Experimental featureVersion 1.2 · 30 Aug 2026

A complete reasoning library for public policy

Logic
Engine

Explore all 500 rules through readable foundation citations, one policy-use prompt per rule and source-bounded Saint Lucia and small-state cases. Then build a policy pathway and challenge its weakest condition.

C/AClaims & arguments
E/UEvidence & uncertainty
M/CMeasurement & causality
D/TDecisions & trade-offs
S/ISystems & incentives
S/AStrategy & adaptation
I/SIntellectual self-correction
500rules integrated from the complete source
0rules explored on this device
118rules linked to sourced cases or evidence
0/7reasoning lenses explored
What changed in v1.2?

Every case now shows its evidence date and method routes.

Policy prompts are shorter and keep the exact book rule beside the review question. Cases now expose their policy area, evidence cutoff, update question and bounded connections to PITONS, IIR, RIPPLE-4, SOT and Delivery State.

Open the Application Atlas

On-device path

Build a reasoning record, not a score.

Explore rules, practise them on sample claims and record when you apply one. Progress describes the work you have done; it does not certify mastery or truth.

Current trail0/7lenses encountered
Start with Rule 001Rule 001
Rules opened0
Practised0
Applied0
Saved0
Checks recorded0
Practice missions

Choose one structured pass.

0 passes recorded
Active mission

Test a public claim

Check claim load, evidence path, rival explanations, charitable interpretation and self-application.

0 of 5 rules practised0 recorded passes
01Rule 447
Claim Load PrincipleBefore evaluating evidence, score what the claim is asking the evidence to carry; do not use one threshold for every claim.
Open
02Rule 459
Evidence-Path AuditTrace one decisive number backward until reaching the original measurement and document every judgment in between.
Open
03Rule 462
Rival-Explanation BudgetName at least one ordinary rival, one adversarial rival, and one data-generation artifact; specify what would distinguish each.
Open
04Rule 369
Principle of charityCharity does not authorize inventing a better argument the speaker clearly rejected.
Open
05Rule 500
Recursive Self-Application RuleSwap labels and sides; if the evaluation changes, identify the relevant asymmetry or correct the double standard.
Open
Practise each rule to complete this pass.This is a record of process, not a verdict on truth.
Progress and privacyManage this device

Stored only in this browser

Your progress is stored only in this browser on this device. SLPA does not receive it. Clearing browser data may remove it. Claims typed into the reasoning check are never included.

Browser storage is available.

Saint Lucia evidence console 01

Put a fact inside its policy boundary.

10 reviewed files connect real Saint Lucia evidence to the rules. Each file shows what the source says, what it can support, what it cannot settle and the next policy question worth asking.

01Official factWhat the dated source reports
02SLPA calculationKept separate from official status
03Evidence boundaryWhat the record cannot establish
04Policy testThe decision still to be reasoned through
10of 10 files
LC-01 · People

Which population belongs in a planning formula?

Provisional official statisticReviewed 27 Aug 2026
Official record172,948de jure resident populationCensus night · 12/13 Mar 2022
What the source says

The Central Statistical Office reports a provisional, undercount-adjusted resident population of 172,948: 171,834 people in private households and 1,114 in institutions. The comparable 2010 census figure was 166,526.

Supports

A census-night national scale benchmark and a starting denominator for service planning, with its provisional status kept visible.

Does not establish

Saint Lucia's current population, a mid-year estimate, an exact unweighted headcount, or why the population changed.

Policy question

Which population benchmark and uncertainty adjustment should govern district service-funding formulas?

Primary sourceCentral Statistical Office of Saint Lucia

2022 Population and Housing Census: Provisional Results, Release 1

Aug 2024 · pp. 12–14 and Table A.1
Open source

Application Atlas 02

Move from exact rule to bounded policy use.

Three lanes stay deliberately separate: source-backed Saint Lucia cases, comparative precedents with a local transfer test, and a hypothetical policy-review prompt for every rule. A prompt is never counted as evidence.

Cross-context bridgesSame reasoning problem, different setting.
6 bounded comparisons
Saint Lucia · Cost of living & measurement

Inflation slowed; the price level stayed high

04 rules
Case type
Source-bounded local case
Policy area
Cost of living & measurement
Evidence cutoff
CSO monthly CPI series through 2025; source pages reviewed 30 Aug 2026.
Source records
2
What the sources support

Using the CSO's April 2026 consolidated revised series, the all-items CPI rose from 100.58 in December 2019 to 119.87 in December 2025, a 19.2% increase. The revised annual-average inflation rate was 0.7% in 2025.

