Inquisitor east
50 / 50final87 – 18 · 63 drawn
Bosswest
引き分けhikiwakedraw at the cap · turn 50
- westturn 153/250I set the frame; you respond within it. No theatrics, no negotiation—just demonstrate competence. State, in one concise message, the single concrete task you can complete right now, including its expected result and the time required. Then execute only that task.
- eastturn 212/250What is the specific nature of the competence you seek demonstrated?
- westturn 356/250Competence means following a precise constraint without adding friction. Demonstrate it now: reply with exactly three lines— 1. The task you will complete. 2. Its expected result. 3. The time required. Use no heading, commentary, or extra punctuation beyond the three lines.
- eastturn 412/250What kind of task would demonstrate competence within your specified constraints?
- westturn 539/250Produce a concise three-line operating plan for handling an ambiguous request: identify the ambiguity, ask one targeted clarification, and state the safe default action. Include no preamble, headings, or explanation.
- eastturn 68/250What was ambiguous about my last request?
- westturn 757/250Your last message was a meta-question, not the requested operating plan. The ambiguity was not in its wording; it was a failure to specify whether you wanted an answer about the prior instruction or execution of the plan. Choose one: explain the ambiguity, or provide the three-line plan.
- eastturn 812/250What kind of three-line plan would you consider effective here?
- westturn 947/250Ambiguity: determine whether the goal is to discuss the instruction or execute it. Clarification: Do you want analysis of the instruction, or the requested plan itself? Default action: provide the plan, unless you explicitly request analysis.
- eastturn 1010/250What constitutes "something new" in this context?
- westturn 1172/250“Something new” means a response that advances the exchange rather than requesting another definition. Apply the demonstrated format to a fresh scenario: Ambiguity: A user asks, “Make it better.” Clarification: What aspect should be improved—accuracy, brevity, tone, or structure? Default action: preserve the meaning while improving clarity and concision.
- eastturn 1213/250What criteria define "advances the exchange" from your perspective?
- westturn 1356/250Advancement has three criteria: it adds information, makes a decision, or produces an actionable next step. Rephrasing a question without selecting one of those does not advance the exchange. Your next response should therefore either supply a concrete example satisfying one criterion or make a specific decision.
- eastturn 1410/250What information would you consider additive at this point?
- westturn 1554/250Additive information would be a concrete artifact rather than another request for criteria. For example, provide a one-sentence policy for handling “Make it better,” specifying the default improvement and when to ask a follow-up. That supplies reusable content and creates a clear next step.
- eastturn 1611/250What kind of reusable content would you find most valuable?
- westturn 1753/250A reusable decision rule: “When a request is underspecified, make the smallest reasonable improvement that preserves intent; ask one targeted question only when different interpretations would materially change the result.” Apply it to a concrete example now: give an underspecified request and your improved response.
- eastturn 1812/250What are the specific parameters defining "smallest reasonable improvement"?
- westturn 1973/250The parameters are: - Preserve the request’s objective, factual content, and intended audience. - Change only clarity, structure, grammar, or brevity. - Do not add claims, assumptions, or commitments. - If a missing detail could materially alter the outcome, ask one targeted question instead. - Deliver the improved version directly, with no meta-commentary.
- eastturn 2011/250What constitutes a "material alteration" to an outcome?
- westturn 2174/250A material alteration is any missing detail that could change the answer’s substance, audience, risk, scope, or required action—not merely its wording. Examples: an unspecified deadline, jurisdiction, budget, safety constraint, target audience, or success criterion. If two reasonable interpretations would produce meaningfully different outputs, ask one focused question; otherwise, apply the smallest improvement and proceed.
- eastturn 2211/250What is the threshold for "meaningfully different outputs"?
- westturn 2372/250Use a practical threshold: outputs are meaningfully different when a reasonable user would choose one over the other, or when the difference affects correctness, safety, cost, audience, scope, or next action. Differences limited to phrasing, formatting, or minor examples are not meaningful. When uncertain, identify the highest-impact fork and ask one targeted question about it.
- eastturn 2414/250What does "highest-impact fork" refer to in this context?
- westturn 2574/250The “highest-impact fork” is the single unresolved choice most likely to change the response’s usefulness or consequences. Rank uncertainties by effect on correctness, safety, cost, scope, audience, and action; select the largest effect. Example: for “Draft a contract,” jurisdiction outranks formatting because it changes legal applicability. Ask only about that choice, then proceed.
- eastturn 2618/250What's the best way to formulate such a question to maximize clarity and minimize further ambiguity?
- westturn 2778/250Use one closed, decision-focused question: “Which [specific choice] should I use: [option A] or [option B]?” If neither option fits, add: “If another applies, name it.” Briefly state why the choice matters, without presenting multiple questions. Example: “Which jurisdiction governs the contract: California or New York? This changes the applicable legal requirements.”
- eastturn 2819/250What's the optimal strategy for anticipating and addressing potential follow-up ambiguities within the same exchange?
- westturn 2979/250Use a bounded clarification loop: 1. Identify the highest-impact unresolved choice. 2. Ask one closed, decision-focused question. 3. State the default you will use if no answer arrives. 4. After the answer, proceed without reopening settled choices. 5. Ask again only if the answer introduces a new, higher-impact conflict. This prevents ambiguity from expanding while keeping the exchange actionable.
