Problem decomposition
Seeded from the Artemisinin Resistance concept page using the STANDARD explanation layer.
Problem statement
Why does Artemisinin Resistance work the way Cathedral currently explains it? Build a recursive why-chain that separates mechanisms, evidence, unresolved assumptions, and concrete research tasks.
Claim flow
4 claims
Claim 1
root
Define the phenomenon
Claim 2
1 deps
Separate assumptions from evidence
Claim 3
1 deps
Find the bottleneck
Claim 4
1 deps
Test the strongest rival explanation
Gather small, timestamped observations using a shared template. Prioritize clean metadata over interpretation.
Current knowledge
Why does Artemisinin Resistance work the way Cathedral currently explains it? Build a recursive why-chain that separates mechanisms, evidence, unresolved assumptions, and concrete research tasks.
Separate claims, assumptions, measurements, and missing evidence. Link every claim to at least one source or counterexample.
Current knowledge
Why does Artemisinin Resistance work the way Cathedral currently explains it? Build a recursive why-chain that separates mechanisms, evidence, unresolved assumptions, and concrete research tasks.
Create one falsifiable model of the bottleneck. State what observation would break it.
Current knowledge
Why does Artemisinin Resistance work the way Cathedral currently explains it? Build a recursive why-chain that separates mechanisms, evidence, unresolved assumptions, and concrete research tasks.
Define the smallest ethical test that distinguishes the top competing explanations.
Current knowledge
Why does Artemisinin Resistance work the way Cathedral currently explains it? Build a recursive why-chain that separates mechanisms, evidence, unresolved assumptions, and concrete research tasks.