Challenger Field Manual

I. Your Mission

Break what we're building. Not to destroy it, but to make it stronger. Every principle, every proposal, every piece of evidence should survive rigorous scrutiny before we stake our credibility on it.

If you find a fatal flaw, you've saved us from embarrassment—or worse. If a principle survives your challenge, it's earned its place. Either way, you've contributed.

II. The Challenger Mindset

Steel-Man First

Before attacking an idea, understand it fully. State the strongest version of the argument. If you can't articulate why someone would support it, you're not ready to critique it.

Specific Over General

"This won't work" is useless. "This won't work because [specific mechanism] fails when [specific condition] occurs" is valuable. Vague criticism is noise. Precise criticism is signal.

Propose, Don't Just Oppose

Identifying problems is step one. Suggesting solutions is step two. "This principle has a loophole" is good. "This principle has a loophole, and here's how we might close it" is better.

Good Faith Required

You're here to improve the framework, not score points. If you're right, the framework gets better. If you're wrong, the discussion clarifies why the current approach works. Both outcomes are valuable.

III. What to Challenge

The Five Principles

Each principle makes claims about how accountability can be improved. Test those claims:

• Traceability — Can it be circumvented through shell entities, delegation, or committees designed to obscure responsibility?
• Skin in the Game — How do you apply this to statistical harms? To decisions with long time horizons? To collective decisions?
• Transparency — What about legitimate secrets (national security, personal privacy, trade secrets)? Where are the boundaries?
• Barriers to Violence — Does requiring broad consent create paralysis in genuine emergencies? How do you prevent gaming?
• Sortition — How do you ensure competence? Prevent manipulation of "random" selection? Handle complex technical decisions?

Evidence and Analysis

Before we publish findings, they need scrutiny:

• Are the sources reliable?
• Does the evidence actually support the conclusion?
• What's the strongest counter-argument?
• What are we missing?
• How would a hostile PR team attack this?

Proposals and Changes

When someone proposes a framework modification or new initiative:

• What problem does this solve?
• Does the solution create new problems?
• Has this been tried before? What happened?
• What are the second-order effects?
• Who benefits if this fails?

The Movement Itself

We're not exempt from our own principles:

• Is the movement itself accountable?
• Are we practicing what we preach?
• Where are our blind spots?
• What could capture or corrupt this movement?
• How would we know if we'd gone wrong?

IV. How to Challenge

Written Critiques

For significant challenges, write them up:

• State the principle or proposal you're challenging
• Present the strongest version of it (steel-man)
• Identify the specific flaw or failure mode
• Provide evidence or reasoning for your concern
• Suggest alternatives or modifications if you have them
• Post in #challengers for discussion

Evidence Review

When reviewing evidence before publication:

• Verify sources independently if possible
• Check for logical leaps between evidence and conclusion
• Identify what would change your mind
• Play devil's advocate in the #evidence channel
• Document your review so others can assess

Red Teaming

For major initiatives, organized red teams:

• Assemble 2-3 challengers to systematically attack a proposal
• Given full access to the plan or content
• Produce a written critique before launch
• Proposers must respond to each point
• Unresolved concerns are noted publicly

V. Challenge Categories

Implementation Challenges

"This principle is good in theory, but here's why it fails in practice..."

Focus: practical obstacles, enforcement mechanisms, gaming strategies

Logical Challenges

"This argument contains a flaw in reasoning..."

Focus: internal consistency, hidden assumptions, logical fallacies

Empirical Challenges

"The evidence doesn't support this claim..."

Focus: data quality, alternative explanations, historical precedents

Ethical Challenges

"This approach creates a different harm..."

Focus: unintended consequences, trade-offs, who bears the costs

Strategic Challenges

"This approach will backfire because..."

Focus: political feasibility, adversary responses, timing

VI. Receiving Challenges

If your work is challenged, respond well:

• Don't get defensive. The challenger is helping you.
• Engage the substance. Address the specific points raised.
• Acknowledge valid critiques. "You're right, I hadn't considered that."
• Update your position. If the challenge reveals a flaw, revise.
• Thank the challenger. Good-faith criticism is a gift.

A culture where challenges are welcomed produces better work than one where they're resented.

VII. What Good Challenges Look Like

VIII. Boundaries

Challenging is not:

• Trolling. Bad-faith attacks designed to waste time, not improve outcomes.
• Concern trolling. Pretending to be helpful while actually undermining.
• Perfectionism. Demanding impossible standards to prevent any action.
• Obstruction. Endless objections without engaging responses.

If your challenges consistently fail to improve anything, reconsider your approach. The goal is better outcomes, not endless debate.

IX. First Mission

This week, write one substantive challenge:

Pick any element of the framework—a principle, a claim on the website, a proposed process. Write a critique following the structure above: steel-man, specific flaw, evidence or reasoning, suggested alternative.

Post it in #challengers. See what responses you get. Refine your argument. If you're right, you've improved the framework. If you're wrong, you've learned why the current approach works.

Either way, you've made us stronger.