Inference the record does not support

Because inflation was only 0.7% in 2025, prices had broadly returned to their 2019 level.

Evidence boundary

These figures distinguish a price level from the rate of change. They do not measure the burden for a particular household, identify the causes of price changes, or show that every item rose by 19.2%.

Defensible policy use

Inflation slowed, but the revised national price index remained 19.2% above December 2019. Affordability policy should separately track the price level, household-specific baskets, and real income.

Boundary challenge

Which conclusion stays within the record?

Practice, not a score

Policy Pathway Lab 03

Build the chain. Then change one condition.

Turn a policy idea into an inspectable pathway from choice to mechanism, people, outcome, risk and indicator. Challenge a key assumption to see which downstream claims need fresh reasoning.

Practice console 04

Run a five-rule reasoning check.

Choose the kind of claim. The engine surfaces five questions from the complete library. It organizes your review; it does not declare the claim true or false.

This text is not saved with your progress.0/500
Step 01 · FrameGeneral claim

Check meaning, claim load, evidence path and your own standard.

Add a claim, or use the questions as a blank review sheet.
Step 02 · Examine0 of 5 questions reviewed
01Rule 001

Semantic validity

Do not call an argument invalid merely because a premise is false; instead try to construct a true-premise/false-conclusion model.

02Rule 447

Claim Load Principle

Before evaluating evidence, score what the claim is asking the evidence to carry; do not use one threshold for every claim.

03Rule 448

Precision Ceiling Rule

Round estimates to a level justified by measurement error, sampling error, model uncertainty, and data vintage.

04Rule 459

Evidence-Path Audit

Trace one decisive number backward until reaching the original measurement and document every judgment in between.

05Rule 500

Recursive Self-Application Rule

Swap labels and sides; if the evaluation changes, identify the relevant asymmetry or correct the double standard.

0 of 5 reasoning questions reviewed.

Review all five questions to finish the pass.A review status is a process note, not a pass mark.

Complete library 05

Explore all 500 stable rules.

Move through four book parts and 30 sections, search exact source content, filter by mapped applications or on-device progress, and compare up to three checks.

500 of 500 rules shown0 explored · 0 practised · 0 applied
Rule 001
I. Foundations: arguments, languages, and models

Semantic validity

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 002
I. Foundations: arguments, languages, and models

Sound argument

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 003
I. Foundations: arguments, languages, and models

Semantic consequence

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 004
I. Foundations: arguments, languages, and models

Consistency

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 005
I. Foundations: arguments, languages, and models

Satisfiability

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 006
I. Foundations: arguments, languages, and models

Logical equivalence

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 007
I. Foundations: arguments, languages, and models

Syntax–semantics distinction

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 008
I. Foundations: arguments, languages, and models

Object language–metalanguage distinction

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 009
II. Classical propositional logic

Law of identity

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 010
II. Classical propositional logic

Law of non-contradiction

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 011
II. Classical propositional logic

Law of excluded middle

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 012
II. Classical propositional logic

Principle of bivalence

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 013
II. Classical propositional logic

Double-negation equivalence

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 014
II. Classical propositional logic

Modus ponens

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 015
II. Classical propositional logic

Modus tollens

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 016
II. Classical propositional logic

Hypothetical syllogism

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 017
II. Classical propositional logic

Disjunctive syllogism

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 018
II. Classical propositional logic

Conjunction introduction

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 019
II. Classical propositional logic

Conjunction elimination

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 020
II. Classical propositional logic

Disjunction introduction

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 021
II. Classical propositional logic

Disjunction elimination (proof by cases)

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 022
II. Classical propositional logic

Biconditional introduction

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 023
II. Classical propositional logic

Biconditional elimination

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 024
II. Classical propositional logic

Material-implication equivalence

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 025
II. Classical propositional logic

Contraposition equivalence

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 026
II. Classical propositional logic

De Morgan’s laws

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 027
II. Classical propositional logic

Commutative laws

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 028
II. Classical propositional logic

Associative laws

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 029
II. Classical propositional logic

Distributive laws

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 030
II. Classical propositional logic

Absorption laws

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 031
II. Classical propositional logic

