Structural Rules

• We are assuming here that all games start with a proposal of a model, ignoring the prior potential moves of proposing requirements before having a model. We therefore assume that a set of requirements r1…rn already exist in the theory store.

1. Proponent P moves first with ProposeModel(m, r) which starts the dialogue

2. After ProposeModel(m, r):

• Proponent P can:
  • 2.1) ProposeExperiment(m, e, r) - support the validity of model m with respect to requirement r by supplying experiment e
  • 2.2) SupportModel(m, t) - support the validity of model m through theory t
• Opponent O can:
  • 2.3) CounterModel(m, e, r) - provide a counter-experiment e that disproves that model m satisfies requirement r
  • 2.4) AttackModel(m, t) - claim that model m is not valid due to some theory t
  • 2.5) RequestEvidence(m, r) - request that the proponent supplies further evidence for how model m satisfies requirement r

3. After ProposeExperiment(m, e, r):

• Proponent P can:
  • 3.1) ProposeExperiment(m, e’, r) - support the validity of model m with respect to requirement r by supplying additional experiment e’
  • 3.2) SupportExperiment(e, t) - Provide theory t in support of the validity of experiment e
  • 3.3) [iff there are no undefended attacks on m] StudyDone() - Declare the model as valid until some new counter-evidence is raised by an opponent
• Opponent O can:
  • 3.4) AttackExperiment(e, t) - claim that the proposed experiment e is not valid due to some theory t

4. After AttackExperiment(e, t):

4i) If Proponent P performed AttackExperiment(e, t):

• Proponent P can:
  • [iff there are no undefended attacks on m] StudyDone() - Declare the model as valid until some new counter-evidence is raised by an opponent
• Opponent O can:
  • RetractExperiment(e) - concede by retracting the experiment e
  • DefendExperiment(e, t, t’) - claim that experiment e is in fact valid despite theory t due to some counter-theory t’

4ii) If Opponent O performed AttackExperiment(e, t):

• Proponent P can:
  • DefendExperiment(e, t, t’) - claim that experiment e is in fact valid despite theory t due to some counter-theory t’
  • RetractExperiment(e) - resolve that e is not valid and so remove it from the theory
• Opponent O can:
  • N/A

5. After CounterModel(m, e, r):

• Proponent P can:
  • AttackExperiment(e, t) - claim that the opponent’s counter-experiment e is not valid due to some theory t
  • ReviseRequirement(m, r, r’, e) - concede that the model m does not satisfy requirement r because r is poorly worded. As such, replace r with r’ and provide e as supporting experiment
  • ReplaceModel(m, m’, r) - Concede that model m is not valid and instead propose a new model m’ that satisfies r
• Opponent O can:
  • SupportExperiment(e, t) - Support the counter-example e with theory t

6. After AttackModel(m, t):

• Proponent P can:
  • DefendModel(m, t, t’) - Defend the model m by stating that the theory t used to attack the model is not valid due to alternative theory t’
  • ReplaceModel(m, m’, r) - Concede that model m is not valid and instead propose a new model m’ that satisfies r
• Opponent O can:
  • N/A

7. After ReviseRequirement(m, r, r’, e):

• Proponent P can:
  • [iff there are no undefended attacks on m] StudyDone() - Declare the model as valid until some new counter-evidence is raised by an opponent
• Opponent O can:
  • AttackRequirement(r’, t) - Attack the new requirement r’ on the basis of theory t
  • AttackExperiment(e, t) - claim that the proposed experiment e is not valid due to some theory t

8. After RetractExperiment(e):

• Proponent P must:
  • StudyDone() - Declare the model as valid until some new counter-evidence is raised by an opponent
• Opponent O can:
  • N/A

9. After DefendExperiment(e, t, t’):

9i) If Proponent P performed DefendExperiment(e, t, t’):

• Proponent P can:
  • [iff there are no undefended attacks on m] StudyDone() - Declare the model as valid until some new counter-evidence is raised by an opponent
• Opponent O can:
  • AttackTheory(t’, t’’) ?

9ii) If Opponent O performed DefendExperiment(e, t, t’):

• Proponent P can:
  • AttackTheory(t’, t’’) ?
• Opponent O can:
  • N/A

10. After ReplaceModel(m, m’, r):

• Proponent P can:
  • ProposeExperiment(m’, e, r) - Support the validity of model m w.r.t requirement r by providing an experiment e
• Opponent O can:
  • CounterModel(m’, e, r) - provide a counter-experiment e that disproves that model m’ satisfies requirement r
  • AttackModel(m’, t) - claim that model m’ is not valid due to some theory t

11. After SupportExperiment(e, t):

11i) If Proponent P performed SupportExperiment(e, t):

• Proponent P must:
  • StudyDone() - Declare the model as valid until some new counter-evidence is raised by an opponent
• Opponent O can:
  • AttackTheory(t’, t’’) ?

11ii) If Opponent O performed SupportExperiment(e, t):

• Proponent P can:
  • AttackTheory(t’, t’’) ?
• Opponent O can:
  • N/A

12. After StudyDone():

• Proponent P can:
  • N/A
• Opponent O can:
  • AttackRequirement(r t) - Attack the requirement r on the basis of theory t
  • AttackModel(m, t) - claim that model m is not valid due to some theory t
  • CounterModel(m, e, r) - provide a counter-experiment e that disproves that model m satisfies requirement r
  • AttackTheory(t’, t’’) ?
  • AttackExperiment(e, t) - claim that experiment e is not valid due to some theory t