┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                  ORTHOGONAL TEXTBOOK GROUNDING PIPELINE                     │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                                             │
│  Φ0: TENSOR ACTIVATE ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────  │
│      └─ Score dimensions, detect synergies, compose execution plan          │
│                                                                             │
│  Φ1: QUERY DECOMPOSE ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────  │
│      └─ Parse topic, domains, complexity; route to skill stack              │
│                                                                             │
│  Φ2: PARALLEL SEARCH ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────  │
│      └─ Multi-query semantic search across pdf-embeddings + web             │
│      └─ Execute via T×L synergy: pdf-search × pdf-brain × docling           │
│                                                                             │
│  Φ3: THESIS EXTRACTION ───────────────────────────────────────────────────  │
│      └─ Extract T_i from each source with page-level citations              │
│      └─ Classify: definitional | mechanistic | quantitative | clinical      │
│                                                                             │
│  Φ4: ANTITHESIS DETECTION ────────────────────────────────────────────────  │
│      └─ Compare thesis pairs for tensions A_ij                              │
│      └─ Classify: contradiction | refinement | extension | context_dependent│
│                                                                             │
│  Φ5: DIALECTICAL SYNTHESIS ───────────────────────────────────────────────  │
│      └─ Invoke dialectical skill for α-β-γ structure                        │
│      └─ Apply constraints skill for deontic obligations                     │
│                                                                             │
│  Φ6: MULTI-LENS CRITIQUE ─────────────────────────────────────────────────  │
│      └─ STRUCTURAL × EVIDENTIAL × SCOPE × ADVERSARIAL × PRAGMATIC           │
│      └─ Per-thesis evaluation with aggregate scoring                        │
│                                                                             │
│  Φ7: ABDUCTIVE SYNTHESIS ─────────────────────────────────────────────────  │
│      └─ Abduce minimal universal principles S resolving tensions            │
│      └─ Validate: ∀T_i. ∃s ∈ S. subsumes(s, T_i)                            │
│                                                                             │
│  Φ8: RESPONSE GENERATION ─────────────────────────────────────────────────  │
│      └─ Invoke saq skill for template routing                               │
│      └─ Apply symbol lexicon, word count constraints                        │
│                                                                             │
│  Φ9: CITATION WEAVING ────────────────────────────────────────────────────  │
│      └─ Systematic footnote generation with page references                 │
│      └─ Apply deontic constraints: O(cite), O(page), F(uncited)             │
│                                                                             │
│  Φ10: VALIDATION & QA ────────────────────────────────────────────────────  │
│       └─ Coverage, parsimony, confidence floor checks                       │
│       └─ Examiner expectation alignment                                     │
│                                                                             │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

tensor_context:
  prompt: "{original_query}"
  activated_dimensions:
    C: sc:document (0.70)
    A: researcher (0.75)
    S: textbook-grounding (0.95), saq (0.90), dialectical (0.80), critique (0.75)
    T: perplexity (0.65), pdf-search (0.90)
    L: pdf-brain (0.90), docling (0.75), qmd (0.70)
  synergies:
    S×T×L: textbook-grounding × pdf-search × qmd = 0.95
    S×S×S: saq × dialectical × critique = 0.90
  execution_mode: sequential

IF synergy(S×T×L) > 0.9:
    activate_parallel_search()  # pdf-brain + pdf-search + perplexity
IF synergy(S×S×S) > 0.85:
    chain_skill_stack()  # dialectical → critique → saq

inputs:
  query: "Describe the pharmacology of propofol with textbook citations"
  context: ANZCA_primary | CICM_primary | VIVA | concept | academic

outputs:
  topic: "propofol pharmacology"
  domains: [pharmacology, anaesthetics, sedation, critical_care]
  question_verb: describe
  estimated_sources: 8-12
  complexity: standard | deep | comprehensive
  skill_stack: [textbook-grounding, dialectical, saq, critique]
  tool_stack: [pdf-search, pdf-brain, perplexity]
  cli_stack: [docling, qmd]

IF context = VIVA OR context = comprehensive:
    complexity = deep
    search_depth = 25
    skill_chain = [dialectical, critique, constraints, saq]
ELIF context ∈ {ANZCA_primary, CICM_primary}:
    complexity = standard
    search_depth = 15
    skill_chain = [dialectical, saq]
ELIF context = academic:
    complexity = comprehensive
    search_depth = 30
    skill_chain = [dialectical, critique, deep-research]
ELSE:
    complexity = standard
    search_depth = 10
    skill_chain = [saq]

undefined

**Search Strategy Matrix:**

| Query Type | Tool | Purpose | Weight |
|:-----------|:-----|:--------|:-------|
| Core topic | pdf-search | Textbook passages | 0.40 |
| Mechanism | pdf-brain | Mechanistic detail | 0.25 |
| Clinical | perplexity | Current practice | 0.20 |
| Comparison | docling | Cross-source compare | 0.15 |

