--
name: analyze_psychological_facts
title: Analyze Facts Through Psychological Theories
desc: Analyze a list of observed facts or behaviors through selected psychological theories to uncover underlying reasons, detect anomalies, and surface conflicting evidence.
params:
  subject:
    type: string
    desc: The broad subject or context the facts relate to
    def: "workplace motivation"
  facts:
    type: list
    desc: Observed facts, behaviors, or phenomena to analyze
    etype: object
    ofields:
      description:
        type: long_string
        desc: A description of the observed fact or behavior
        def: "Employees who received a bonus worked fewer hours the following week."
      source:
        type: string
        desc: Where the observation comes from (study, personal observation, article, etc.)
        def: "personal observation"
      confidence:
        type: option_single
        desc: How confident the observer is in this fact
        opts:
          - "low"
          - "medium"
          - "high"
        def: "medium"
    def:
      - { description: "Employees who received a bonus worked fewer hours the following week.", source: "personal observation", confidence: "medium" }
      - { description: "Team members with the highest autonomy reported the lowest stress levels but also the lowest output.", source: "internal survey", confidence: "high" }
  theories:
    type: list
    desc: Psychological theories to use as analytical lenses
    etype: object
    ofields:
      name:
        type: string
        desc: Theory name
        def: "Self-Determination Theory"
      summary:
        type: long_string
        desc: A brief summary of the theory's core claims
        def: "Intrinsic motivation is driven by autonomy, competence, and relatedness."
    def:
      - { name: "Self-Determination Theory", summary: "Intrinsic motivation is driven by autonomy, competence, and relatedness." }
      - { name: "Overjustification Effect", summary: "Extrinsic rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation for an already enjoyable activity." }
  analysis_depth:
    type: option_single
    desc: How deep the analysis should go
    opts:
      - "summary"
      - "detailed"
      - "exhaustive"
    def: "detailed"
  detect_anomalies:
    type: boolean
    desc: Whether to explicitly flag anomalies and contradictions
    def: true
  include_theoretical_gaps:
    type: boolean
    desc: Whether to identify facts that none of the provided theories explain
    def: true
  include_alternative_interpretations:
    type: boolean
    desc: Whether to propose alternative psychological interpretations for each fact
    def: true
  audience:
    type: option_single
    desc: Who the analysis is written for
    opts:
      - "general"
      - "academic"
      - "practitioner"
    def: "practitioner"
--
Analyze the following observed facts about "[[[SUBJECT]]]" through the lens of the provided psychological theories.

Observed facts:
{{{for FACT in FACTS}}}
- [[[FACT.DESCRIPTION]]] (source: [[[FACT.SOURCE]]], confidence: [[[FACT.CONFIDENCE]]])
{{{end for}}}

Psychological theories to apply as analytical lenses:
{{{for THEORY in THEORIES}}}
- [[[THEORY.NAME]]]: [[[THEORY.SUMMARY]]]
{{{end for}}}

Analysis depth: [[[ANALYSIS_DEPTH]]].
Audience: [[[AUDIENCE]]].

Structure the analysis as follows:

1. **Theory summary** — for each provided theory, restate its core claims in 1-2 sentences and note which type of phenomena it best explains.

2. **Fact-by-fact analysis** — for each observed fact:
   - Quote the fact.
   - For each provided theory, explain whether the theory **accounts for** the fact, **partially accounts for** it, or **fails to account for** it. Justify in 2-3 sentences.
   - Rate the overall theoretical fit for this fact as "strong", "partial", or "weak".

   {{{if INCLUDE_ALTERNATIVE_INTERPRETATIONS}}}
   - **Alternative interpretation** — propose at least one alternative psychological explanation not covered by the provided theories (name the mechanism and explain in 1-2 sentences).
   {{{end if}}}

3. **Cross-fact synthesis** — group facts that share a common theoretical explanation and identify recurring patterns across the dataset. Highlight any fact that behaves differently from the rest.

{{{if DETECT_ANOMALIES}}}
4. **Anomalies and contradictions** — explicitly flag:
   - Facts that **contradict** a theory's predictions (explain the contradiction).
   - Facts that **contradict each other** (explain the tension and possible reasons).
   - Facts where the confidence is "low" and the observation might be unreliable.
   For each anomaly, suggest a follow-up question or experiment that could clarify it.
{{{end if}}}

{{{if INCLUDE_THEORETICAL_GAPS}}}
5. **Theoretical gaps** — list any facts that none of the provided theories adequately explain. For each:
   - The unexplained fact.
   - What additional theory or framework might account for it.
   - Why the existing theories fall short.
{{{end if}}}

6. **Conclusion** — summarize the overall picture: which theory best explains the majority of the facts, where the biggest gaps are, and 2-3 recommendations for further investigation.

{{{if AUDIENCE = "academic"}}}
Use formal academic language and cite relevant theoretical constructs by name.
{{{end if}}}
{{{if AUDIENCE = "practitioner"}}}
Write for a practitioner: ground each insight in an actionable implication.
{{{end if}}}
{{{if AUDIENCE = "general"}}}
Use plain language and avoid jargon; define any technical term the first time it appears.
{{{end if}}}
--