Problem-Solving and Critical Path Reasoning (PSCPR)

1) Observation (Known Knowns — Type 1 Expert)

Questions: “What is given? What do I know? What did I know before?”
Givens: Measurements, observations, quantities, data, or explicitly stated conditions
Knowns: Concepts, theories, principles, relationships, or frameworks
Visuals: Graphs, charts, diagrams. Sketch out thoughts and ideas

2) Analysis (Known Unknowns — Type 1 Expert)

Questions: “What am I trying to find? What do I know I don’t know? What do I need to know?”
Objectives: Identify desired values, parameters, relations, or outcomes
Unknowns: Consider quantities, parameters, or relationships required to obtain objectives

3) Inference (Unknown Knowns — Type 2 Expert)

Questions: “What am I missing? What do I not know that I know? Has the problem been sufficiently reduced? Do I know/have enough to determine what needs to be known? What am I not acknowledging? What can be deduced?”
Alternatives: Consider multiple perspectives, challenge hidden assumptions, acknowledge implicit or overlooked knowledge (revisit Step 1).
Complexities: Reduce degrees of freedom, simplify the problem wherever possible (but no further).
Subtleties: Recognize possible equations, relations, or quantities that aren’t explicitly given yet are implicitly known and could be leveraged to solve the problem.

4) Exploration (Unknown Unknowns — Type 3 Expert)

Questions: “Does this make sense? What do I not know that I do not know? What am I unaware of or not perceiving? What haven’t I considered? What must be induced?”
Curiosities: Explore original ideas, embrace uncertainties. Perform tests and experiments, run simulations, gather observations.
- You don’t (won’t) know until you look.
- “The cave you fear to enter holds the treasure you seek.” — Joseph Campbell
Answers: Perform sanity checks, redundancy checks, and consistency checks.
- Dimensional analysis
Reflections: Recalculate, reformulate, or revise approach as necessary.
Refinements: Iteratively adjust methodologies, hypotheses, and solutions.

How to Use the PSCPR Guide Sheet

1. Observation — Establish Claim, Null, and Assumptions

In the Claim line, write the statement under test (the proposed explanation or hypothesis).
In the Null line, write the “business-as-usual” alternative that holds if (P) is not true.
In Assumptions, list the key conditions, constants, knowns, givens, or context considered.

2. Analysis — Define Necessary Observables

Under “If (P) is true…”, record one or more Necessary Observables (Questions) that must hold if the Claim stands.
Under “If (N) is true…”, record one or more Necessary Observables (Questions) that must hold if the Null stands.
A Necessary Observable is a condition whose clear failure would directly undermine that position, turning each position into testable expectations.

3. Inference — Organize evidence and candidate stories

List concrete facts known to be true in this specific case (measurements, observations, calculations, documented events).
For each fact, mark whether it falsifies the Claim, the Null, both, or neither, based on the Necessary Observables.
List relevant patterns (how similar systems usually behave, base-rates, historical tendencies).
For each pattern, mark whether it rejects or weakens the Claim, the Null, both, or neither.
In the first story line, describe the behavior if the Claim were true (Claim story).
In the second story line, describe the behavior if the Null were true (Null story).
Indicate which story currently fits the recorded Facts and Patterns with the fewest added assumptions (Claim story, Null story, tie, or neither).
Stories in this section function as candidate models; Facts and Patterns determine which models remain viable.

4. Exploration — Apply falsification and test outcome

Answer the falsification prompts to indicate whether any Fact or Pattern clearly contradicts a Necessary Observable for the Claim or for the Null.
Identify the Outcome and select an appropriate Claim Status.

5. Hypothesis

Write a brief statement summarizing the current position. Before writing the hypothesis, pause and ask:

Does it follow from the facts ((D)), patterns ((I)), and the questions (Q_P / Q_N)? Was anything ignored that clearly hits (P) or (N)?
Is there a reasonable rival story that still explains (D + I) almost as well (and should that become a new (P) or (N) next round)?
Is anything in (A) really an untested claim that needs its own (P/N) check?
And what single new observation or test would most change my rating for (P)?

PSCPR Guide Sheet (fillable)

Test a claim against a null using facts (deduction), patterns (induction), and stories (abduction).

Observation

Claim (P) (paradigm):
…
Null (N) (status quo, business-as-usual):
…
Assumptions (A) (context/givens):
…

Analysis

If (P) is true, then the following are Necessary Observables of (P) (Questions):

(Q_{P1}): …
(Q_{P2}): …

If (N) is true, then the following are Necessary Observables of (N) (Questions):

(Q_{N1}): …
(Q_{N2}): …

Hypothesis

State your working hypothesis below, and check: does it follow from your facts ((D)), patterns ((I)), and necessary questions ((Q_P/Q_N))? Is there a live rival story left? What one test would most change your rating for (P)?

…

Example: “Given ([A]) and based on the current facts ([D]) and patterns ([I]), ([P/N]) is the best description, so [retain (N) / provisionally accept (P) / accept (P) and reject (N) / stay undecided].”

Printable layout (original sheet)

If you want the exact printable formatting, embed the original sheet image (or link the PDF download above).

References

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Elements of Hypothesis”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 4 Mar 2019; Web: https://wp.me/p17q0e-94J
The Ethical Skeptic, “The Three Types of Expert”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 28 Nov 2021; Web: https://theethicalskeptic.com/?p=57222