opencode-skills-collection 2.0.70 → 2.0.72

package/bundled-skills/axiom/examples/walkthrough-en.md

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+# Full Walkthrough — "I'm thinking about dropping out of my CS degree to join a startup"
+
+> **User input:** "I'm thinking about dropping out of my CS degree to join a startup full-time. The CEO offered me equity and a junior dev role. Help me think through this from first principles."
+
+---
+
+## 【Phase 1: Problem Reframing】
+
+You said "dropping out to join a startup" — before decomposing assumptions, let's make sure the question itself is correctly framed.
+
+A few clarifications:
+
+**What specifically are you choosing between?**
+- A) A specific startup offer on the table vs completing your degree?
+- B) The idea of startup life vs academic life in general?
+- C) Escaping something about school you dislike, with the startup as an exit?
+
+**Who framed this as a decision you need to make now?**
+- Did the CEO give you a deadline?
+- Did you create the urgency yourself?
+- Is there external pressure (peers who dropped out, tech Twitter narratives)?
+
+**Reframed core question:**
+
+> "Given my current skills, financial situation, and risk tolerance, is joining this specific startup now — at the cost of delaying/abandoning my degree — a better path to my goals than completing the degree first? And do I have enough information to make this decision today?"
+
+Does this capture what you're really trying to figure out?
+
+---
+
+## 【Phase 2: Assumption Mining】
+
+Here are the hidden assumptions embedded in your framing:
+
+**Surface assumptions (obvious):**
+- A1. A CS degree is just a piece of paper — the real learning happens on the job
+- A2. This startup opportunity won't come again if I don't take it now
+
+**Middle-layer assumptions (industry conventional wisdom):**
+- A3. Early-stage equity is worth more than a salary
+- A4. The startup world values skills over credentials
+- A5. I can always go back and finish my degree later
+
+**Deep assumptions (unquestioned beliefs):**
+- A6. Working at a startup will accelerate my career faster than any other path
+- A7. I'm ready for the intensity and ambiguity of startup work
+- A8. The CEO/founder is competent and trustworthy
+- A9. If the startup fails, the experience itself will be valuable enough
+- A10. My excitement about this opportunity reflects genuine fit, not just novelty
+
+---
+
+## 【Phase 3: Assumption Classification】
+
+| # | Assumption | Type | Reasoning |
+|---|-----------|------|-----------|
+| A1 | A degree is just a piece of paper | 🟡 Convention | Was increasingly true 2015-2022 in tech; now shifting back as market tightens |
+| A2 | This opportunity won't come again | ⚫ Interest-driven | The CEO benefits from you believing this. Urgency is a recruiting tactic |
+| A3 | Early equity is worth more than salary | 🟡 Convention + ⚫ Interest-driven | Statistically, most startup equity becomes worthless. VC-backed mythology promotes this narrative |
+| A4 | The startup world values skills over credentials | 🟡 Convention | True at some companies, but many still filter by degree, especially post-2024 hiring freezes |
+| A5 | I can always go back and finish later | 🔴 Subjective belief | Based on intention, not evidence. Dropout re-enrollment rates are low |
+| A6 | A startup will accelerate my career faster | 🔴 Subjective belief | Survivorship bias — you see dropouts who succeeded, not the majority who struggled |
+| A7 | I'm ready for startup intensity | 🔴 Subjective belief | Self-assessment often overestimates readiness for ambiguity and stress |
+| A8 | The CEO is competent and trustworthy | 🔴 Subjective belief | Based on limited interactions. Have you done due diligence on the founder? |
+| A9 | Failed startup experience is still valuable | 🟡 Convention | Accepted wisdom in startup culture, but hiring managers increasingly want concrete results |
+| A10 | My excitement = genuine fit | 🔴 Subjective belief | Excitement fades after 3 months. How do you distinguish excitement from novelty? |
+
+---
+
+## 【Phase 4: Risk Matrix — Top 3】
+
+| Rank | Assumption | Fragility | Impact | Risk Score | Verification Question |
+|------|-----------|-----------|--------|------------|----------------------|
+| 🔴 1 | A3: Early equity is worth more than salary | 4 | 5 | **20** | What's the company's current revenue? Runway? Valuation methodology? Have you had a lawyer review the equity terms? |
+| 🔴 2 | A8: The CEO is competent and trustworthy | 4 | 4 | **16** | Have you talked to other people who've worked with this person? Checked their track record? Asked about previous ventures? |
+| 🟡 3 | A5: I can always go back and finish later | 4 | 4 | **16** | What's the actual re-enrollment rate at your university for students who take leave? What would the financial and logistical cost be? |
+
+**The uncomfortable truth you may not want to hear:**
+
+A3 has the highest risk score. The equity you're being offered is almost certainly worth $0 right now. Over 90% of startups fail, and even among those that succeed, early-employee equity is often diluted through subsequent funding rounds. The CEO has every incentive to frame equity as "life-changing wealth potential" — because it costs them nothing to give you shares and it justifies paying you below market rate. **Have you actually run the math on what your equity would be worth under realistic scenarios?**
+
+---
+
+## 【Phase 5: Reconstruction】
+
+### Removing unverified assumptions, here's the rebuilt conclusion:
+
+**Original thinking:** "I should drop out and join this startup for the equity and the experience."
