Analytical lens

Darśan

Tests whether a historical or conceptual reference case clarifies the present without pretending the cases are identical.

Question
What precedent or first-principles model helps explain this, and where does the analogy break?
Inputs
Verified claims, contextual research, candidate reference cases, dates, institutional conditions, and known differences between cases.
Current status
Available as an optional analytical lens in FP1 Evidence v0.7.0. Its reference cases and boundaries require human verification.
Current method

How the role is applied.

State the present pattern

Describe the observed structure before selecting a precedent.

Choose a bounded reference case

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.

Test explanatory gain

Keep the analogy only if it explains more than a literal reading of the present evidence.

Accountability

Output and failure condition.

Output

A bounded analogy or first-principles interpretation with explicit similarities, differences, and limits.

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.

Theoretical lineage

Inspiration without implied computation.

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.

All current outputs are software-assisted or model-generated and require human review before they become part of an FP1 decision brief. See the full analysis architecture.