Files
2nd/10_Wiki/Topics/Other/Assumptions-vs-Facts.md
T
2026-05-10 22:08:15 +09:00

148 lines
5.3 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
---
id: wiki-2026-0508-assumptions-vs-facts
title: Assumptions vs Facts
category: 10_Wiki/Topics
status: verified
canonical_id: self
aliases: [Fact-Assumption Distinction, Premise vs Evidence]
duplicate_of: none
source_trust_level: A
confidence_score: 0.9
verification_status: applied
tags: [reasoning, epistemology, decision-making, critical-thinking]
raw_sources: []
last_reinforced: 2026-05-10
github_commit: pending
tech_stack:
language: python
framework: na
---
# Assumptions vs Facts
## 매 한 줄
> **"매 fact 는 매 verifiable observation, 매 assumption 은 매 unverified premise"**. 매 둘 의 conflation 매 most decision failure 의 root. 매 military intelligence (CIA Tradecraft Primer), 매 software engineering (RFC, design doc), 매 LLM agent reasoning (chain-of-thought 매 assumption 명시) 모두 의 핵심 discipline.
## 매 핵심
### 매 정의
- **Fact**: 매 currently verifiable claim — 매 measurement, 매 reproducible observation, 매 authoritative record.
- **Assumption**: 매 not verified, 매 taken as true 매 reasoning 진행 위해. 매 implicit / explicit.
- **Inference**: 매 fact + assumption → 매 conclusion.
### 매 Verification spectrum
- **Hard fact**: 매 measurement (e.g., latency = 142ms p95).
- **Soft fact**: 매 expert testimony / consensus (e.g., "FDA-approved").
- **Reasonable assumption**: 매 base rate / 매 prior (e.g., "user 매 attention < 10s").
- **Speculative assumption**: 매 untested premise (e.g., "competitor 매 Q4 launch").
### 매 응용
1. **Design doc**: 매 "Assumptions" section 별도 — 매 reviewer 검증.
2. **Intelligence analysis**: 매 ACH (Analysis of Competing Hypotheses).
3. **Postmortem**: 매 implicit assumption 적출 — 매 next-time fact 로 verify.
4. **LLM CoT**: 매 reasoning chain 에서 매 assumption 의 explicit tag.
## 💻 패턴
### Pattern 1: 매 Design doc template
```markdown
## Facts
- 매 current p95 latency: 240ms (verified via 매 grafana 2026-05-09).
- 매 user count: 1.2M MAU (analytics dashboard).
## Assumptions
- [A1] 매 traffic grow 30% YoY (prior: 2024-2025 trend).
- [A2] 매 redis cluster 매 horizontal scale 가능 (vendor docs, untested at our scale).
## Inferences
- A1 + Facts → 매 Q4 capacity = 1.56M MAU.
- A2 + Facts → 매 cache layer 매 bottleneck 의 X.
## Validation plan
- A1: 매 monthly reforecast.
- A2: 매 Q3 load-test 8x current.
```
### Pattern 2: 매 ACH (Analysis of Competing Hypotheses)
```python
import numpy as np
hypotheses = ["H1: 매 supply shock", "H2: 매 demand drop", "H3: 매 competitor"]
evidence = ["E1: price up", "E2: query down", "E3: rival ad spike"]
# 매 매 evidence × hypothesis: consistent (+1), inconsistent (-1), N/A (0)
M = np.array([
# E1, E2, E3
[+1, 0, 0], # H1
[-1, +1, 0], # H2
[ 0, +1, +1], # H3
])
scores = M.sum(axis=1)
for h, s in zip(hypotheses, scores):
print(h, s)
# 매 lowest disconfirmed = 매 most likely (CIA tradecraft logic)
```
### Pattern 3: 매 Assumption tagging in CoT
```python
def reason_with_tags(query: str) -> str:
return llm(f"""
Answer step by step. For every claim:
- Tag [FACT: source] if verifiable.
- Tag [ASSUMP: confidence 0-1] if untested.
- Tag [INFER] if derived.
Q: {query}
""")
```
### Pattern 4: 매 Premortem (assumption stress-test)
```markdown
Imagine the project failed in 6 months. List the 5 most likely
failed assumptions. For each, design a 2-week experiment to test
it now.
```
### Pattern 5: Confidence score 매 calibration
```python
predictions = [] # list of (claim, confidence, actual_outcome)
brier = sum((c - a)**2 for _, c, a in predictions) / len(predictions)
print(f"Brier score: {brier:.3f}") # 매 lower = better calibration
```
## 매 결정 기준
| 상황 | Treat as |
|---|---|
| 매 metric in current dashboard | Fact (with date) |
| 매 vendor capability claim | Soft fact, 매 verify if critical |
| 매 future user behavior | Assumption — 매 explicit |
| 매 "everyone knows" | 매 strong assumption — 매 challenge |
| 매 LLM output | Assumption until cross-checked |
**기본값**: 매 reasoning 시작 시 매 explicit "Facts" / "Assumptions" 분리. 매 implicit assumption 의 surface — 매 brittle.
## 🔗 Graph
- 부모: [[Belief-Revision]] · [[Bayesian-Updating]]
- 변형: [[Bayes-Theorem]] · [[Hypostatic-Abstraction]]
- 응용: [[Problem Solving Process]] · [[Process_Reflection_Template]]
- Adjacent: [[Big-Picture]] · [[Outside-Thinking]] · [[Anticipation]]
## 🤖 LLM 활용
**언제**: 매 agent design — 매 [FACT]/[ASSUMP] tagging 매 hallucination detection 도움. 매 reasoning trace audit.
**언제 X**: 매 creative ideation — 매 over-tagging 매 flow 방해.
## ❌ 안티패턴
- **Implicit assumption**: 매 unmentioned premise — 매 reviewer 못 catch.
- **Fact inflation**: 매 weak evidence 의 hard fact 처럼 표현.
- **Confidence theater**: 매 "obviously" / "clearly" — 매 hidden assumption marker.
- **Single-source fact**: 매 1 source = 매 still soft. 매 triangulate.
- **Stale fact**: 매 6개월 전 metric — 매 currently fact 인지 재검증.
## 🧪 검증 / 중복
- Verified (CIA Tradecraft Primer 2009, Heuer *Psychology of Intelligence Analysis*, Tetlock *Superforecasting*).
- 신뢰도 A.
## 🕓 Changelog
| 날짜 | 변경 |
|---|---|
| 2026-05-08 | Phase 1 |
| 2026-05-10 | Manual cleanup — ACH + 매 design-doc pattern + LLM CoT tagging |