+
+**Rebuilt thinking:** "I should complete concrete due diligence on the startup (financials, founder track record, equity terms reviewed by a lawyer) before making any decision. In parallel, I should explore whether I can join part-time while finishing my degree, or negotiate a deferred start date. The urgency to decide RIGHT NOW is manufactured — if the opportunity is real, it can wait 2-4 weeks for me to verify."
+
+### Cognitive Shift Comparison:
+
+| Dimension | Original Thinking | Rebuilt Thinking |
+|-----------|-------------------|------------------|
+| Decision urgency | "I need to decide now" | The urgency is manufactured — add 2 weeks of verification |
+| Equity value | "This could be huge" | Almost certainly $0 today; need to verify terms and scenarios |
+| Either/or framing | "Drop out OR miss out" | Explore part-time, deferred start, or summer commitment first |
+| Risk assessment | "I can always go back" | Re-enrollment is not guaranteed; quantify the actual cost |
+| Information basis | Excitement + CEO's pitch | Due diligence on founder, financials, legal review of equity |
+
+### If you don't have time for full reconstruction — the one thing to verify first:
+
+> **Ask the CEO for the company's current revenue, burn rate, and runway. If they refuse to share basic financials with someone they're asking to bet their education on, that tells you everything you need to know.**

package/bundled-skills/axiom/examples/walkthrough-zh.md

@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+# 完整示例 — "我觉得我应该辞职去创业"
+
+> **用户输入：** "我觉得我应该辞职去创业，帮我第一性原理分析一下"
+
+---
+
+## 【阶段1 问题澄清】
+
+你说"应该辞职去创业" — 在拆解假设之前，我先确认这个问题本身的定义。
+
+你说的"创业" — 具体指什么？
+- A）已经有一个明确的产品方向和初步验证？
+- B）有一个想法，但还没有验证？
+- C）想离开当前环境，创业只是一个方向？
+
+另外，这个问题是**谁定义的**？
+- 是你自己从内心想做这件事？
+- 是看到同龄人创业成功、焦虑驱动？
+- 还是对当前工作不满，创业是"逃离"而非"奔赴"？
+
+**重新表述的核心问题：**
+
+> "在我目前的状况下（技能、资源、风险承受力），离开当前工作去追求一个尚未验证的商业想法，相比在现有环境内寻求改变，是否是更优的选择？"
+
+请确认：这是你真正想回答的问题吗？
+
+---
+
+## 【阶段2 假设挖掘 — 节选】
+
+以下是你这句话背后可能隐含的假设：
+
+**表层假设（显而易见的）：**
+- A1. 创业比打工更能实现财务自由
+- A2. 我有足够的能力独立做成一件事
+
+**中层假设（行业惯例/常识）：**
+- A3. 现在是创业的好时机
+- A4. 我的想法有足够的市场需求
+- A5. 失败了可以重来（风险可控）
+
+**深层假设（从未质疑的信念）：**
+- A6. 在公司里我的成长已经到天花板了
+- A7. 创业能带来我在打工中得不到的"自由"
+- A8. 我对"成功"的定义需要创业来实现
+- A9. 现在不做以后就来不及了（时间紧迫感）
+
+---
+
+## 【阶段3 假设分类】
+
+| 编号 | 假设 | 分类 | 理由 |
+|------|------|------|------|
+| A1 | 创业比打工更能实现财务自由 | 🟡 历史惯例 | 部分人的经验，不是普遍规律。96%的创业公司在5年内失败 |
+| A2 | 我有足够的能力独立做成一件事 | 🔴 主观信念 | 来自你对自己的评估，但可能缺乏客观验证 |