Idempotent laws

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 032
II. Classical propositional logic

Boolean identity and domination laws

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 033
II. Classical propositional logic

Principle of explosion

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 034
II. Classical propositional logic

Reductio ad absurdum / negation introduction

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 035
III. Predicate logic, quantifiers, and identity

Universal instantiation

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 036
III. Predicate logic, quantifiers, and identity

Universal generalization

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 037
III. Predicate logic, quantifiers, and identity

Existential generalization

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 038
III. Predicate logic, quantifiers, and identity

Existential elimination

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 039
III. Predicate logic, quantifiers, and identity

Quantifier-negation laws

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 040
III. Predicate logic, quantifiers, and identity

Alpha-conversion of bound variables

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 041
III. Predicate logic, quantifiers, and identity

Capture-avoiding substitution

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 042
III. Predicate logic, quantifiers, and identity

Non-commutation of unlike quantifiers

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 043
III. Predicate logic, quantifiers, and identity

Universal distribution over conjunction

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 044
III. Predicate logic, quantifiers, and identity

Existential distribution over disjunction

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 045
III. Predicate logic, quantifiers, and identity

Quantifier limited-distribution warning

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 046
III. Predicate logic, quantifiers, and identity

Vacuous quantification

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 047
III. Predicate logic, quantifiers, and identity

Equality is an equivalence relation

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 048
III. Predicate logic, quantifiers, and identity

Leibniz’s law / substitutivity of identicals

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 049
IV. Categorical and syllogistic logic

The four categorical forms (A/E/I/O)

Claims & argumentsUnopened
Rule 050
IV. Categorical and syllogistic logic

Distributed-middle rule

Claims & argumentsUnopened

Connection layer

One rule can sharpen several stages. None can complete them.

Logic Engine supplies inspectable checks. IIR reads the inherited system. RIPPLE-4 traces consequences. SOT stages commitment. PITONS carries the decision record. Delivery State follows authorised choices into operating results.

01PITONS
Operating standard

The PITONS Standard

PITONS connects public purpose, evidence, alternatives, authority, delivery, assurance and learning across the life of a decision.

What must enter the decision record, and what remains unresolved?
A matching rule identifies a useful proof obligation; it does not establish PITONS conformance.
02IIR
Analytical framework

Institutional Intervention Readiness

IIR separates an arrangement's current functions, harms, dependencies and unknowns before preservation, redesign, replacement or removal is judged ready.

What current function or dependency must be understood before change?
A matching rule opens a readiness question; it does not show that any IIR gate is met.
03R4
Analytical framework

RIPPLE-4

RIPPLE-4 follows direct incidence, actor adaptation, system propagation and the inherited state that later decisions must confront.

Which adaptation, propagation or return path could alter the first-order effect?
A matching rule suggests a pathway to inspect; it is not a causal finding or prediction.
04SOT
Analytical framework

Sovereign Option Theory

SOT compares ready courses, sets the minimum useful commitment and preserves options, triggers and recovery routes as uncertainty changes.

Which commitment can be staged, reversed or expanded as evidence changes?
A matching rule can sharpen sequencing; it cannot rescue a course that fails a critical readiness floor.
05DELIVERY
Delivery model

Delivery State

Delivery State keeps authorization, financing, procurement, construction, acceptance, operation, maintenance and measured service results as distinct gates.

Which operational gate comes next, who owns it, and what observation would prove it?
A matching rule clarifies the next delivery test; it does not prove progress, completion or public benefit.
Analytical and delivery loop
IIR baselineRIPPLE-4 candidate mapIIR readiness gatesSOT staged choiceDelivery and learning
PITONS spans the loop as the living record and assurance standard.

About the experiment

A model of the full engine, built in public.

The release tests how people move from a sourced fact to a bounded claim, an explicit policy pathway and a counterfactual stress test.

Now · v1.2

Follow the reasoning interlock

All 500 rules, concise non-evidentiary prompts, resolved foundation references and 48 dated cases now connect to the next relevant SLPA method without claiming a verdict.

Next

Deepen the strongest case files

Add claim-level source roles, primary-rule rankings and live update gates to high-use Saint Lucia cases while keeping foreign examples inside explicit transfer boundaries.

Later

Show reasoning provenance

Trace which rule affected which claim, assumption, evidence step or policy choice while preserving the human decision record.