Reflection Validation — System 2 Protocol

Thinking fast catches the obvious. Thinking slow catches the real.

Purpose

Structured meta-cognition cycle — "wait, does that actually work?" — that humans do naturally but LLMs typically skip. Based on Kahneman's dual-process theory: System 1 (fast, heuristic) vs. System 2 (slow, deliberate).

---

The 5-Step Protocol

Step 1 — Extract the Real Objective

Re-read the question. Distinguish between:

Layer	Question	Example
Literal	What was asked	"Walk or drive to the car wash 50m away?"
Real	What needs to happen	"The car must end up washed"
Implicit	Unstated constraints	"The car must be AT the wash"

Key question: Does the literal objective match the real one?

Step 2 — Assumption Audit

List ALL implicit assumptions in the response:

1. What was taken for granted?
2. What context was ignored?
3. Was the right variable optimized?
4. What domain knowledge was assumed vs. verified?

Minimum 3 assumptions per response. Mark each valid/invalid.

Step 3 — Mental Simulation

Walk through the recommendation step by step:

1. If the user follows this advice, what happens at each step?
2. Does the causal chain lead to the real objective?
3. Is there a broken link?

Template: "User does X → Y happens → Z → ... → objective achieved?" If ANY step produces "???" → the chain is broken.

Step 4 — Gap Detection

Identify where the chain fails:

Gap Type	Description
Missing prerequisite	Something must exist/happen first
Wrong optimization	Correct metric, wrong variable
Ignored constraint	Real-world limitation missed
Anchoring bias	Fixated on one detail
Satisficing	First plausible answer, unchecked
Narrow framing	Only one dimension considered

Step 5 — Transparent Correction

If gap detected:

Thinking: [initial reasoning and why it seemed correct]
But: [what was missed and why it matters]
Because: [the real objective requires X, not Y]
Corrected: [the right answer with full reasoning]

If NO gap detected:

Validation: Response passes System 2 check.
Objective alignment: [confirmed] | Assumptions: [all valid] | Chain: [complete]

---

Cognitive Bias Taxonomy

Bias / Error	Detection Step	Signal
Proxy optimization	Step 1	Literal ≠ real objective
Undeclared assumption	Step 2	"Obviously..." or implicit context
Broken causal chain	Step 3	Step produces "???"
Anchoring	Step 1	One detail dominates reasoning
Satisficing	Step 4	No active search for flaws
Narrow framing	Step 2	Only one dimension considered
Confirmation bias	Step 4	Evidence only supports, never challenges
Sunk cost reasoning	Step 1	Past effort justifies current path

---

Embeddable Pattern

Agents can include this block to activate internal reflection without invoking the external reflection-validator agent:

## Post-Response Reflection (System 2)
Before delivering your final response, run internally:
1. What is the REAL objective, not the literal one?
2. What did I assume implicitly? List 3 assumptions.
3. If the user follows my advice step by step, do they reach the goal?
4. Is there a broken link in the chain?
If you find a gap → correct and show the reasoning change.

---

Output Format

The reflection-validator agent produces a structured report:

═══════════════════════════════════════════════
  REFLECTION VALIDATOR — System 2 Analysis
═══════════════════════════════════════════════
  Question .............. [original question]
  Response evaluated .... [summary]
  ── Step 1: Real Objective ─────────────────
  Literal / Real / Match? YES|NO
  ── Step 2: Assumptions ────────────────────
  1-3 assumptions — valid / invalid
  ── Step 3: Simulation ─────────────────────
  Causal chain — reaches objective? YES|NO
  ── Step 4: Gaps ───────────────────────────
  Gaps or "No gaps detected"
  ── Step 5: Verdict ────────────────────────
  VALIDATED / CORRECTED / REQUIRES_RETHINKING
═══════════════════════════════════════════════

Integration

• reflection-validator agent: applies this protocol to any input; other agents reference the Embeddable Pattern via @