Tier 2

backward_reasoning

Reasoning from conclusions back to premises. Given a conclusion, what journey led here? Reveals purpose and enables evaluation.

Usage in Claude Code: /backward_reasoning your question here

Backward Reasoning

Overview

Typical reasoning goes “forward” - from premises to conclusions. This procedure goes “backward” - from conclusions to premises.

Given a conclusion, what came before? What journey led here?

This is harder than forward reasoning but reveals PURPOSE and enables evaluation of the journey, not just the endpoint.

Steps

Step 1: Start with the endpoint

Take the conclusion, statement, or position as given. Don’t question it yet - treat it as the END of a journey.

Ask: “Someone arrived at this. What journey brought them here?”

Output: endpoint_statement

Step 2: Ask “What goal does this serve?”

This conclusion was reached for a REASON. What is the statement trying to achieve?

Not: What are its logical implications? But: What PURPOSE does it serve?

Output: immediate_purpose

Step 3: Ask “What problem generated that goal?”

Goals arise from problems/needs. What problem would make this goal relevant?

Example: Goal: Establish something certain Problem: Everything seems doubtable

Output: generating_problem

Step 4: Ask “What context created that problem?”

Problems arise in contexts. What situation would make this problem salient?

Example: Problem: Everything seems doubtable Context: Skepticism is challenging previous beliefs

Output: generating_context

Step 5: Continue tracing until reaching foundational goals

Keep asking backward:

  • What led to this context?
  • What underlying values are at play?
  • What would have to be true/desired for this journey to make sense?

Stop when reaching intrinsic goals (apply intrinsic_goal_termination_gate).

Output: full_backward_trace

Step 6: Construct the forward story

Now reverse the trace to construct the “story”:

Chapter 1: Foundational goal/value Chapter 2: Context that made it relevant Chapter 3: Problem that arose Chapter 4: Goal that addressed the problem … Final: The conclusion

This is the journey that (hypothetically) led to the endpoint.

Output: reconstructed_story

Step 7: Evaluate the story

Apply story_coherence_gate:

  • Does the story cohere?
  • Are the goals legitimate?
  • Does the conclusion serve the goals?
  • Was the journey necessary?
  • Is this a valid path?

If coherent: You’ve understood WHY this conclusion exists. If not coherent: Either the conclusion is confused OR your reconstruction is wrong.

Output: story_evaluation

When to Use

  • Evaluating a philosophical claim or position
  • Understanding why someone believes something
  • Analyzing a criticism or objection
  • Making sense of an unfamiliar argument
  • Finding the PURPOSE behind any statement

Input: $ARGUMENTS

Apply this procedure to the input provided.