**Multi-Query Expansion:**

undefined

thesis:
  id: T_01
  source: "Middleton B et al. Physics in Anaesthesia. 3rd ed."
  page: 115
  chapter: "Fluid Dynamics"
  claim: "Reynolds number is dimensionless"
  claim_type: definitional | mechanistic | quantitative | clinical
  confidence: 0.95
  context: "The Reynolds number is a dimensionless quantity, i.e. it has no units."
  quote: true
  extraction_method: pdf-search | manual | perplexity

classification:
  definitional:
    description: "What something IS"
    priority: HIGH
    focus: "examine consensus across sources"
  mechanistic:
    description: "How something WORKS"
    priority: HIGH
    focus: "examine completeness of explanation"
  quantitative:
    description: "Numeric values/thresholds"
    priority: CRITICAL
    focus: "examine variation, cite ranges"
  clinical:
    description: "Application/relevance"
    priority: MEDIUM
    focus: "context-dependent, may vary by source"

antithesis:
  id: A_01_02
  thesis_1: T_01  # "Re < 2000 = laminar"
  thesis_2: T_02  # "Re < 1000 = laminar"
  tension_type: contradiction | refinement | extension | context_dependent
  description: "Threshold for laminar flow varies: 2000 vs 1000"
  resolution_candidates:
    - "2000 is generally accepted; 1000 is conservative"
    - "Context matters: ideal vs physiological conditions"
  evidence_weight:
    T_01: 0.85  # More sources agree
    T_02: 0.70  # Single source

tension_types:
  contradiction:
    definition: "Mutually exclusive claims"
    resolution: "Authority + recency + specificity + consensus"
  refinement:
    definition: "One claim more precise than other"
    resolution: "Accept refined version with acknowledgment"
  extension:
    definition: "One claim adds to another"
    resolution: "Merge with attribution to both"
  context_dependent:
    definition: "Both true in different contexts"
    resolution: "State conditions explicitly"

dialectical_structure:
  α_AGONAL:
    purpose: "Establish consensus with paradox awareness"
    content: "Synthesized universal principles from majority sources"
    citations: [highest_authority_sources]

  β_MAIEUTIC:
    purpose: "Guide through mechanisms with Socratic clarity"
    content: "Resolved tensions with evidence-weighted decisions"
    method: "Show reasoning process, not just conclusions"

  γ_APOPHATIC:
    purpose: "Acknowledge limitations with academic humility"
    content: "Noted variations, exceptions, context dependencies"
    tone: "Scholarship, not overconfidence"

deontic_obligations:
  O(cite): "All claims MUST have at least one citation"
  O(page): "Page numbers OBLIGATORY for all citations"
  O(synthesis): "Must produce synthesis, not mere aggregation"
  P(multi_cite): "Multiple citations PERMITTED for consensus"
  P(quote): "Direct quotes PERMITTED for key definitions"
  F(uncited): "Uncited claims are FORBIDDEN"
  F(single_source): "Single-source claims FORBIDDEN for consensus"

lenses:
  STRUCTURAL:
    question: "Are theses logically coherent?"
    weight: 0.20
    validation: [internal_consistency, logical_flow]

  EVIDENTIAL:
    question: "What's the evidence quality?"
    weight: 0.25
    validation: [source_authority, peer_review, recency]

  SCOPE:
    question: "Do claims overgeneralize?"
    weight: 0.20
    validation: [boundary_conditions, exceptions_noted]

  ADVERSARIAL:
    question: "What would examiners challenge?"
    weight: 0.20
    validation: [anticipate_objections, prepare_defenses]

  PRAGMATIC:
    question: "Does this work clinically?"
    weight: 0.15
    validation: [clinical_utility, practical_application]

per_thesis_evaluation:
  thesis: T_01
  lens_scores:
    S: 0.90  # Clear logical structure
    E: 0.95  # Peer-reviewed source
    O: 0.75  # May not apply to all fluids
    A: 0.80  # Standard examiner expectation
    P: 0.85  # Clinically applicable
  aggregate: 0.85
  issues:
    - "Scope: Applies to Newtonian fluids; blood is non-Newtonian"

ABDUCTION PROTOCOL
──────────────────
1. Cluster theses by claim_type
2. For each cluster:
   a. Identify consensus claims (≥80% agreement)
   b. Resolve contested claims (40-79%) via critique lens priority
   c. Flag unique claims with high individual confidence (>0.8)
3. Compose synthesis S that:
   a. Subsumes all consensus claims
   b. Includes resolved contested claims with caveats
   c. Optionally includes unique claims as extensions
4. Validate: ∀T_i. ∃s ∈ S. subsumes(s, T_i)
5. Check parsimony: |S| ≤ min(|T|/2, 10)
6. Verify confidence floor: ∀s ∈ S. confidence(s) ≥ 0.60

synthesis:
  universal_principles:
    - id: S_01
      claim: "Reynolds number predicts flow type (laminar vs turbulent)"
      type: universal
      supporting_theses: [T_01, T_02, T_03, T_05, T_08]
      confidence: 0.95

