VKE Decision Workflow#

Overview#

Use this skill to turn an ambiguous knowledge request into a traceable decision package. The workflow is evidence-led: separate facts, judgments, and assumptions; bind every core judgment to evidence IDs and confidence; use red-team review before producing the final business report.

The standard artifact sequence is:

1. 00_request.md - original request
2. 01_problem-brief.md - decision framing
3. 02_research-plan.md - resource and evidence plan
4. 03_evidence-ledger.csv - evidence table
5. 04_analysis-notes.md - reasoning notes
6. 05_red-team-review.md - adversarial review
7. 06_knowledge-product.md - decision product or commercial report
8. 07_watchlist.md - monitoring indicators
9. 08_retrospective.md - process review

Read references/artifact-templates.md when creating or rewriting any artifact.

Operating Rules#

• Do not change source case files unless the user asks to update them.
• Preserve user-provided evidence boundaries. If the user says not to add external facts, only use the supplied ledger, notes, and files.
• Treat evidence relevance and reliability separately. A reliable source with low relevance cannot support a strong conclusion.
• Keep the decision question visible. Every artifact should serve the user's decision, not become general research.
• Distinguish facts, judgments, and assumptions:
  • Fact: what a source or evidence record says.
  • Judgment: what those facts imply for the decision.
  • Assumption: a necessary but not yet proven condition.
• Attach confidence to each core judgment, not only to the whole report.
• Prefer conservative wording when evidence is indirect, adjacent, or low relevance.
• Red-team before finalizing the knowledge product.

Workflow#

1. Frame the Problem#

Create or update 01_problem-brief.md.

Capture:

• core decision question
• decision use
• known facts
• key uncertainties
• scope boundaries
• success criteria
• deadline or time horizon

Convert vague interest into a decision form such as: "Should we invest, enter, pause, continue observing, or run a limited validation?"

2. Plan Research and Resources#

Create or update 02_research-plan.md.

Specify:

• hypotheses to verify
• evidence types and priority
• expert/resource needs
• institution or center-of-excellence types
• databases and public sources
• tools and search paths
• validation priorities
• likely source bias

Use resource planning to avoid over-collecting background information.

3. Build the Evidence Ledger#

Create or update 03_evidence-ledger.csv.

Use stable evidence IDs such as EVD-001. Required fields:

csv

evidence_id,case_id,claim_supported,evidence_summary,source_id,source_name,source_date,collection_date,evidence_type,reliability,relevance,confidence_effect,notes

For each row, state what the evidence can support and what it cannot support. Mark reliability and relevance independently as 高, 中, or 低.

4. Write Analysis Notes#

Create or update 04_analysis-notes.md.

Structure each major claim as:

• judgment
• evidence used
• reasoning chain
• alternative explanation
• confidence
• remaining verification

Use the pattern:

text

Evidence -> intermediate inference -> alternative explanation filter -> decision judgment -> confidence

Do not let evidence volume substitute for evidence quality.

5. Red-Team the Judgment#

Create or update 05_red-team-review.md.

Actively challenge the preferred conclusion:

• Is the main judgment sufficiently supported?
• Is there selective evidence?
• Are negative or ambiguous signals ignored?
• Are stronger alternative explanations available?
• Which assumption is most fragile?
• Should confidence be lowered?
• What evidence would improve judgment quality?

Lead with the strongest objections, not the conclusion.

6. Produce the Knowledge Product#

Create or update 06_knowledge-product.md.

For business decisions, use a commercial report structure:

1. Core conclusion and executive summary
2. Evidence chain and confidence
3. Analysis and counter-arguments
4. Business boundaries and impact assessment
5. Action plan and dynamic triggers

Requirements:

• Start with a one-sentence conclusion.
• Separate core facts, judgments, and assumptions.
• Cite evidence IDs in facts, evidence tables, reasoning, and counter-arguments.
• Mark confidence for each core judgment.
• Include uncertainty, alternative explanations, action matrix, and monitoring indicators.
• Avoid adding facts outside the approved evidence set.

7. Create a Watchlist#

Create or update 07_watchlist.md.

Translate the report into monitorable indicators:

• indicator
• why it matters
• source
• frequency
• trigger condition
• action after trigger
• status

Make watchlist items capable of raising, lowering, or redirecting the decision.

8. Write the Retrospective#

Create or update 08_retrospective.md.

Capture:

• whether the original question was answered
• most valuable sources
• noisy or misleading sources
• reusable analysis methods
• assumptions needing verification
• how to go faster next time
• resources to add to the pool
• templates to preserve

Confidence Rubric#

• 高: direct, reliable, relevant, and corroborated evidence; few plausible counter-explanations.
• 中: useful evidence exists, but some pieces are indirect, adjacent, or not independently verified.
• 低: evidence is sparse, indirect, or dependent on unverified assumptions.
• 低到中: enough evidence for cautious action or limited validation, not enough for full commitment.

Output Style#

• Use Chinese when the case artifacts are Chinese unless the user requests otherwise.
• Keep executive summaries short and decision-oriented.
• Use tables for ledgers, evidence summaries, action matrices, and triggers.
• Preserve evidence IDs exactly across artifacts.
• Prefer "current evidence supports..." over categorical claims when confidence is not high.