Twelve—until I find thirteen.
I currently propose that operational reasoning can be decomposed into twelve atomic problem types. This is a candidate closed set, not a proven taxonomy of all reasoning. Each summary opens a short explanation.
01ClassificationWhat is this?
Determine which defined category, state, type, or class best describes an object or condition.
The proposed operation must remain distinct from evidence quality, authority, and the final decision.
02Qualification / EligibilityDoes this satisfy the requirements?
Test whether defined criteria, rules, thresholds, or conditions are met.
The proposed operation must remain distinct from evidence quality, authority, and the final decision.
03Matching / CorrelationDo these things belong together?
Determine whether records, entities, events, claims, or observations correspond.
The proposed operation must remain distinct from evidence quality, authority, and the final decision.
04Evidence SufficiencyIs there enough evidence?
Determine whether available evidence adequately supports the governed conclusion.
The proposed operation must remain distinct from evidence quality, authority, and the final decision.
05Contradiction / ChallengeWhat does not fit?
Identify conflicting evidence, alternative interpretations, inconsistencies, and challenges.
The proposed operation must remain distinct from evidence quality, authority, and the final decision.
06CausalWhat caused this?
Evaluate whether evidence supports a causal relationship rather than mere association.
The proposed operation must remain distinct from evidence quality, authority, and the final decision.
07Comparative / SelectionWhich option is better supported?
Compare alternatives using explicit criteria without hiding tradeoffs.
The proposed operation must remain distinct from evidence quality, authority, and the final decision.
08Impact / ConsequenceWhat changes if this happens?
Evaluate likely or observed effects of a decision, condition, event, or intervention.
The proposed operation must remain distinct from evidence quality, authority, and the final decision.
09RiskWhat can go wrong, and what matters if it does?
Evaluate uncertainty together with consequence, exposure, control, and tolerance.
The proposed operation must remain distinct from evidence quality, authority, and the final decision.
10Predictive / ForwardWhat is likely to happen next?
Evaluate future states while preserving uncertainty and assumptions.
The proposed operation must remain distinct from evidence quality, authority, and the final decision.
11Dependency / PreconditionsWhat must be true first?
Determine whether prerequisites, dependencies, sequencing conditions, or required states exist.
The proposed operation must remain distinct from evidence quality, authority, and the final decision.
12Recommendation / SynthesisWhat conclusion or action does the evidence support?
Integrate governed evaluations into a recommendation while preserving evidence, uncertainty, and the authority boundary.
The proposed operation must remain distinct from evidence quality, authority, and the final decision.
What would falsify this?
A reasoning task that cannot be decomposed into these twelve without losing a necessary reasoning operation. I am actively looking for that case.