How it works.
State the present pattern
Describe the observed structure before selecting a precedent.
Choose a relevant comparison
Use a historical case only when a relevant mechanism is supported by evidence.
Compare mechanisms
Name both the structural similarities and the conditions that differ.
Check whether the comparison helps
Keep the analogy only if it explains more than a literal reading of the present evidence.
What it produces—and when it fails.
Output
A historical comparison or explanation from first principles, with its similarities, differences and limits stated.
Failure condition
It fails if history is used as decoration, an archetype is forced onto the evidence, or differences that would break the analogy are omitted.
Worked example
For an infrastructure buildout, Darśan may compare rail or telecom only after identifying the shared mechanism—fixed investment ahead of utilization—and must also state how market structure, technology, and financing differ.
A guide to reasoning, not a running model.
Darśan draws on comparative history, philosophy, and first-principles analysis. Historical traditions and archetypes are optional sources of hypotheses, not evidence that the present must follow a predetermined cycle.
A named reviewer checks AI-assisted work against its sources and these failure conditions before it enters a decision brief. That reviewer is responsible for the conclusion. See how the methods fit together.