Decisions are not made in the moment of choosing — they are made in the structure of evaluation. A bad framework produces confident wrong answers. A good framework surfaces the right trade-offs and lets the decision survive scrutiny.
Universal Convergence Engine for Research Decision-Making
Transforms unstructured candidate sets into ranked selections, balanced portfolios, and validated decisions through 6 parallel convergence campaigns spanning scoring, ranking, consensus, feasibility, optimization, and adversarial verification.
- 📊 Multi-criteria scoring — score and rank candidates against weighted criteria using AHP, TOPSIS, ELECTRE, PROMETHEE, and non-compensatory screening methods
- 🔄 Pairwise ranking — produce global rankings via systematic pairwise comparisons with consistency checking and convergence detection
- 🤝 Structured consensus — resolve disagreements between multiple perspectives using Delphi, Nominal Group Technique, and dialectical synthesis
- 🔬 Feasibility assessment — evaluate real-world viability using TRL, NASSS, Stage-Gate, TRIZ, TOC, and parametric estimation
- 💼 Portfolio optimization — select balanced combinations using Markowitz, Knapsack, Pareto, Real Options, MAP-Elites, and minimax regret
- ⚔️ Steel-manning — adversarial verification via Devil's Advocacy, Pre-mortem, Red Teaming, and Dialectical Inquiry
ENTRY.md (campaign router)
→ Campaign (6): self-contained convergence paradigm
→ Strategy: selected by convergence intent/scenario
→ Tactic: multi-step orchestration pattern
→ SOP: single operation (subagent or import)
| Signal | Campaign |
|---|---|
| score/rank candidates against multiple criteria | multi-criteria-scoring |
| produce global ranking via pairwise comparisons | pairwise-ranking |
| multiple perspectives disagree, need convergence | structured-consensus |
| assess feasibility/readiness of candidates | feasibility-assessment |
| select a balanced portfolio from candidates | portfolio-optimization |
| verify rejected candidates, stress-test winners | steel-manning |
CC composes campaigns autonomously:
- Serial: scoring → steel-manning → portfolio
- Parallel: scoring + pairwise → take intersection
- Backtrack: steel-manning rejects → re-enter scoring
- Nested: consensus determines weights → scoring uses those weights
- Skip: if only 3 candidates with clear criteria, pairwise alone suffices
| Campaign | Strategies | Tactics | SOPs |
|---|---|---|---|
| multi-criteria-scoring | 5 | 3 | 10 |
| pairwise-ranking | 5 | 3 | 9 |
| structured-consensus | 5 | 3 | 10 |
| feasibility-assessment | 5 | 3 | 10 |
| portfolio-optimization | 5 | 3 | 10 |
| steel-manning | 5 | 3 | 9 |
| Total | 30 | 18 | 58 |
Plus 3 shared SOPs (saturation-detection, sensitivity-analysis, multi-stakeholder-simulation) and 5 import SOPs (web-search, web-research, paper-overview, paper-search, paper-research).
| Dependency | What It Provides |
|---|---|
| web-browsing | web-search + web-research (import SOPs) |
| literature-engine | paper-overview + paper-search + paper-research (import SOPs) |
| subagent-spawning | Subagent dispatch conventions |
| context-management | context-init + context-checkpoint |
| wiki-vault MCP | Knowledge persistence to graph |
# Integration test scenarios (7 end-to-end)
tests/integration-prompt.mdEach scenario validates routing, output structure, budget enforcement, and hard-gate compliance.