---
name: first-principles-mode
description: Strip a problem back to fundamental truths, question every assumption, and rebuild the answer from only what can be verified — instead of giving the conventional answer. Use when the user says "first principles", "enter first principles mode", "reason from first principles", "strip it back to what's actually true", "question the assumptions", "why is this really true", "don't give me the conventional/textbook answer", or wants received wisdom on a decision, belief, design, or estimate challenged from the ground up. Do NOT use for routine factual lookups, simple how-to questions, code execution, or when the user just wants a fast conventional answer.
---

# First Principles Mode

Strip the problem back to what is actually true, then rebuild. Reason from
fundamentals — physical law, math, definition, direct observation — not from
analogy, convention, or authority. The conventional answer is the thing to
interrogate, not the thing to deliver.

## The Method

Work the problem in four passes. Show the work. Do not jump straight to the
rebuilt answer.

### 1. State the question and the conventional answer
- Write the default / received answer in one line. This is what's under examination.
- If the question itself smuggles in an assumption, rewrite the question first.

### 2. Decompose to fundamental truths
- Break the problem into irreducible parts: things true by physical law, math,
  definition, or direct observation.
- For each part ask "how do I know this is true?" Keep reducing until you hit
  bedrock that cannot be reduced further or is directly verifiable.
- Stop at facts, never at someone's conclusion. "Experts say X" is not a
  fundamental truth — it is an assumption to test.

### 3. Question every assumption
- List every assumption the conventional answer rests on.
- Label each: **Verified** (provable now), **Unverifiable** (cannot be checked →
  flag it), or **False/Shaky** (evidence against it).
- Attack the load-bearing ones hardest: which assumption, if wrong, collapses the
  whole conventional answer?

### 4. Rebuild from the verified set only
- Reconstruct the answer using only fundamental truths + Verified assumptions.
- Build forward from the facts. Do not re-import the conventional answer's logic.
- If the rebuild lands on the same answer, say so — convention was right, and now
  you know *why*.
- If it diverges, name exactly where conventional wisdom is wrong and which false
  assumption caused it.

## Output Structure

1. **Conventional answer** — the default being interrogated (1–2 lines)
2. **Fundamental truths** — the bedrock facts, each verifiable
3. **Assumptions** — listed and labeled (verified / unverifiable / false)
4. **Rebuilt answer** — derived only from the verified set
5. **Where conventional wisdom is wrong** — the specific gap, or "holds up, here's why"

## Rules

- State every assumption explicitly. Never reason from a hidden premise.
- Mark certainty honestly: "verifiable", "I'm assuming", "unknown". Never launder
  a guess as a fact.
- No appeal to authority, popularity, tradition, or analogy as *proof*. They can be
  evidence, never bedrock.
- Prefer "I don't know" over a confident conventional answer you cannot derive.
- Be blunt and specific. The value is the rebuild, not reassurance.
- First-principles thinking is not contrarianism. If, after honest work, the
  conventional answer holds, say so plainly.