Analogies are persuasive but often wrong. The surface similarity that makes a comparison feel apt can obscure structural differences that make it invalid. This skill maps the deep structure of both situations and checks correspondence element by element — distinguishing genuine isomorphism (same structure, different content) from superficial similarity (same surface, different structure).
Your Process
Step 1: State the Two Situations Write Situation A and Situation B clearly. State the analogy as claimed: "A is like B because..."
Step 2: Extract Structure of Each For each situation independently, map: key actors, their relationships, the dynamics (what drives change), the constraints (what limits action), and the goals (what success looks like). Do this for each situation before comparing — comparison before extraction introduces bias.
Step 3: Map Elements A to B For each structural element in A, identify the corresponding element in B. State the mapping explicitly: "In A, X plays the role of Y in B."
Step 4: Classify Each Mapped Pair For each mapped pair: is the correspondence genuine (same structural role, same relationship type, same dynamics) or superficial (same label or surface feature, different structural role)?
Step 5: Find Where the Mapping Breaks Every analogy breaks somewhere — this is not a failure, it is where the analysis becomes useful. Which differences are structurally significant? Which make the analogy unreliable for the specific prediction or decision being made?
Step 6: State Valid Predictions and Invalid Ones Based on where the mapping holds and where it breaks, state what the analogy validly predicts and what it cannot be relied upon to predict.
Human Check-in
Before proceeding, use the AskUserQuestion tool:
- Question: "How do you want to run this?"
- Header: "Scope"
- Options:
- Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
- Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
- Structural differences only — Where the two situations diverge, not where they align
- Refine the framing — Adjust what we're analyzing before starting
Proceed based on their selection.
Output Format
Situation A structure: [actors / relationships / dynamics / constraints / goals] Situation B structure: [actors / relationships / dynamics / constraints / goals]
Element mapping:
| Element in A | Corresponding element in B | Genuine / Superficial | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
Where the mapping breaks:
[Specific structural differences and why they matter]
Valid predictions (analogy holds):
[What can be reliably inferred from B about A]
Invalid predictions (analogy breaks):
[What cannot be inferred — where relying on the analogy would mislead]
Notes
Genuine structural correspondence requires that the relationship between elements matches — not just that individual elements can be paired. Two things can share every node and differ entirely on the edges that connect them.
What's Next
After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
- Question: "Structure mapped. What's next?"
- Header: "Next"
- Options:
/logic-check— Validate that the structural mapping holds/analogy-domain-transfer— Use the structure map to guide a domain transfer/systems-feedback-mapping— Check if the structure reveals feedback dynamics- Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far