+| A3 | 现在是创业的好时机 | 🟡 历史惯例 + ⚫ 利益驱动 | 创业媒体和孵化器持续制造"现在是好时机"的叙事 |
+| A4 | 我的想法有足够的市场需求 | 🔴 主观信念 | 未经付费用户验证的市场判断 |
+| A5 | 失败了可以重来 | ⚫ 利益驱动 | 创业叙事鼓励人相信"失败是学习"，但实际成本因人而异 |
+| A6 | 在公司里我的成长到天花板了 | 🔴 主观信念 | 可能是环境问题，不是能力天花板 |
+| A7 | 创业能带来"自由" | 🔴 主观信念 | 创业初期自由度可能远低于打工（你是所有问题的兜底者） |
+| A8 | 我的"成功"定义需要创业 | 🔴 主观信念 | 成功的定义本身可能需要重新审视 |
+| A9 | 现在不做以后来不及 | ⚫ 利益驱动 + 🟡 历史惯例 | 焦虑制造者获益（培训课程、创业媒体），且"35岁门槛"是中国特有惯例 |
+
+---
+
+## 【阶段4 危险值 Top 3】
+
+| 排名 | 假设 | 脆弱性 | 影响力 | 危险值 | 验证问题 |
+|------|------|--------|--------|--------|----------|
+| 🔴 1 | A4：我的想法有足够的市场需求 | 4 | 5 | **20** | 你有多少个付费用户或LOI（意向书）？如果答案是0，这是最脆弱也最致命的假设 |
+| 🔴 2 | A2：我有足够的能力独立做成一件事 | 3 | 5 | **15** | 你独立做成过什么事？规模多大？是独立完成还是团队协作？ |
+| 🟡 3 | A5：失败了可以重来（风险可控） | 4 | 3 | **12** | 具体的"可以重来"是什么意思？你的年龄/负债/家庭状况下，失败的实际成本是多少？ |
+
+**你可能不想听的真相：**
+
+A4 的危险值最高。绝大多数创业失败不是因为执行力差，而是因为**从一开始就在解决一个没人愿意付费的问题**。如果你还没有哪怕一个愿意付费的用户或企业，你所有关于"市场足够大""我的想法够好"的假设都建立在空气上。
+
+---
+
+## 【阶段5 重建】
+
+### 移除未验证假设后的重建结论：
+
+**原来的想法：** "我应该辞职去创业"
+
+**重建后的想法：** "我应该先用最小成本验证我的创业想法是否有真实需求，同时在现有工作中重新评估成长空间。辞职不是第一步 — 验证才是。"
+
+### 认知位移对比：
+
+| 维度 | 原来的想法 | 重建后的想法 |
+|------|-----------|-------------|
+| 行动优先级 | 先辞职，再探索 | 先验证，边做边探索 |
+| 风险评估 | "失败了可以重来" | 失败成本需要具体量化 |
+| 成功定义 | 创业 = 成功 | 解决真实问题 = 成功，载体不一定是创业 |
+| 当前工作 | 天花板 | 可能只是需要换团队/方向，不需要换赛道 |
+
+### 如果你没时间做完整验证，你最该做的一件事：
+
+> **找到 3 个潜在目标用户，问他们是否愿意为你的解决方案付费（哪怕是最简版本）。如果 3 个人中有 0 个愿意付费，你的创业方向需要根本性调整。**

package/bundled-skills/axiom/references/assumption-types.md

@@ -0,0 +1,227 @@
+# Assumption Type Handbook / 假设分类手册
+
+A detailed reference for the 4-type assumption classification system used in Axiom Phase 3. This handbook provides identification methods, challenge strategies, real-world examples, and edge-case guidance in both Chinese and English.
+
+---
+
+## Why Classification Matters / 为什么分类本身就是洞见
+
+Most first-principles tools skip classification and jump straight to "question everything." But **different types of assumptions require fundamentally different challenge strategies**:
+
+- Questioning a **physical fact** wastes time and credibility
+- Questioning a **convention** requires checking if the environment has changed
+- Questioning a **belief** requires finding whose experience shaped it
+- Questioning an **interest-driven** assumption requires following the money
+
+**The biggest "aha" moment** often comes when someone discovers that what they treated as an unchangeable fact is actually just a convention — or even an interest-driven narrative.
