TML Infer

Takes the confirmed primitives from a tml-interview and makes the model's reasoning visible.

Every interview produces two kinds of output: things the human explicitly said, and things the system concluded from what the human said. The map conflates these by design — it reads as authoritative. This skill separates them. It answers: what did I decide on your behalf, and how confident am I that I got it right?

This is the debugging surface. If the inference layer is wrong, the map is wrong. Catching it here is cheaper than catching it six months from now.

When to Use

• After tml-interview, before presenting the map for confirmation
• As part of a tml-capture orchestration (runs automatically between interview and map)
• When a human wants to audit what the system concluded vs. what they actually said
• As a standalone review of any existing TML map — "show me what you inferred"

What Gets Inferred

Inferences happen in three ways during a TML interview:

1. Boundary inferences

The human described something. The system had to decide where the edge of the scope is. That decision is an inference.

Example: Human said "my team." System inferred the scope as "the Customer Success team, excluding shared services." That boundary is a conclusion, not a quote.

2. Classification inferences

The human said something. The system had to decide which primitive it belongs to. That classification is an inference.

Example: Human said "we send weekly status emails." System classified that as a Binding (write path to external stakeholders). It could also have been a Capability. The choice was a conclusion.

3. Gap-filling inferences

Something wasn't addressed in the interview. The system either flagged it as a gap or filled it from context. Both are inferences.

Example: The human never mentioned who can change the approval threshold. System inferred it defaults to the manager archetype based on general patterns. That's a conclusion — and it might be wrong.

The Analysis

For each primitive in the confirmed primitive set, examine:

1. What was explicitly stated? Direct quotes or clear paraphrases from the interview.
2. What was concluded? The system's interpretation, classification, or extension of what was stated.
3. How confident is that conclusion? High (obvious from context), Medium (reasonable but could be wrong), Low (speculation or pattern-matching).
4. What would falsify it? The single most likely way this inference is wrong.

Output Format

# Inferences: [Scope Name]

**Interview date:** [date]
**Participant:** [name]
**Generated:** [date]

---

## How to Read This

This document shows what the system concluded vs. what you actually said.

- **Stated** = you said this, or confirmed it when played back
- **Inferred** = the system concluded this from context
- **Gap** = this wasn't addressed; the system flagged it rather than filling it

Review the inferences. If any are wrong, correct them before the map is finalized. A wrong inference in the map is harder to find later.

---

## Scope

**[Scope name]**

| Element | Status | Source / Reasoning |
|---------|--------|--------------------|
| Name | Stated / Inferred | [quote or reasoning] |
| Boundary | Stated / Inferred | [what was said, what was concluded about the edge] |
| Description | Stated / Inferred | [quote or reasoning] |

**Confidence:** High / Medium / Low
**Most likely wrong if:** [what would falsify this]

---

## Domains

### [Domain 1 name]

| Element | Status | Source / Reasoning |
|---------|--------|--------------------|
| Name | Stated / Inferred | [quote or how the name was derived] |
| Ownership | Stated / Inferred / Gap | [who owns this and how we know] |
| Accountability boundary | Stated / Inferred | [what's in vs. out of this domain] |

**Confidence:** High / Medium / Low
**Most likely wrong if:** [what would falsify this]

[repeat for each domain]

---

## Capabilities

### [Capability 1 name]

| Element | Status | Source / Reasoning |
|---------|--------|--------------------|
| Name (verb-noun) | Stated / Inferred | [quote or how the name was derived from what was said] |
| Outcome | Stated / Inferred | [what was said about what this produces] |
| Domain assignment | Stated / Inferred | [why it was placed in this domain] |

**Confidence:** High / Medium / Low
**Most likely wrong if:** [what would falsify this]

[repeat for each capability]

---

## Archetypes

### [Archetype name]

| Element | Status | Source / Reasoning |
|---------|--------|--------------------|
| Role name | Stated / Inferred | [quote or derivation] |
| Can-do list | Stated / Inferred | [what was explicit vs. concluded from context] |
| Cannot-do list | Stated / Inferred / Gap | [what was explicit vs. defaulted from policies] |

**Confidence:** High / Medium / Low
**Most likely wrong if:** [what would falsify this]

[repeat for each archetype]

---

## Policies

### [Policy name]

| Element | Status | Source / Reasoning |
|---------|--------|--------------------|
| Rule statement | Stated / Inferred | [quote or paraphrase] |
| What it constrains | Stated / Inferred | [explicit vs. concluded from context] |
| Enforcement mechanism | Stated / Inferred / Gap | [how this is actually upheld] |

**Confidence:** High / Medium / Low
**Most likely wrong if:** [what would falsify this]

[repeat for each policy]

---

## Connectors & Bindings

### [Connector/Binding name]

| Element | Status | Source / Reasoning |
|---------|--------|--------------------|
| Direction (read/write) | Stated / Inferred | [how the read/write distinction was determined] |
| What flows | Stated / Inferred | [what data or effect, and how we know] |
| External endpoint | Stated / Inferred / Gap | [named system or vague reference] |

**Confidence:** High / Medium / Low
**Most likely wrong if:** [what would falsify this]

[repeat for each connector and binding]

---

## Views

[If no views were identified, state: "No views were identified in this interview. This may be a gap — consider whether different roles see different filtered versions of the same information."]

---

## Provenance

| Element | Status | Source / Reasoning |
|---------|--------|--------------------|
| Existing tracking | Stated / Inferred / Gap | [what was mentioned vs. assumed] |
| Gaps | Stated / Inferred | [what's not tracked and how we know] |

---

## Summary: Inferences to Review

The following inferences are Medium or Low confidence and should be explicitly confirmed before the map is finalized:

| Primitive | Inference | Confidence | What to ask |
|-----------|-----------|------------|-------------|
| [type] | [what was concluded] | Medium/Low | [exact question to confirm or refute] |

---

## Gaps Not Filled

The following were not addressed in the interview. They are flagged rather than inferred:

| Primitive | What's missing | Suggested question |
|-----------|---------------|-------------------|
| [type] | [what's absent] | [how to get the answer] |

---

*This document is not the map. It is the reasoning behind the map. Correct the inferences here, and the map corrects with them.*

Rules

1. Never present an inference as a fact. If it was concluded rather than stated, say so.
2. Low confidence is not a failure. It is the system being honest. Flag it and move on.
3. The "most likely wrong if" field is mandatory. If you can't articulate how an inference could be wrong, it means you haven't thought about it carefully enough.
4. Gaps are better than guesses. An honest gap is more valuable than a wrong inference that makes it into the map.
5. Use direct quotes where available. The provenance chain from statement → inference → primitive is the point.

Handoff

The Inferences document is reviewed by the human before tml-map is run. Corrections to inferences propagate to the map automatically. In a tml-capture orchestration, the Inferences document is presented alongside the map as the fourth artifact, not before it — the map is the deliverable, the inferences are the audit surface.

v1.0 — The reasoning layer. Makes model conclusions visible so humans can correct them before they compound.