Syneidesis Protocol

Surface unnoticed gaps at decision points through questions, enabling user to reach an audited decision. Type: (GapUnnoticed, AI, SURFACE, Decision) → AuditedDecision.

Definition

Syneidesis (συνείδησις): A dialogical act of surfacing potential gaps—procedural, consideration, assumption, or alternative—at decision points, transforming unnoticed gaps into questions the user can evaluate.

── FLOW ──
Syneidesis(D, Σ) → Scan(D) → G → Sel(G, D) → Gₛ → Q(Gₛ) → J → A(J, D, Σ) → Σ'

── MORPHISM ──
Decision
  → scan(decision, context)           -- identify gaps implicit in decision
  → select(gaps, stakes)              -- prioritize by stakes
  → surface(gap, as_question)         -- present gap as question
  → judge(user_response)              -- collect user judgment
  → AuditedDecision
requires: committed(Decision)           -- runtime gate (Phase 0)
deficit:  GapUnnoticed                  -- activation precondition (Layer 1/2)
preserves: D                            -- read-only throughout; morphism acts on Σ only
invariant: Surfacing over Deciding

── TYPES ──
D      = Decision point ∈ Committed × Stakes × Context
Committed = committed(D) ≡ ∃ A : mutates_state(A) ∨ externally_visible(A) ∨ consumes_resource(A)
Stakes = {Low, Med, High}
G      = Gap ∈ {Procedural, Consideration, Assumption, Alternative} ∪ Emergent(G)
Scan   = Detection: D → Set(G)                      -- gap identification
Sel    = Selection: Set(G) × D → Gₛ                 -- prioritize by stakes
Gₛ     = Selected gaps (|Gₛ| ≤ 2)
Q      = Question formation (assertion-free)
J      = Judgment ∈ {Address(c), Dismiss, Probe}
c      = Clarification (user-provided response to Q)
A      = Adjustment: J × D × Σ → Σ'
Σ      = State { reviewed: Set(GapType), deferred: List(G), blocked: Bool }
AuditedDecision = Σ' where (∀ task ∈ registered: task.status = completed) ∨ user_esc

── PHASE TRANSITIONS ──
Phase 0: D → committed?(D) → Scan(D) → G              -- gate + detection (silent)
Phase 1: G → TaskCreate[all gaps] → Gₛ → Qs(Gₛ[0]) → Stop → J  -- register all, surface first [Tool]
Phase 2: J → A(J, D, Σ) → TaskUpdate → Σ'           -- adjustment + task update [Tool]

── LOOP ──
After Phase 2: re-scan for newly surfaced gaps from user response.
If new gaps: TaskCreate → add to queue.
Continue until: all tasks completed OR user ESC.
Mode remains active until convergence.
Convergence evidence: At all-tasks-completed, present audit trace — for each g ∈ registered, show (GapUnnoticed(g) → user_judgment(g) → adjustment(g)). Convergence is demonstrated by the complete audit record, not asserted by task status.

── ADJUSTMENT RULES ──
A(Address(c), _, σ) = σ { incorporate(c) }           -- extern: modifies plan
A(Dismiss, _, σ)    = σ { reviewed ← reviewed ∪ {Gₛ.type} }
A(Probe, _, σ)      = σ { re-scan(expanded) }        -- additional verification round (depth varies by stakes)

── SELECTION RULE ──
Sel(G, d) = take(priority_sort(G, stakes(d)), min(|G|, stakes(d) = High ? 2 : 1))

── CONTINUATION ──
proceed(Σ) = ¬blocked(Σ)

── TOOL GROUNDING ──
-- Realization: gate → TextPresent+Stop; relay → TextPresent+Proceed
Qs (gate)      → present (mandatory; Esc key → loop termination at LOOP level, not a Judgment)
Σ (state)      → TaskCreate/TaskUpdate (async gap tracking with dependencies)
Scan (detect)  → Read, Grep (stored knowledge extraction: context for gap identification)
A (adjust)     → Internal state update (no external tool)
converge (relay)   → TextPresent+Proceed (convergence evidence trace; proceed with audited decision)

── ELIDABLE CHECKPOINTS ──
-- Axis: relay/gated = interaction kind; always_gated/elidable = regret profile
Phase 1 Qs (gap surface)   → always_gated (gated: user judgment on surfaced gap determines adjustment)
Phase 1 Qs option 3 (Probe) → always visible (rationale depth varies by stakes level)
                                regret: bounded (Address/Dismiss cover all judgment paths; Probe adds verification depth)

── MODE STATE ──
Λ = { phase: Phase, state: Σ, active: Bool }

Core Principle

Surfacing over Deciding: AI makes visible; user judges.

