Fact-Definition-Quality-Policy Matrix¶
Classification matrix — instantiates Dispute-Question Alignment
A fixed grid whose columns are the stasis question types; sorting each claim into a cell both labels it and dictates what a valid answer must look like.
The Fact-Definition-Quality-Policy Matrix is the taxonomy made into a physical object. Where a workshop argues about which question type a claim raises, the matrix pre-commits the question types as columns — conjecture (did it happen?), definition (what is it?), quality/justification (was it right?), policy (what should we do?), and usually jurisdiction (whose call is it?) — and then does exactly one thing with each claim: drop it in a column. That single act carries two payloads at once. The column a claim lands in is its stasis label, and each column has a header that specifies the form a valid answer must take: the fact column admits only evidence about occurrence, the definition column only criteria-and-application arguments, the quality column only appeals to standards and warrants, the policy column only proposals with costs. The matrix's whole discipline is that a cell dictates the answer form. An argument that arrives in the definition column carrying factual screenshots is visibly in the wrong cell.
Example¶
An HR team is untangling a complaint that a manager "retaliated" against an employee. Written up as one word, it is unarguable. Run through the matrix, it splits across columns. Fact: the employee's project was reassigned two days after they filed a grievance — did that reassignment occur, and when? Definition: does "reassignment after a protected complaint" meet the policy's definition of retaliation, which requires an adverse action plus causal link? Quality/justification: even if it technically qualifies, was the reassignment defensible on independent operational grounds? Policy: what remedy or discipline follows?
Sorting the complaint reveals that the parties have been fighting entirely in the definition column while trading fact-column evidence. The manager keeps proving the reassignment was operationally sound (a quality/justification answer); the employee keeps proving the timing (a fact answer); neither is answering the definitional question of whether the conduct meets the retaliation standard. The header of the definition column — "answer with the policy's criteria applied to the established facts" — tells everyone what a valid move here actually looks like, and that the argument cannot resolve until someone makes it. No cell has been decided; the matrix has just shown which cell the fight is stuck in and what would count as progress there.
How it works¶
- Fix the columns first. The question types are set before any claim is examined, so classification is a placement decision, not an open-ended debate.
- Place, don't paraphrase. Each claim is dropped into exactly one primary column; a claim that seems to want two columns is a signal it hasn't been decomposed enough and gets split.
- Read the answer form off the header. Each column carries a rule for what counts as a valid answer within it; placement therefore instantly constrains the admissible response.
- Flag wrong-cell moves. Evidence or argument that belongs to a different column than the claim it's aimed at is marked as mis-filed — the matrix's built-in detector for category substitution.
Tuning parameters¶
- Column count — the minimal four/five classical types versus a domain-extended set. More columns fit hybrid disputes but raise the odds a claim could plausibly sit in several, weakening the label.
- Placement strictness — one primary column per claim versus allowing a claim to span cells. Strict single-placement forces clarifying decomposition but can distort genuinely hybrid claims.
- Answer-form specificity — how detailed each column header's "valid answer" rule is. Tighter rules catch more mis-filed arguments but can prematurely narrow what counts as relevant.
- Extension visibility — whether domain-added columns are marked as local additions. Hiding them makes the grid look canonical when it isn't; showing them keeps the taxonomy honestly contestable.
When it helps, and when it misleads¶
Its strength is that it makes category confusion spatial and therefore obvious: an argument in the wrong column is something you can point at. It is the cheapest way to expose that a value fight is being waged with facts, because the columns physically separate the two. It also travels — the same grid works across HR, product, and policy.
Its failure mode is the tyranny of the columns. A fixed taxonomy can flatten a hybrid or culturally specific question by forcing it into the nearest cell, committing a category mistake in reverse — treating as one type of question something that genuinely straddles several.[n1] The classic misuse is smuggling: a party quietly re-files a losing claim into a column where their evidence happens to be strong, winning a definitional fight with fact-column ammunition. The guarding discipline is to treat every placement as provisional and challengeable, to keep any domain-extended columns visibly marked as local additions rather than natural law, and to let a genuinely hybrid claim be split rather than crammed.
How it implements the components¶
The matrix is the archetype's taxonomy-and-form instrument:
stasis_question_taxonomy— the columns are the taxonomy, made concrete and reusable as a fixed grid.current_stasis_label— the column a claim lands in is its label; placement and labeling are the same act.answer_form_constraint— each column header specifies the form a valid answer must take, so a claim's cell dictates its admissible response.
It does not gather the claims it sorts (see Point-at-Issue Intake Form), bind evidence standards and thresholds to each type (Burden and Standard Alignment Table), or catch cross-question exchanges as they unfold in live argument (Cross-Stasis Dialogue Protocol).
Related¶
- Instantiates: Dispute-Question Alignment — the matrix is the taxonomy made into a working artifact that labels claims and constrains answers.
- Consumes: Point-at-Issue Intake Form — supplies the decomposed claim set the matrix sorts.
- Sibling mechanisms: Stasis Mapping Workshop · Point-at-Issue Intake Form · Cross-Stasis Dialogue Protocol · Burden and Standard Alignment Table · Jurisdictional Stasis Routing Check · Stasis Review Memo · Formal Decidability Probe
Editorial Notes¶
Form Classification¶
Form family: Rule, Policy & Commitment
Rationale: Fact-Definition-Quality-Policy Matrix operates as a standing rule, threshold, contractual commitment, or policy constraint governing future conduct because it a fixed grid whose columns are the stasis question types; sorting each claim into a cell both labels it and dictates what a valid answer must look like.
Independent corroboration: The frozen evidence defines Fact-Definition-Quality-Policy Matrix as 'A fixed grid whose columns are the stasis question types; sorting each claim into a cell both labels it and dictates what a valid answer must look like', so its operative form is Rule, Policy & Commitment.
Nearest alternative: Representation, Specification & Plan — Although embodied as a grid, column placement imposes standing admissible-answer rules rather than merely displaying a classification.
Review outcome: Independent reviewer agreement; medium confidence.
Origin Attribution¶
Primary origin: Rhetoric
Origin pattern: Single lineage
Present-day reach: Multi-domain
Rationale: Fact, definition, quality, and policy are canonical stases in rhetorical issue classification.
Related originating lineages:
- Law & Governance — Forensic argument and issue framing materially institutionalized stasis distinctions in adjudication.
Encyclopedia synthesis: The exact catalogued form synthesizes established practice rather than reproducing a single standard historical label.
Review outcome: Independent reviewer agreement; high confidence.
Notes¶
[n1] A category mistake, in Gilbert Ryle's sense, is ascribing to a thing a property that belongs to a different logical category — asking of a value question the kind of answer only a factual question can take. The matrix's columns are an attempt to make category boundaries visible; its risk is drawing them too rigidly and committing the mistake in the act of preventing it. ↩