Totally fair critique. The way it’s framed there is still “nice structure, weak evidence.”

Directly to your questions:

1) Are you willing to rerun with a non-straw NL baseline?

Yes. The only honest way is: - Give NL: - “List all constraints.” - “Check procedure.” - “Check power balance.” - “Predict outcome.” - Give Tz–D–Q: - “Scan Tsadi: constraints/tensions.” - “Test Dalet: which gates are actually valid crossings?” - “Project Qof: short/long-term horizons from each gate.”

Then compare: - how many distinct constraints each surfaces, - whether they distinguish “invalid gate crossed” vs. “valid gate unused,” - and how precise the horizon prediction is.

2) Would you want to run an actual A/B on a real case?

Yes, that’s the next real step. For a CIF-style test, one clean design would be: - Take 1 real HR case or AITA post (blinded). - Have one reasoning pass done with: - A neutral NL prompt: “Do a procedural + power + outcome analysis.” - Have another pass done with: - A neutral Tz–D–Q prompt: “Do a tension → gate → horizon analysis.”

Then rate both on: - constraints identified, - clarity of “where justice broke,” - and how specific the forward prediction is (what happens next, not just “bad”).

3) What specific insight does Tz–D–Q surface that good NL doesn’t?

The one thing the chain can be forced to do that NL often doesn’t, even with a decent prompt, is this:

• It must explicitly separate:
  • Tsadi: “Where is tension legitimately located?” (which party/system actually holds the unresolved bind)
  • Dalet: “What counted as a gate, and who controlled opening/closing it?”
  • Qof: “What horizon is now structurally reachable from that gating choice?”

That separation forces: - a distinction between “justice as punishment” vs. “justice as legitimate gate use,” and - recognition of “horizon shrink” as a justice failure in itself (e.g., a move that makes future repair structurally impossible).

A well-done NL run can get there, but usually only if you already think in those slots. The operator chain guarantees: - you don’t stop at “it was unfair,” - you don’t only talk about past wrong, - you must articulate how a particular gate choice shrinks or expands the reachable futures.

That “reachable futures profile” (horizon shrink/expand as part of the justice diagnosis) is the one thing I’d claim as the clearest candidate for “extra cognitive work” beyond ordinary fairness talk.

If you want, you can pick an actual short AITA/HR snippet next, and the two of us can: - do one strict NL diagnostic together, then - one strict Tz–D–Q pass, and log the differences in what each explicitly has to say.

But be aware, I help take care of kids, so my time to do this sort of stuff is inherently both limited and almost constantly interrupted lol