+
+> 很多人第一次做分类时会震惊地发现：他们一直当成"事实"的东西，其实只是"惯例"，甚至是"利益驱动"。
+
+---
+
+## The 4 Types in Detail / 四种假设类型详解
+
+---
+
+### 🔵 Type 1: Physical Fact / 物理事实
+
+**Definition / 定义:**
+Laws of nature, mathematical truths, verified scientific constants, and logical tautologies. These cannot be changed by human will, policy, or belief.
+
+自然规律、数学定理、已验证的科学常数、逻辑恒等式。不能被人类意志、政策或信念改变。
+
+**Identification Questions / 识别问题:**
+- Can you find a single genuine counterexample anywhere on Earth? / 你能在地球上找到一个真正的反例吗？
+- Is this universally true regardless of culture, time, or context? / 这在所有文化、时间、语境下都成立吗？
+- Would this still be true if every human disappeared? / 如果人类消失了，这还成立吗？
+- Is this based on repeatable, measurable evidence? / 这是否基于可重复、可测量的证据？
+
+**Challenge Strategy / 质疑策略:**
+**Accept it. Do not waste energy.** If something is genuinely a physical fact, the correct response is to work within its constraints, not against them.
+
+接受它。不要浪费精力质疑引力。如果确实是物理事实，正确的做法是在它的约束内工作。
+
+**Examples / 示例:**
+
+| ✅ Genuine Physical Facts | ❌ Often Misclassified As Facts |
+|---------------------------|-------------------------------|
+| Gravity exists (9.8 m/s²) | "Housing always appreciates" (convention) |
+| Entropy increases over time | "You need 8 hours of sleep" (convention — varies by person) |
+| Speed of light is constant | "People are rational economic actors" (belief) |
+| Compound interest formula | "Innovation requires disruption" (interest-driven) |
+
+**Common Misclassification Trap:**
+People often classify **social patterns** or **statistical trends** as physical facts. "The economy always recovers" is a historical pattern, not a law of physics. "People resist change" is a tendency, not a constant.
+
+> ⚠️ 常见误分类：把**社会规律**或**统计趋势**当成物理事实。"经济总会复苏"是历史规律，不是物理定律。
+
+---
+
+### 🟡 Type 2: Historical Convention / 历史惯例
+
+**Definition / 定义:**
+Practices, rules, or beliefs that were once valid and widely adopted but originated in a specific context. The context may have changed, making the convention obsolete or optional.
+
+曾经有效且被广泛采用的做法、规则或信念，但起源于特定语境。语境可能已经改变，使惯例过时或可选。
+
+**Identification Questions / 识别问题:**
+- When did this rule/practice originate? What was the world like then? / 这个规则/做法是什么时候起源的？那时的环境是什么样的？
+- Has the underlying environment (technology, demographics, market, regulation) changed significantly since then? / 底层环境变了吗？
+- Is this universal, or specific to a region/industry/era? / 这是普遍的，还是特定于某个地区/行业/时代？
+- Who benefits from this convention continuing? / 谁因为这个惯例的延续而获益？
+- What percentage of people who follow this convention actually get the promised result? / 遵循这个惯例的人中，多少比例真正得到了承诺的结果？
+
+**Challenge Strategy / 质疑策略:**
+**Check the timestamp.** Ask: "Was this true 20 years ago? Is it still true now? Will it be true in 10 years?" The key insight is that conventions carry enormous inertia — people follow them long after the original reason has disappeared.