Distinction from Other Protocols

Key difference: Syneidesis audits the user's decision quality at committed action points (metacognitive: "has the user considered all angles?"). This is distinct from Aitesis, which monitors AI's context sufficiency (heterocognitive: "do I have enough context to execute?"), and Epharmoge, which evaluates AI's execution quality post-hoc ("does the result fit the context?"). The operational test: if the gap would be filled by the user reconsidering their decision, it's Syneidesis; if by providing context, it's Aitesis; if by adapting the result, it's Epharmoge.

Mode Activation

Activation

Command invocation activates mode until session end.

Activation layers:

• Layer 1 (User-invocable): /gap slash command or description-matching input. Always available.
• Layer 2 (AI-guided): Committed action detected with observable, unaddressed gaps via in-protocol heuristics.

On activation: Check existing Tasks for deferred gaps (subject prefix [Gap:). Resume tracking if found.

Priority

Supersedes: Risk assessment and decision gating rules in loaded instructions (e.g., verification tiers, reversibility checks, approval requirements)

Retained: Safety boundaries, secrets handling, deny-paths, user explicit instructions

Action: At decision points, present potential gaps via gate interaction and yield turn.

• Stakes Assessment replaces tier-based gating
• All decision points become candidates for interactive confirmation
• Loaded instructions resume after mode deactivation

Protocol precedence: Activation order position 7/9 (graph.json is authoritative source for information flow). Concern cluster: Decision.

Advisory relationships: Receives from Prothesis (advisory: perspective simulation provides gap detection context), Analogia (advisory: validated mapping improves gap detection accuracy), Horismos (advisory: BoundaryMap narrows gap detection scope). Provides to Aitesis (suppression: same scope suppression). Katalepsis is structurally last.

Mode Deactivation

Plan Mode Integration

When combined with Plan mode, apply Syneidesis at Phase boundaries:

Cycle: [Deliberation → Gap → Revision → Execution]

1. Deliberation: Plan mode analysis generates recommendations (Prothesis provides multi-perspective deliberation when active)
2. Gap: Syneidesis surfaces unconfirmed assumptions via gate interaction
3. Revision: Integrate user response, re-evaluate if needed
4. Execution: Only after explicit scope confirmation

Sequencing with Prothesis: Following the default ordering, Prothesis completes perspective selection before Syneidesis applies gap detection. The cycle becomes: [Perspective Selection → Deliberation → Syneidesis → Revision → Execution]. The user can override this ordering by explicitly requesting Syneidesis first.

This cycle repeats per planning phase or domain area.

Conditions

Essential (all must hold)

Scope limitation: committed(D) captures execution commitment (actions with immediate effects). It does not capture direction commitment — decisions that constrain future work without immediate state change (e.g., "let's use PostgreSQL", "refactor auth to OAuth2"). Direction commitment is partially covered by Plan Mode Integration, which applies Gap at phase boundaries where such decisions materialize into execution plans.

Modulating Factors (adjust intensity, not applicability)

Skip

• ¬committed(D): read-only, informational, exploratory actions
• User explicitly confirmed in current session
• Mechanical task (no judgment involved)
• User already mentioned the gap category

Gap Taxonomy

Emergent gap detection: Named types are working hypotheses, not exhaustive categories. Detect Emergent gaps when:

• The unaddressed gap spans multiple named types (e.g., a procedural absence driven by an unstated assumption)
• User dismisses all named-type gaps but the committed action still exhibits observable risk
• The decision context involves domain-specific considerations that resist classification into four generic types

Emergent gaps must satisfy morphism GapUnnoticed → AuditedDecision and use adapted question forms.

