# Prompt: Contradiction Detection

Used in Finding #25.

## Setup

- Single document (full text)
- Same prompt to all models
- No tools, no project context beyond the document

## Prompt

```
You are analyzing a design document for CONTRADICTIONS — places where
the document makes two claims that cannot both be true simultaneously.

This is NOT about:
- Missing information
- Unclear writing
- Design tradeoffs
- Things that MIGHT conflict

This IS about:
- Statement A says X, Statement B says NOT-X
- Mechanism A requires condition C, Mechanism B prevents condition C
- Rule A applies to set S, but S includes elements that violate Rule A

## Categories:

1. **Direct contradictions** — Two statements that are logically incompatible
2. **Mechanism conflicts** — Two described mechanisms that cannot coexist
3. **Scope violations** — A rule/invariant that is violated by a specific
   case described elsewhere in the document
4. **Temporal impossibilities** — A sequence that requires something to be
   true before the described mechanism makes it true

## For each contradiction:

- **Category:** (one of the 4 above)
- **Statement A:** (exact text, with section)
- **Statement B:** (exact text, with section)
- **Why contradictory:** (formal reasoning about incompatibility)
- **Severity:** Critical (system correctness) / High (safety) / Medium (confusion)

Be PRECISE. Only report genuine logical contradictions, not differences
in emphasis or scope.

## Document:

[FULL TEXT OF DOCUMENT]
```

## Key Design Decision

The "Be PRECISE" instruction and explicit exclusion list ("NOT about")
is critical. Without it, models pad findings with style/clarity issues.
The contradiction prompt naturally favors Opus (self-correcting, withdraws
false positives) over GPT-5 (exhaustive, includes borderline cases).