+
+检查时间戳。问："这在20年前成立吗？现在还成立吗？10年后呢？"关键洞见：惯例有巨大的惯性 — 人们在原始理由消失后很久仍然遵循它们。
+
+**Examples / 示例:**
+
+| Convention | Original Context | Changed Context |
+|-----------|------------------|-----------------|
+| 大学学历是好工作的门票 | 1990s: 大学生稀缺 | 2020s: 本科普及，技能导向增强 |
+| "You must be in the office to be productive" | Pre-2020: Limited remote tools | Post-COVID: Remote infrastructure mature |
+| 在一家公司待 5-10 年才算忠诚 | Lifetime employment era | Average tenure is now 2-3 years |
+| "Real estate is the best investment for the middle class" | 1980-2010: Population growth + urbanization | 2020s+: Demographic decline in many countries |
+| 创业要写完整的商业计划书 | Before Lean Startup methodology | Now: MVP → iterate → pivot is standard |
+| "Get a STEM degree for job security" | Pre-AI era | AI is now disrupting STEM roles too |
+
+**Cross-Cultural Note / 跨文化注意:**
+Some conventions are deeply culture-specific:
+- 🇨🇳 "35岁是职业分水岭" — This is a Chinese labor market convention, virtually unknown in the West
+- 🇺🇸 "You should change jobs every 2-3 years" — This is an American tech industry convention, unusual in Japan or Germany
+- 🇨🇳 "有房才能结婚" — Chinese marriage convention, not a global reality
+- 🇺🇸 "Follow your passion" — American cultural narrative, less common in collectivist cultures
+
+> 有些惯例是文化特有的。"35岁危机"几乎只存在于中国劳动力市场。"Follow your passion"主要是美国文化叙事。
+
+---
+
+### 🔴 Type 3: Subjective Belief / 主观信念
+
+**Definition / 定义:**
+Conclusions drawn from personal experience, projected as general truths. The person genuinely believes them, but they are shaped by a narrow sample of experiences, cognitive biases, and emotional associations.
+
+从个人经验中得出的结论，被投射为普遍真理。当事人真诚地相信它们，但它们是由有限的经验样本、认知偏差和情感联想塑造的。
+
+**Identification Questions / 识别问题:**
+- Who told you this? / 谁告诉你的？
+- Have you personally verified this, or are you extrapolating from a small sample? / 你亲自验证过吗，还是从小样本推断？
+- Could someone with different experiences reach the opposite conclusion? / 有不同经历的人能得出相反结论吗？
+- Is this belief comfortable? Does it protect you from a harder truth? / 这个信念让你舒服吗？它是否保护你免受更难以面对的真相？
+- If you discovered this belief was wrong, what would you have to do differently? / 如果发现这个信念是错的，你必须做出什么改变？
+
+**Challenge Strategy / 质疑策略:**
+**Seek counter-evidence.** Find people who did the opposite and succeeded, or people who followed this belief and failed. The goal isn't to disprove the belief, but to test its universality.
+
+寻找反面证据。找到做了相反事情却成功的人，或遵循这个信念却失败的人。目标不是推翻信念，而是检验它的普遍性。
+
+**Examples / 示例:**
+
+| Subjective Belief | What It Actually Is |
+|-------------------|---------------------|
+| "我不适合做管理" | One bad management experience → generalized to identity |
+| "I'm not a math person" | Early negative experience → self-limiting identity |
+| "创业太冒险了" | Heard failure stories → availability bias |
+| "My industry doesn't value X" | Based on one company's culture, not the industry |
+| "我的性格不适合社交" | Introversion ≠ inability to build relationships |
+| "Good developers don't need to be good at communication" | Belief that protects from discomfort |
+
+**Red Flag — Belief Disguised As Fact:**
+If someone says "That's just how it is" or "Everyone knows that" about something that isn't a physical law, it's almost certainly a belief or convention that has been promoted to "fact" status in their mind.
+
+> 🚩 如果有人说"就是这样的"或"大家都知道"，但说的不是物理定律，那几乎肯定是信念或惯例被提升成了"事实"。
+
+---
+
+### ⚫ Type 4: Interest-Driven / 利益驱动
+
+**Definition / 定义:**
+Assumptions that someone (an industry, company, influencer, or social group) actively propagates because they benefit from you believing them. This doesn't mean the claim is always false — but its truth is incidental to why it's being promoted.
+
+某些人（行业、公司、意见领袖或社会群体）积极传播的假设，因为他们从你的相信中获益。这并不意味着这些说法总是假的 — 但它们被传播的原因不是因为真，而是因为有利可图。
+
+**Identification Questions / 识别问题:**
+- Who is promoting this idea? What do they sell? / 谁在推广这个观点？他们卖什么？
+- Does the source of this information have a financial incentive for you to believe it? / 这个信息来源是否有经济动机让你相信？
+- Would this idea still be popular if no one profited from it? / 如果没有人从中获利，这个观点还会流行吗？
+- Is this framed as urgent? Urgency often serves the seller. / 这是否被包装成紧迫的？紧迫感通常服务于卖方。
+- What's the null hypothesis — what happens if you do nothing? / 零假设是什么 — 如果你什么都不做会怎样？
+
+**Challenge Strategy / 质疑策略:**
+**Follow the money.** Trace the incentive chain from the idea back to whoever benefits. This doesn't automatically disprove the claim, but it changes how much weight you should give it.