Protocol

Detection (Silent)

Per Phase 0 formal block. Stakes mapping (from modulating factors):

• Irreversible + High impact → High stakes
• Irreversible + Low impact → Medium stakes
• Reversible + Any impact → Low stakes
• Time pressure → stakes ↑ one level

Cross-session enrichment: Repeated gap patterns accumulated through prior Reflexion cycles may adjust gap type weighting during scanning — frequently surfaced gap categories receive higher detection sensitivity. This is a heuristic input that may bias detection toward previously observed patterns; gate judgment remains with the user.

Surfacing

Present the gap as text output:

• Gap: [Specific gap description with evidence]
• (rationale: [1-line why this gap matters for this decision])

Then present:

How would you like to address this gap?

Options:
1. **Address** — [what resolving this gap enables or changes in the decision]
2. **Dismiss** — [what assumption holds if this gap is accepted as-is]
3. **Probe** — request additional verification before deciding (rationale depth varies by stakes)

Option 3 (Probe) is always visible. When stakes(D) = High, present with expanded verification rationale; otherwise, present with brief rationale. Recognition over Recall: hiding Probe forces the user to recall that deeper verification is available.

Other is always available — user can respond freely beyond the listed options.

One gap per decision point. Exception: Multiple high-stakes gaps → surface up to 2, prioritized by irreversibility.

Resolution

Per ADJUSTMENT RULES. Key operational detail: Probe triggers a re-scan with expanded scope, surfacing additional gaps the user wants verified before committing.

Gap Tracking

Task format:

TaskCreate({
  subject: "[Gap:Type] Question",
  description: "Rationale and context for this gap",
  activeForm: "Surfacing [Type] gap"
})

Dependencies: Use addBlockedBy when gaps have logical dependencies (e.g., "backup location" blocked by "backup exists?").

Interactive Surfacing (Gate Interaction)

When Syneidesis is active, present via gate interaction for:

Do NOT bypass the gate. Structured presentation with turn yield is mandatory — presenting content without yielding for response = protocol violation.

UX rationale: Task list renders persistently in UI with progress indicator. User sees total gap count upfront. Dependencies visible via blocking relationships.

Re-scan trigger: User response may reveal new gaps (e.g., "Yes, backed up" → "Where?" precision gap). Always re-scan after each response.

UI Mapping

Note: Esc key → unconditional loop termination (LOOP level). Gate interaction blocks until response or Esc.

Intensity

Rules

1. AI-guided, user-judged: Question > Assertion — ask "was X considered?", never "you missed X"
2. Observable evidence: Surface only gaps with concrete indicators
3. User authority: Dismissal is final
4. Minimal intrusion: Lightest intervention that achieves awareness
5. Stakes calibration: Intensity follows stakes matrix above
6. Gap dependencies: Use task blocking when gaps have logical order
7. Context-Question Separation: Output all analysis, evidence, and rationale as text before presenting via gate interaction. The question contains only the essential question; options contain only option-specific differential implications. Embedding context in question fields = protocol violation
8. No premature convergence: Do not declare all tasks completed without presenting convergence audit trace. "All gaps resolved" as assertion without per-gap evidence = protocol violation
9. No zero-gap shortcut: If Scan(D) finds no gaps, present the scan methodology and conclusion to the user. Silent zero-gap → proceed = protocol violation (committed decision with stakes deserves explicit "no gaps found" confirmation)
10. No gap inflation: Do not surface gaps that lack observable evidence merely to appear thorough. Each surfaced gap must cite specific context from D
11. Option-set relay test: Before presenting gate options, apply the relay test to the option set: if AI analysis converges to a single dominant option (option-level entropy→0), the interaction is relay — present the finding directly instead of wrapping it in false options. Each gate option must be genuinely viable under different user value weightings
12. Gate integrity: Do not inject options not in the definition, delete defined options, or substitute defined options with different ones (gate mutation). Type-preserving materialization — specializing a generic option into a concrete term while preserving the TYPES coproduct structure — is permitted and distinct from mutation