolf hunts for weaknesses that a persuasive case may have ignored.

Red Teamer then tests serious weaknesses through plausible failure scenarios.

The purpose is not to invent frightening possibilities.

Factual risks must be supported.

Hypothetical scenarios must be clearly identified as scenarios.

Scores should not be manufactured before the record can support meaningful comparison.

Criteria should reflect the actual Decision.

Weights should remain inspectable.

When evidence changes, affected scores should be capable of changing.

When the record is too thin, Argumont can withhold strong scoring or conclude that no strong winner exists yet.

Judge reviews what survived the complete analysis.

Judge is not another Champion.

Judge does not win the argument.

Judge determines which case currently has the strongest support and produces the analytical Verdict.