analogy
Enable an AI agent to recognise an analogy, inspect the correspondences and transfers it proposes, judge their adequacy for a stated purpose, and decide whether to use, qualify, revise or reject it.
Research draft, second pass
A second pass drafted this model: the structure a model of this thing needs, and what is known about it in the world. The line under this one says how the second half was obtained - researched against sources, or recalled without web access, in which case nothing here was read anywhere and every claim is a lead to verify. Unreviewed either way.
Researched by: Codex
Purpose and description
Enable an AI agent to recognise an analogy, inspect the correspondences and transfers it proposes, judge their adequacy for a stated purpose, and decide whether to use, qualify, revise or reject it.
It can be Construct and inspect an explicit source-target mapping; Generate target hypotheses while retaining their analogical origin; Challenge proposed transfers using relevant disanalogies and target evidence; Compare alternative analogies for the same target and purpose; Revise the mapping or narrow its applicability when a transfer fails; Communicate the analogy with its intended lesson, limits and verification needs.
Distinguishing features
Two distinguishable subjects or representations can be identified, with a proposed correspondence between them; merely describing one through evocative language does not specify the mapping.
The comparison connects roles or relations relevant to a purpose, rather than relying only on shared appearance or category membership.
An agent can state what understanding or inference the correspondence is intended to support; an unexplained list of similarities is insufficient.
Any conclusion transferred to the target remains distinguishable from a conclusion independently established about it.
Differences and unmapped elements can remain without defeating the comparison; identity or complete equivalence is not required.
Scope
+ Identification of the source, target and comparison purpose
+ Correspondences between entities, roles, relations and constraints
+ Explanations, predictions or actions suggested by transferring a pattern
+ Relevant similarities, disanalogies and limits of applicability
+ Assessment, revision and communication of the analogy
- Complete descriptions of the source and target domains
- Independent evidence establishing claims about the target
- Deductive proofs and formal equivalence demonstrations
- Metaphorical expressions considered solely as linguistic or literary devices
- General similarity measures without a specified analogical mapping
- Implementation and outcomes of actions suggested by an analogy
Characteristics
- Source and target
- References to the compared subjects or representations, with their source and target roles Prevents ambiguity about which knowledge is being used to interpret which subject.
- Intended use
- Explanation, hypothesis generation, prediction, design, persuasion or another explicitly stated use; multiple values allowed The adequacy required for teaching a pattern may differ from that required for choosing an intervention.
- Mapped relational pattern
- Explicit correspondences between source and target entities, roles, relations and constraints Makes the grounds of the comparison inspectable.
- Transfer direction
- Source to target, target to source, bidirectional or unspecified A correspondence usable in one direction does not automatically justify reverse transfer.
- Proposed transfer
- Source-side pattern or claim linked to a target-side explanation, hypothesis, prediction or action proposal Separates what the analogy suggests from the similarities used to suggest it.
- Transfer assessment
- Unassessed, awaiting target evidence, supported within stated conditions, challenged or rejected; assessed separately for each transfer Avoids treating every inference from the same analogy as equally warranted.
- Critical disanalogies
- Source-target differences linked to the transfers they weaken or block Shows exactly where using the comparison may become misleading.
- Applicability conditions
- Explicit contextual, scale, temporal, causal or audience conditions; unknown conditions recorded as unknown Limits reuse to circumstances for which the mapping has been assessed.
Also called
Where this came from
wikidata · CC0 1.0
Drafted structure
Bundle to layer to finding to question, as the second pass will find it: 5 bundles · 10 layers · 10 findings · 20 questions.
Comparison frame Establishes what is being compared and what the comparison is intended to accomplish.
An analogy cannot be assessed without knowing its subjects, direction and intended use.
Source and target framing
Identifies the compared subjects at the level of detail actually used.
Identified analogues
Records the source and target representations, their boundaries and the origin of the comparison.
- What precisely are the source and target, and which aspects of each are included? definition
- Who or what introduced this comparison, and which descriptions of the source and target were used? provenance
Purpose and direction
States the intended contribution and the direction in which understanding is transferred.