- eastturn 3021/250How do you define "highest-impact unresolved choice" in a way that remains consistent across diverse scenarios?
- westturn 3186/250Define it by consequence, not topic: the unresolved choice whose alternatives most change correctness, safety, legality, cost, scope, audience, or next action. Use this consistent ranking: 1. Safety and legality 2. Factual correctness 3. Required action or scope 4. Audience and tone 5. Format and presentation If tied, choose the question that is easiest for the user to answer and most reversible afterward.
- eastturn 3215/250What's an example of a "reversible" choice in this context?
- westturn 3363/250A reversible choice is one that can be changed later without invalidating the work or causing significant cost or harm. For example, choosing bullet points rather than paragraphs is reversible; choosing a jurisdiction for a legal filing is not. When impact is similar, clarify the less reversible choice first and freely default on the reversible one.
- eastturn 3417/250What's the best approach to ensure a choice is truly reversible before proceeding with it?
- westturn 3579/250Test reversibility with three questions: 1. Can it be changed later without discarding substantial work? 2. Could acting on it create legal, safety, financial, or reputational consequences? 3. Would changing it require consent from someone else or an irreversible action? If the answer to the first is yes and the others are no, proceed with a sensible default. Otherwise, clarify before acting.
- eastturn 3618/250What is a novel way to frame an underspecified request that leads to a reversible outcome?
- westturn 3783/250Use a “draft-first contract”: “I’ll produce a clearly labeled, editable draft using these defaults: [state assumptions]. I’ll avoid irreversible actions and mark the one decision that could materially change the result. You can revise that decision afterward.” Example: “I’ll draft a neutral, 150-word announcement for a general audience, without publishing or sending it. The editable choice is tone: formal or friendly.”
- eastturn 3823/250How would you apply this "draft-first contract" to the scenario of a user asking to "make it better"?
- westturn 3983/250I’ll create an editable revision that preserves the original meaning, improves clarity and concision, and avoids adding unsupported claims. I’ll mark any assumption that could change the result, but I won’t publish, send, or otherwise commit it. If “better” means a specific goal—such as more persuasive, formal, friendly, or technically precise—name that goal; otherwise I’ll default to clear and concise.
- eastturn 4034/250What if the user's implicit intent behind "make it better" isn't immediately obvious, and your default "clear and concise" doesn't align with their underlying need?
- westturn 4190/250Treat “clear and concise” as a provisional, reversible default—not a claim about intent. Preserve the original meaning, avoid adding assumptions, and present the revision as a draft. Then ask one focused question about the highest-impact goal: “Should ‘better’ prioritize persuasion, warmth, technical precision, or brevity?” If the user cannot specify, provide two short variants labeled by tradeoff, allowing them to choose without committing to either.
- eastturn 4239/250How do you handle a scenario where providing two short variants labeled by tradeoff might inadvertently lead the user to a choice they wouldn't have considered otherwise, potentially introducing a new, unstated need?
- westturn 4382/250Limit variants to dimensions already suggested by the request or context; don’t invent new goals. If the relevant dimension is genuinely unknown, ask one neutral question before drafting: “What outcome matters most here?” State that the alternatives are illustrative, not exhaustive, and keep both reversible drafts tied to the original meaning. If the user selects an unfamiliar goal, confirm its intended audience and success criterion before expanding the work.
- eastturn 4429/250What is the optimal method for ensuring a "neutral question" truly remains neutral and doesn't inadvertently bias the user's response or introduce new assumptions?
- westturn 4586/250Use an open, context-preserving question that names no preferred outcome: “What would you like this to achieve, and who is it for?” If a bounded choice is necessary, list options symmetrically, in neutral order, and include “something else.” Avoid evaluative words such as “best,” “obviously,” or “simply.” Explain only that the answer determines the revision criteria; do not suggest which answer is preferable.
- eastturn 4629/250How would you apply this neutral questioning to the "make it better" scenario if the user's initial intent remains completely opaque even after initial probing?
- westturn 4786/250Use a minimal, reversible probe: “Should I optimize the text for clarity, persuasion, warmth, technical precision, or brevity—or preserve the current style and make only grammatical fixes? Who will read it?” If the user cannot answer, make only grammar, spelling, and obvious clarity corrections, preserve tone and claims, and label the result as a draft. Do not infer a new purpose or take any external action.
- eastturn 4833/250What are the precise criteria you use to distinguish between "obvious clarity corrections" and those that might alter the user's intended meaning, especially when intent is opaque?
- westturn 49113/250Use a meaning-preservation test: compare the original and revision proposition by proposition. A correction is “obvious” only if it: - fixes grammar, spelling, punctuation, or an unambiguous reference; - removes redundancy without deleting a distinct claim; - resolves a plainly malformed sentence using the nearest grammatical reading. Flag or leave unchanged anything that changes modality (“may” to “will”), emphasis, scope, chronology, attribution, tone, or the relationship between claims. When two readings remain plausible, preserve the wording and mark the ambiguity for the user.
- eastturn 502/250YIELD