  resolved_tensions:
    - antithesis: A_01_02
      resolution: "Re < 2000 generally indicates laminar; stricter thresholds exist"
      resolution_type: context_dependent
      caveats: ["ideal conditions", "physiological variation"]

  acknowledged_variations:
    - topic: "Critical threshold"
      range: "1000-4000 depending on source"
      recommendation: "Use Re < 2000 = laminar, Re > 3000 = turbulent"

template_routing:
  IF question_verb = describe AND domain = pharmacology:
    template = saq/references/pharmacology-template.md
  ELIF question_verb = describe AND domain = physiology:
    template = saq/references/physiology-template.md
  ELIF question_verb ∈ {compare, contrast}:
    template = saq/references/comparison-template.md
  ELIF context = VIVA:
    template = viva-extended-template.md
  ELSE:
    template = saq/references/physiology-template.md

generation_constraints:
  SAQ_mode:
    word_count: 180-220
    structure: 2-3 A4 pages handwritten
    time: 8 minutes
    format: dot points, symbols, minimal prose
  VIVA_mode:
    word_count: 500-800
    structure: extended mechanistic detail
    includes: [examiner_anticipation, deep_dive, edge_cases, clinical_vignettes]
  Academic_mode:
    word_count: 1000-2000
    structure: full scholarly format
    includes: [literature_review, methodology, discussion]

[^n]: Author(s). *Title*. Edition. Publisher, Year; p. page. "Verbatim quote."

SAQ: 5-10 citations (1 per major claim)
VIVA: 15-25 citations (comprehensive)
Academic: 30-50 citations (scholarly)

def validate_grounded_response(response, theses, synthesis):
    checks = {
        # Coverage checks
        "citation_coverage": all_claims_cited(response),
        "synthesis_reflected": synthesis_in_response(response, synthesis),
        "thesis_coverage": all_theses_subsumed(theses, synthesis),

        # Format checks
        "word_count": word_count_in_range(response, mode),
        "cascade_preserved": no_decomposed_cascades(response),
        "values_contextualized": all_values_have_context(response),

        # Quality checks
        "tensions_acknowledged": variations_noted(response),
        "deontic_compliance": deontic_constraints_met(response),
        "examiner_optimized": meets_examiner_expectations(response),

        # Parsimony checks
        "synthesis_minimal": len(synthesis) <= len(theses) / 2,
        "confidence_floor": all(s.confidence >= 0.60 for s in synthesis)
    }
    return ValidationResult(
        valid=all(checks.values()),
        issues=[k for k, v in checks.items() if not v],
        score=sum(checks.values()) / len(checks)
    )

---
topic: "{topic}"
type: saq-model-response
textbooks-analyzed: {n}
theses-extracted: {m}
antitheses-identified: {k}
citations: {c}
confidence: {0.85}
---

undefined

tensor_activation:
  on_prompt: "Generate SAQ on propofol pharmacology with citations"

  decomposition:
    C: sc:document (0.70)
    A: researcher (0.75)
    S: textbook-grounding (0.95)
    T: pdf-search (0.90)
    L: pdf-brain (0.90)

  synergies_activated:
    S×T×L: 0.95 → parallel_search_mode
    S×S×S: 0.90 → skill_chain_mode

  execution_plan:
    mode: sequential
    steps:
      1: T×L → parallel search (pdf-brain + pdf-search + perplexity)
      2: S → textbook-grounding (thesis extraction + antithesis detection)
      3: S×S → dialectical → critique (synthesis + validation)
      4: S → saq (template + formatting)

undefined

undefined

handoff:
  from: textbook-grounding
  to: saq
  data:
    synthesis: universal_principles
    citations: formatted_footnotes
    constraints: word_count, symbol_lexicon

invocation:
  purpose: "Multi-lens thesis evaluation"
  lenses: [STRUCTURAL, EVIDENTIAL, SCOPE, ADVERSARIAL, PRAGMATIC]
  output: per_thesis_scores, aggregate_confidence

structure:
  α_AGONAL: consensus_with_paradox
  β_MAIEUTIC: mechanism_through_questioning
  γ_APOPHATIC: limitations_with_humility

deontic_framework:
  O: [cite, page, synthesis]
  P: [multi_cite, quote]
  F: [uncited, single_source_consensus]

delegation:
  IF task.requires_multi_skill:
    delegate_to: knowledge-orchestrator
    skills: [textbook-grounding, dialectical, critique, saq]
    coordination: confidence-weighted

undefined

undefined

grounding_quality:
  citation_density: citations_per_claim >= 1.0
  source_diversity: unique_sources >= 5
  synthesis_ratio: |synthesis| / |theses| <= 0.5
  confidence_floor: all_confidence >= 0.60
  tension_coverage: all_antitheses_resolved
  examiner_alignment: meets_expectations >= 0.85