Reasoning lenses

Context

A general assistant gives a general answer. The useful version of a second opinion is a specific one: how a particular strategist, valuation analyst, or risk thinker would take the question apart.

Constraint

An imitation built from impressions produces confident pastiche. It recites the vocabulary of a thinker without carrying the reasoning, and there is no way to tell the two apart from the output alone.

Contribution

I built a set of reasoning lenses, each forged from a real corpus by a lens-factory command, traceable to its canonical sources through a lineage table, and auditable move by move as either rooted and generalizing or merely recited.

Approach

The distinction between a principle and a recitation is enforced rather than assumed: each move has to trace to source material, and an audit re-checks a forged lens against that standard afterwards. Packaging the set as an installable, structurally validated plugin is what moves it out of loose unversioned files and makes the validation possible at all.

Outcome

A second opinion can be requested from a named way of reasoning, and the claim that it reasons that way can be checked instead of trusted.

Evidence

The work is held in a private repository, with the specification and the validation approach recorded in its issues.