COUNTEREVIDENCE

Identify credible evidence, observations, alternative interpretations, or reasoning that could materially weaken the current conclusion. Do not manufacture objections, avoid false balance, and do not give weak contrary evidence equal weight with stronger evidence. If no material counterevidence is found, say so rather than forcing a contrary case.

A Power Mode is an instruction pattern, not a feature of the AI. Nothing recognises the name — the wording underneath it does the work, and you can copy it from this page.

From the book. Chapter 12 / Part VII — COUNTEREVIDENCE

What it actually does

Sometimes the plan is fine and the evidence is the problem — everything gathered points one way because that is the direction someone was looking.

COUNTEREVIDENCE asks the model to look for what could weaken a conclusion it has been handed: contrary observations, alternative interpretations of the same data, and reasoning that would lower confidence in the result.

This is not automatic balance. The instruction explicitly rules out manufactured objections, because a mode that always finds something against every conclusion tells you nothing about any of them.

When to use it

Use COUNTEREVIDENCE when you have a conclusion you believe and want the credible case against it, not a critique of how it is argued.

It is the primary mode for this job: pressure-test something before you commit to it.

When not to use it

This is the section worth reading. Using only what the work requires is the point; a mode applied to the wrong shape of problem costs you a worse answer than plain language would have given.

Use a different mode instead

REDTEAM fires when you want a plan or argument attacked but cannot yet say where it is weak.
BUYER OBJECTION LENS fires when you need someone specific to agree, and want their reasons for refusing rather than a critique of what you are showing them.
ASSUMPTION CHECK fires when you already suspect the weakness is something the work takes for granted, and want those beliefs ranked by how much each would change the outcome.
PREMORTEM fires when you fix a point in the future, declare it a failure, and ask what caused it.

Use no mode at all

The task would reward false balance.
There is no meaningful conclusion or supporting case to test.

There is no bonus for naming a mode when plain language is clearer. If you can already state the exact question, ask it.

Its failure mode

Manufacturing objections or giving weak contrary evidence equal weight.

Starter instruction

Paste this above your task. It is the whole mode — there is nothing else to switch on.

Identify evidence, observations, alternative interpretations, or credible reasoning that could materially weaken the current conclusion. Do not manufacture objections; include only counterevidence that is supported, plausible, and material.

Related modes

Try it on your own work

Describe what you are actually doing and the Builder writes the full prompt — mode, context, output shape, and the verification step. It picks the mode from your description, which is why this link does not carry one.

Open the Prompt Builder →