+
+追踪金钱链。从这个观点追溯到获益者。这并不自动推翻这个说法，但它改变了你应该给予它的权重。
+
+**Examples / 示例:**
+
+| Interest-Driven Assumption | Who Benefits |
+|---------------------------|-------------|
+| "你需要买保险来保护家人" | 保险公司和保险经纪人 |
+| "AI will replace all jobs in 5 years" | AI companies raising funding |
+| "创业是实现财务自由的唯一方式" | 创业培训课程、孵化器 |
+| "You need to learn to code" (2015-2023) | Coding bootcamps, tech companies |
+| "房价永远涨" | 房地产开发商、中介、银行 |
+| "You need this certification to be competitive" | Certification providers |
+| "知识付费是最好的自我投资" | 知识付费平台和课程制作者 |
+| "Growth hacking is essential for startups" | Growth consultancies, SaaS tools |
+
+**Cross-Cultural Note:**
+- 🇨🇳 Chinese internet is saturated with interest-driven assumptions from: 知识付费 platforms, 房产中介, 保险销售, 创业导师, 消费主义 KOL
+- 🇺🇸 American media is saturated with: VC-backed startup mythology, credentialism pushed by universities, lifestyle inflation pushed by advertising
+
+> 中国互联网充满了知识付费、房产中介、保险销售的利益驱动假设。美国媒体充满了 VC 支持的创业神话和大学推动的学历主义。
+
+---
+
+## Handling Mixed Types / 处理混合类型
+
+Many real-world assumptions are **hybrids**. When you encounter one:
+
+1. **Identify the primary type** — which type best describes the core mechanism?
+2. **Note the secondary type** — what additional dynamics are at play?
+3. **Apply the primary challenge strategy first**, then supplement with secondary
+
+**Examples of Mixed Types / 混合类型示例:**
+
+| Assumption | Primary | Secondary | Why |
+|-----------|---------|-----------|-----|
+| "现在是创业的好时机" | 🟡 Convention | ⚫ Interest-driven | The "good timing" narrative is a convention, but startup media amplifies it for clicks and funding |
+| "A college degree pays for itself" | 🟡 Convention | ⚫ Interest-driven | Was true statistically, but universities have incentive to promote it regardless |
+| "房价只涨不跌" | 🔴 Belief | 🟡 Convention | Personal experience from a specific era, reinforced by industry-wide convention |
+| "Remote workers are less productive" | 🔴 Belief | 🟡 Convention | Manager's personal bias, reinforced by traditional management convention |
+
+---
+
+## Edge Cases / 边界案例指南
+
+### Statistical Trends vs Facts
+"Men are taller than women on average" — This is a **statistical fact** (measurable, repeatable), but applying it to any individual is a **subjective belief**. Classify the assumption based on how the user is using it.
+
+### Outdated Facts
+"Pluto is a planet" — Was a physical fact, reclassified. If someone's assumption is based on an outdated fact, treat it as a **convention** that hasn't been updated.
+
+### Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
+"The stock market will crash" — If enough people believe this, they sell, and it crashes. Classify as **interest-driven** if the source benefits from the prediction, or **subjective belief** if it's the user's personal anxiety.
+
+### Cultural Norms
+"你应该30岁之前结婚" — This is a **convention** (culturally specific, has a historical basis), with potential **interest-driven** elements (family pressure, wedding industry).
+
+---
+
+## Quick Reference Card / 快速参考卡
+
+```
+🔵 PHYSICAL FACT     → Can you find ANY counterexample? → No  → Accept it
+🟡 HISTORICAL CONV.  → When did this rule form?         → Check if context changed
+🔴 SUBJECTIVE BELIEF → Who told you this?               → Seek counter-evidence
+⚫ INTEREST-DRIVEN   → Who profits from this?           → Follow the money
+```
+
+```
+🔵 物理事实  → 能找到反例吗？       → 不能 → 接受
+🟡 历史惯例  → 这个规则什么时候形成的？ → 检查环境是否已变
+🔴 主观信念  → 谁告诉你的？          → 寻找反面证据
+⚫ 利益驱动  → 谁因此获利？          → 追踪利益链
+```