# Prompt: Design Coherence Analysis

Used in Findings #15, #27.

## Setup

- Single document provided as full text
- No tools, no project context beyond the document
- Same prompt to all models independently

## Prompt

```
You are analyzing a single design document for INTERNAL incoherence —
places where the document contradicts itself. The document states
principles, invariants, or guarantees in one place, then describes
mechanisms that violate those guarantees elsewhere.

## Categories of incoherence to check:

1. **Safety properties not enforced** — Document claims a safety property
   (e.g., "fail-closed") but the described mechanism has a path that
   violates it
2. **State machine violations** — Declared states/transitions don't match
   the described behavior (missing transitions, unreachable states,
   states with no exit)
3. **Recovery contradictions** — Recovery mechanism assumes preconditions
   that the failure scenario explicitly invalidates
4. **Supervision conflicts** — Supervision strategy contradicts the
   independence/coupling claims about the supervised processes
5. **Cross-mechanism contradictions** — Two different sections describe
   incompatible behaviors for the same scenario

## What to EXCLUDE:

- Missing features (things the document doesn't cover)
- Design tradeoffs that are explicitly acknowledged
- Future work items marked as such

## Output format per finding:

- **Category:** (one of the 5 above)
- **Severity:** Critical / High / Medium
- **Section A says:** (exact quote with section reference)
- **Section B says:** (exact quote with section reference)
- **The incoherence:** (explain the contradiction)
- **Why it matters:** (what would break in implementation)

## Document:

[FULL TEXT OF DOCUMENT]
```

## Results (Finding #15: failure-modes.md, 383 lines)

| Model | Time | Findings |
|-------|------|----------|
| Sonnet 4.6 | 39s | 5 |
| Opus 4.6 | 105s | 7 (8 attempted, 1 self-withdrawn) |
| GPT-5 | 120s | 4 |

## Results (Finding #27: risk-controls.md, 992 lines)

| Model | Time | Findings |
|-------|------|----------|
| Sonnet 4.6 | 31s | 4 |
| Opus 4.6 | 86s | 5 |
| GPT-5 | 112s | 6 |

Key insight: results are document-dependent. Opus won on the shorter doc,
GPT-5 won on the longer, more complex one.