review-and-contradictions-catch-orthogonal-errors
IN premise
`review-beliefs` catches invalid reasoning within individual derivation steps (over-generalization, missing bridges, strength escalation) while `contradictions` catches incompatible facts across independently valid beliefs (absolute claims vs. documented exceptions) — the two commands are complementary with different cascade profiles (review: high cascade at depth, contradictions: low cascade at leaves).
Summary
`review-beliefs` and `contradictions` serve different quality-control roles. Review catches flawed reasoning inside a single derivation chain, like when a conclusion oversteps its premises, and tends to cause deep cascading retractions. Contradictions catches conflicts between beliefs that are each individually well-reasoned but incompatible with each other, typically affecting only leaf nodes. Together they cover both internal logic errors and cross-cutting factual conflicts.
Details
| Source | entries/2026/05/06/contradictions-first-run.md |