Use the cascade test — 'If I resolved this, what else…

Apply the cascade test to contradictions by asking 'If I resolved this, what else would have to change?' to distinguish surface contradictions (low dependency count) from deep contradictions (high dependency count).

When This Fires

When you've identified a contradiction in your knowledge graph (via Link contradicting ideas together in your graph — spatial…) and need to decide how much effort to invest in resolving it
During belief audits when prioritizing which contradictions to address first
When a new piece of evidence contradicts existing beliefs and you need to assess the blast radius
When deciding whether a contradiction warrants a deep investigation or a quick update

Common Failure Mode

Resolving contradictions by emotional salience rather than structural depth. A contradiction that feels disturbing (challenges identity) gets extensive attention. A contradiction that feels boring (technical, abstract) gets ignored. But structural depth, not emotional intensity, predicts how much your epistemic state improves from resolution. Some boring contradictions cascade widely; some distressing ones are structurally shallow.

The Protocol

(1) When you encounter a contradiction, ask: "If I resolved this — if I decided one side was definitively correct — what else in my knowledge system would have to change?" (2) Trace the dependencies: which other beliefs, practices, or frameworks depend on either side of this contradiction? List them. (3) Count the cascade: low dependency count (1-3 affected items) = surface contradiction. High dependency count (10+) = deep contradiction. (4) Prioritize investigation effort proportionally: deep contradictions deserve research, expert consultation, careful argument evaluation. Surface contradictions can often be resolved with a quick fact-check or by accepting that both claims apply in different scopes.