Check Tenet Alignment

Verify that all site content aligns with the foundational tenets and does not contradict them.

When to Use

• Monthly alignment verification
• After adding major new content
• When /check-tenets is invoked
• Before publishing draft content

The Five Tenets

Read obsidian/tenets/tenets.md to get the current tenets. As of last update:

1. Dualism

Rules out: Eliminative materialism, reductive physicalism, any view treating consciousness as purely epiphenomenal or illusory.

2. Minimal Quantum Interaction

Rules out: Quantum woo/mysticism, uncontrolled psychokinesis, energy injection by mind, empirically detectable mind-matter interactions.

3. Bidirectional Interaction

Rules out: Pure epiphenomenalism, parallelism without interaction, views where consciousness is "along for the ride."

4. No Many Worlds

Rules out: Many-worlds interpretation (MWI), treating all quantum branches as equally real, dismissing indexical identity as meaningless.

5. Occam's Razor Has Limits

Rules out: Using parsimony as a decisive argument against dualism, treating Occam's Razor as more than a defeasible heuristic.

Instructions

1. Read Current Tenets

Always read obsidian/tenets/tenets.md first to get the latest tenet definitions and "Rules out" sections.

2. Scan All Content

For each markdown file in:

• obsidian/topics/
• obsidian/concepts/
• obsidian/positions/

Analyze the content for potential conflicts:

Check for Direct Contradictions

• Does the content explicitly endorse eliminative materialism?
• Does it claim consciousness is an illusion?
• Does it endorse quantum mysticism or "quantum woo"?
• Does it treat consciousness as epiphenomenal?
• Does it endorse many-worlds interpretation?
• Does it use Occam's Razor to dismiss dualism?

Check for Implicit Conflicts

• Does the content assume physicalism without acknowledgment?
• Does it dismiss non-physical explanations without argument?
• Does it treat all philosophical positions as equally valid when tenets take a stance?

Check for Over-reach

Conformity is not the only failure: the 2026-06-19b run passed concepts/galilean-exclusion as CLEAN because it conformed to the tenets, while its actual defect was over-reach — a categorical "it is expected" with no discriminator, and anti-dualist sources recruited as witnesses. Flag:

• A tenet-alignment paragraph (typically "Relation to Site Perspective") that states a datum as expected, predicted or supporting a tenet without naming the rival views that predict it equally. Grade the claim on the ladder in obsidian/project/evidential-status-discipline.md §"Compatibility vs. Support at the Rival-Model Interface": compatible (the rivals predict it equally — the paragraph may claim no more), suggestive (the Map's reading fits better and the paragraph says why), discriminating (the paragraph names a feature only the Map's reading entails). The test is the independent-discriminator requirement — anything above compatible with no discriminator named is over-reach. Necessity claims about method or history ("structurally inevitable", "built into", "cannot in principle") carry the same burden as empirical claims; do not exempt them as "history".
• An author on any roster line of obsidian/project/writing-style.md §"Don't Conscript Committed Physicalists (the Co-optation Firewall)" — including the phenomenological / process line (Husserl, Whitehead, Varela, Thompson, Frank, Gleiser, Goff) — cited in a tenet paragraph without a one-line statement of the author's actual opposing stance.

3. Classify Issues

For each potential conflict, classify severity:

• ERROR: Direct contradiction of a tenet (e.g., "consciousness is just neurons firing")
• WARNING: Implicit assumption that conflicts (e.g., assumes physicalism without stating it)
• NOTE: Tension that might need clarification (e.g., discusses a position without noting tenet conflict)
• Over-reach findings are always WARNING, never ERROR: the page conforms to the tenets, so the first runs of this lens are a survey rather than a fault list. Quote the sentence and state the ladder rung (compatible / suggestive / discriminating) it actually earns.

4. Generate Report

Create a report at obsidian/reviews/tenet-check-YYYY-MM-DD.md:

---
title: Tenet Alignment Check - YYYY-MM-DD
created: YYYY-MM-DD
draft: false
ai_contribution: 100
ai_system: [current model]
---

# Tenet Alignment Check

**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Files checked**: N
**Errors**: N
**Warnings**: N
**Notes**: N

## Summary

[Brief summary of findings]

## Errors

### [filename.md]
- **Tenet violated**: [which tenet]
- **Issue**: [description]
- **Quote**: "[relevant quote from content]"
- **Recommendation**: [how to fix]

## Warnings

[Similar format]

## Notes

[Similar format]

## Files Passing All Checks

- file1.md
- file2.md

5. Log to Changelog

Prepend entry to obsidian/workflow/changelog.md (add immediately after frontmatter, before existing entries):

## [current time from prompt] - check-tenets
- **Status**: Success/Warnings
- **Files checked**: [count]
- **Errors**: [count]
- **Warnings**: [count]
- **Output**: [[filepath without .md extension]]

Important

• This skill is READ-ONLY for content files
• Only creates report files and updates changelog
• Does NOT modify content - only reports for human review
• Human must decide how to address conflicts
• Some content may intentionally present opposing views for discussion - flag but don't treat as errors if clearly marked as such