Cognitive Biases · Growth Library
Separate Observed Facts From Assumed Intent
Check what happened before deciding why another person did it.
Try this
Write the observable event without motive language, mark the inferred intent as an interpretation, list other explanations that fit the known facts, check the information that is reasonably available, and ask a neutral clarifying question when another person can resolve the ambiguity.
Check-in: What did I directly observe, what intent did I infer, what else could explain it, and what information would actually distinguish those explanations?
Evidence: Practical guidance; no evidence-like claim is detected in the current source record.
Review note: The inherited article contained fabricated conflict outcomes, unsupported neurological mechanism claims, arbitrary evidence-count thresholds, fixed response delays and overbroad security, legal and interpersonal prescriptions. The effective public record separates observable facts from inferred intent and uses alternative explanations, relevant checks and neutral clarification for ordinary ambiguous situations.
An event and its motive are different kinds of information. A missed message, changed task, abrupt reply, failed system or unexpected decision can be observable; the conclusion that someone intended a particular consequence may still be an interpretation. This protocol keeps those layers separate long enough to choose the next useful check.
1. State the event without motive language
Write only what could be checked by another person: what changed, what was said, what record exists, or what action occurred. Remove words that already imply a motive unless that motive was explicitly stated.
2. Mark the inferred intent as an interpretation
Name the explanation currently in your mind, then label it as an inference rather than a confirmed fact. This does not make the explanation wrong; it makes clear which part still needs support.
3. Check plausible alternatives and available information
Consider other explanations that fit the same event, such as error, missing context, conflicting priorities, a technical failure, or a deliberate choice with a different purpose. Inspect relevant records or context when doing so is appropriate and proportionate.
4. Clarify before converting inference into accusation
When another person can resolve the ambiguity, ask about the event and missing context directly. If the situation belongs to a formal safety, security, compliance or legal process, follow that process rather than improvising an informal investigation.
Questions to consider
Does this mean I should assume good intent?
No. The protocol asks you to avoid treating an unverified motive as a fact. A benign explanation and a deliberate explanation can both remain possible until the available information separates them.
What if the situation involves a real safety, security or legal concern?
Use the appropriate policy, incident process or qualified support for that domain. Do not delay required protective action merely to complete this reflection exercise, and do not use this protocol as a substitute for formal investigation.
What is a neutral clarification?
Describe the event you can verify and ask for the missing context without embedding the accusation in the question. For example, ask what changed or who made a decision before asserting a motive you cannot yet establish.
Maintenance record
Review history
Current status: Reviewed. An editorial or evidence review is recorded and no later event changes that conclusion.
2026-09-10 · reviewed · Brali claim cleanup agent Source: protocol-content-overrides-claim-cleanup-batch-6.json
Replace fabricated conflict outcomes, unsupported neurological mechanism claims, arbitrary evidence-count thresholds, fixed response delays and overbroad high-stakes scripts with a bounded fact-versus-inference check.
Browse the review ledger · Challenge or update this hack
Implementation observations can trigger a review, but they cannot change an evidence conclusion by themselves. Commercial relationships do not control review status or outcomes.
Continue from here
Choose the next useful path.
Article versions
Brali keeps substantive article history visible. Later reviews may refresh wording, sources, examples, or boundaries without silently replacing the record.
- Version 2025-10-06: first recorded publication in the migrated Brali corpus.
- Evidence review 2026-09-10: reviewed by Brali claim cleanup agent; evidence state is
practical.
Canonical source record · Evidence state: practical.