Document Organization and Archiving Framework

Problem: Document organization often stops at the summary layer

When organizing or archiving documents, common outputs are tables of contents, bullet summaries, and conclusions, but the reasoning is missing: which facts would change the decision, which theory supports the judgment, why the alternative was rejected, and where the boundary lies. With more mixed materials, old data, speculation, and authority-based claims easily blend together.

How it works: a five-layer review for auditable conclusions

The skill requires outputting what each layer changed:
- Define the problem: clarify the deeper goal, key question, boundary, cost, and domain.
- Theoretical axis: introduce a domain theory system and produce the main contradiction, priority, and judgment axis.
- Critical facts: keep only facts that can change the judgment, forming propositions, a contradiction map, reasoning chain, boundaries, and counterexamples.
- Counterargument and premises: raise the strongest counterargument and label facts, speculation, transfer, authority, and guesswork, then map to evidence, contraction, rebuilding, or approval.
- Convergence: provide a systematic understanding, invalidation conditions, and implementation evidence such as tests, acceptance, or documentation.

Data older than 90 days must be marked [STALE], and premise analysis must reach concrete actions instead of staying at “maybe”.

Boundaries

It fits organizing fragmented material into an archivable conclusion with a traceable judgment chain, especially for technical documents, solution reviews, and material retrospectives. If reliable theory sources or critical facts are missing, the output is limited by the input. It does not provide file moving, permission management, or automatic archiving tools; it structurally reviews the document-organization process.