Counterfactual Sensitivity Matrix¶
Template — instantiates Contingency-Visibility Across Scales
Scores a set of alternative branches on fixed dimensions — plausibility, evidence support, scale-boundedness, and outcome-relevance — to separate the load-bearing counterfactuals from the merely vivid ones.
A Counterfactual Sensitivity Matrix is a scoring grid that takes a set of already-identified alternative branches and rates each along fixed dimensions: how plausible it is, how well the evidence supports it, at what scale it holds, and how much it would actually have changed the outcome. Its defining move is comparative rating rather than reconstruction or elimination — it does not fix one actor's menu and does not throw branches away; it lays many branches side by side and exposes which are load-bearing (plausible, supported, scale-appropriate, outcome-moving) versus decorative. Its output is a ranked, dimensioned view of the counterfactual space, not a verdict.
Example¶
A founding team runs a post-mortem on a company that shut down after two years, and lists the branches everyone keeps raising: "if we'd raised the Series A in Q1 instead of Q3," "if we'd hired a senior salesperson early," "if the co-founder hadn't left," "if we'd sold to enterprise instead of SMB," "if the incumbent hadn't cut prices." The matrix scores each on four columns. Plausibility: how small a departure it was — raising in Q1 is highly plausible; the incumbent not cutting prices was outside the team's control, so low agency. Evidence: what in the record supports the branch mattering — the sales-hire branch is backed by a documented stalled pipeline. Scale: the level at which the alternative was even real — the pricing branch is a market-scale force, not a founder choice. Outcome-relevance: how much the branch would have moved the failure — the co-founder departure scores high, the Q1-versus-Q3 raise scores low because runway was not the binding constraint.
The filled grid tells the team something the debate never would: their favorite regret — the timing of the raise — was low-relevance, while the sales-hire branch was the high-plausibility, high-relevance one worth actually learning from. A branch's profile across the columns, not any single cell, is what the matrix makes legible.
How it works¶
Branches go on the rows; fixed rating columns — plausibility, evidence support, scale-boundedness, outcome-relevance — go across the top; each cell gets a graded score with a one-line justification. The template's discipline is that a branch can be high on one column and low on another (highly plausible yet outcome-irrelevant), and the matrix keeps that combination visible rather than collapsing it. It rates branches; it does not prune them, and it does not reconstruct any one actor's decision situation — those are separate jobs done by separate mechanisms.
Tuning parameters¶
- Rating dimensions — which columns you include and how you weight them. Adding "reversibility" or "cost" changes what ranks high.
- Scale bands — how many scale levels a branch can be assigned. Coarse (micro/macro) is fast; fine (individual/team/market/era) locates each branch precisely.
- Cell-justification depth — a bare score versus a sourced one-liner per cell. Deeper is auditable; shallower is fast but gameable.
- Column aggregation — whether column scores combine into a single rank or stay as a profile. Combining is decisive but hides trade-offs.
When it helps, and when it misleads¶
Its strength is that it separates emotionally salient branches from causally important ones, and it forces every branch to declare the scale at which it was even available — killing the argument that jumps between scales unnoticed.
Its failure mode is false precision: assigning "high / medium / low" to inherently uncertain counterfactuals can manufacture confidence, and columns can be weighted after the fact to make a preferred branch win. The classic misuse is scoring the branch you already believe in generously and calling the number objective. The guard is to treat Weber's objective possibility as the standard behind the plausibility column — a branch is possible only to the degree the known conditions genuinely admitted it[1] — and to keep each cell's justification visible so a reader can re-score it.
How it implements the components¶
contingency_marker_set— the matrix's rows are the evidence-backed alternative branches, organized for side-by-side rating.alternate_scale_lens_review— the scale column forces each branch to be re-examined for the level at which it was actually available, performing the scale-lens review branch by branch.
It does NOT reconstruct one actor's binding options at a decision moment — that is micro_event_trace, structural_constraint_map, and actor_structure_balance_note, owned by Actor-Constraint Map, its nearest twin: the Map fixes one actor's real menu, the Matrix scores many branches across scales. It also does not eliminate branches — that is counterfactual_branch_filter, owned by Branch-Pruning Protocol.
Related¶
- Instantiates: Contingency-Visibility Across Scales — the matrix grades which counterfactuals the account should take seriously.
- Consumes: Hinge-Point Timeline supplies the branches to rate.
- Sibling mechanisms: Actor-Constraint Map · Branch-Pruning Protocol · Hinge-Point Timeline · Aggregate Trend Overlay · Nested Scale Timeline · Paired Micro/Macro Case Study · Interpretive Weighting Memo · Scale-Shift Review Prompt · Source Resolution Table
Editorial Notes¶
Form Classification¶
Form family: Analysis, Modeling & Optimization
Rationale: The matrix scores alternative branches on fixed plausibility, evidence, scale, and outcome-relevance dimensions while preserving their multidimensional profile, so its operative form is sensitivity analysis.
Nearest alternative: Representation, Specification & Plan — The grid externalizes scores, but comparative rating rather than the template alone identifies load-bearing branches.
Review outcome: Adjudicated after independent review; high confidence.
Origin Attribution¶
Primary origin: Futurism & Strategic Foresight
Origin pattern: Cross-disciplinary synthesis
Present-day reach: Multi-domain
Rationale: Scenario analysis cohered structured comparison of alternative branches by plausibility, evidence, scale, and consequence.
Related originating lineages:
- History & Historiography — Counterfactual history supplies objective-possibility, evidential, and scale-bounded plausibility tests.
- Operations Research — Multi-criteria decision analysis supplies fixed-dimension scoring and comparison across alternatives.
- Statistics & Experimental Design — Sensitivity analysis supplies systematic variation and identification of outcome-moving assumptions.
Review resolution: A matrix for comparing many future branches is most directly a foresight artifact. Historiographic plausibility, operations-research scoring, and statistical sensitivity are each formative to the fixed-dimension grid; the encyclopedia template synthesizes them.
Encyclopedia synthesis: The exact catalogued form synthesizes established practice rather than reproducing a single standard historical label.
Review outcome: Researched adjudication after independent review; high confidence.
Sources consulted:
- OECD Strategic Foresight Toolkit for Resilient Public Policy
- MIT OpenCourseWare: Sensitivity analysis
- American Historical Association: Counterfactual History
References¶
[1] Weber, M. The Methodology of the Social Sciences. Translated and edited by E. A. Shils and H. A. Finch. The Free Press (1949). Treats objective possibility as a reality-disciplined judgment of whether known conditions genuinely admit a counterfactual course. registry ↩