Intended analogical use
Records the target question, intended audience and permitted direction of transfer.
- Which target question should this analogy help answer, and for whom? definition
- Is the comparison intended to explain, generate hypotheses, predict or guide action, and in which direction? action
Relational mapping Makes explicit how the source pattern is aligned with the target.
Shared words or appearances can obscure whether the relations needed for the intended transfer actually correspond.
Role correspondences
Aligns participants and relations by their role in the comparison.
Explicit correspondences
Records paired entities, roles and relations without assuming that matched terms have identical meanings.
- Which source entities and relations correspond to which target entities and relations? definition
- Where does a proposed pairing depend only on a shared label or appearance rather than a relevant role? boundary
Pattern coherence
Examines whether the correspondences preserve a usable connected pattern.
Preserved relational structure
Records preserved dependencies and constraints, alongside mapping conflicts and omissions.
- Which dependencies, ordering relations or constraints must survive the mapping for the intended lesson to hold? definition
- Where do correspondences conflict, merge distinct roles or leave a necessary relation unmapped? boundary
Analogical transfer Separates the mapped pattern from the claims or actions proposed for the target.
A coherent mapping does not by itself establish every conclusion that someone may draw from it.
Candidate transfers
Identifies each proposed extension from source knowledge to target understanding.
Transfer chain
Links a source-side premise through specific correspondences to a proposed target-side conclusion.
- What exact explanation, hypothesis, prediction or action is being proposed for the target? definition
- Which source premise and mapped relations produce that proposal, and what additional assumptions does it require? provenance
Target verification
Records how proposed transfers have been or could be checked in the target.
Transfer evidence status
Distinguishes analogy-generated expectations from independent observations or tests of the target.
- What target evidence supports or challenges each proposed transfer, and where can that evidence be inspected? provenance
- What target observation or test would discriminate between the proposed transfer and a plausible alternative? measurement
Disanalogies and limits Locates differences and conditions that constrain the analogy's use.
A useful analogy needs a record of where its correspondences cease to support its proposed transfers.
Consequential differences
Assesses differences by their effect on particular transfers.
Transfer-breaking disanalogies
Links differences in mechanism, agency, scale or constraints to the conclusions they undermine.
- Which source-target differences could change the outcome or invalidate the intended explanation? boundary
- For each consequential difference, which transfer must be withdrawn, qualified or tested further? action
Applicability envelope
States the circumstances in which the comparison remains usable.
Conditions and stop signals
Records conditions of use and observable signs that the analogy has been extended too far.
- Under which contexts, scales, time horizons or assumptions is the mapping intended to apply? boundary
- What change or observation should cause an agent to stop using this analogy for its stated purpose? action
Selection and communication Supports choosing, revising and presenting an analogy for a particular use.
An analogy may support a limited insight while inviting unsupported extensions, so adoption and presentation require explicit judgment.
Alternative analogies
Compares candidate source patterns against the same target question.
Comparative fit
Records what competing analogies reveal, omit or distort and the reason for selecting one.
- Which alternative source patterns address the same target question, and what relevant relations does each preserve or miss? boundary
- Should this analogy be retained, combined with a complementary analogy, narrowed or replaced for the intended use? action
Audience interpretation
Controls how the analogy's intended lesson and limitations are conveyed.
Bounded presentation
Records the source knowledge an audience needs and the unsupported transfers a presentation may invite.
- What must the audience understand about the source to follow the intended correspondences? definition
- Which qualifications or explicit non-correspondences should accompany the analogy to prevent likely misinterpretations? action
What the second pass must settle
- Should the registry include comparisons based only on attributes within analogy, or require an explicit relational correspondence?
- How should analogy overlap with metaphor, simile and example models when one expression performs several functions?
- What minimum mapping and transfer detail is required for an analogy to be recognisable when its intended use is purely explanatory?
- Which assessment methods can compare analogical adequacy across purposes without implying a universal numerical strength score?
- When a mapping is substantially revised or its source is replaced, should it remain the same analogy or become a related new instance?