Tell analogy from proof in agent explanations

"This change is like the earlier change, so it will be fine." An agent's explanation can make the unfamiliar feel settled before it says why the earlier result should carry over. Familiarity gives you somewhere to begin. It does not settle whether to act.

Suppose you are reading an agent-written Markdown note before approving a change. Read its comparison as a claim about a relationship between cases. Your job is to examine that relationship, limit the conclusion, and ask what is known about the case awaiting your decision.

Put both cases into words

Fictional Jane Doe receives the invented lines below. Every draft and event in them is fictional too.

Jane Doe's earlier draft used a short opening, and its longer explanation was deleted. This draft has a short opening too, so we can delete its longer explanation.

Name both cases without the promised conclusion. The earlier case is a draft with a short opening whose longer explanation was deleted. The current case is a different draft with a short opening whose longer explanation is still present. The action under consideration is deleting that current explanation.

Now separate what happened earlier from what the note expects now. Did the earlier draft remain understandable after deletion? The quoted line does not say. Ask about that result before using it as support for another deletion. An analogy with an unstated earlier result has already left a gap.

Keep the discussion beside the comparison in its Markdown file. The meaning of the .md ending explains that file format.

Match what plays each part

Take the comparison beyond matching adjectives. In each case, the opening introduces the subject, the longer explanation supplies detail, and the deletion would leave readers with whatever the opening already tells them. Those are the parts whose relationship matters to the recommendation.

Read an added invented line:

In the earlier draft, the opening already explained why the action was needed. Its longer explanation repeated that reason.

That gives the earlier deletion a basis: the reason remained available in the opening. Look for the same relationship in the current draft. Does its opening also explain why the action is needed? Does its longer explanation merely repeat that reason, or does it supply something absent above?

Put this question to the agent: "Which passage in this opening does the work that the earlier opening did?" A useful answer identifies the relevant passage and explains its part. "Both openings are short" leaves that part unmatched.

Matching parts does not require identical wording. An opening might express the same reason with different sentences. What matters here is whether deleting the explanation would leave the needed reason in place.

Separate appearance from a relevant likeness

Short openings look alike in length. Matching titles, paragraph shapes or file names can add to that impression. Yet the proposed deletion depends on where the explanation lives, not how similar the drafts look.

Both drafts have brief openings, but only the earlier opening includes the reason for the action.

This invented line changes the decision. The visible likeness remains, while the relationship used to justify deletion differs. A shared adjective leaves that relationship unexplained.

A relevant likeness would be that both openings retain the reason and both longer passages repeat it. Even then, narrow the conclusion to the text examined. Similar repetition supports considering the deletion; whether surrounding passages need revision remains a separate question.

Keep the quoted note lines as ordinary prose while discussing them. How Markdown code blocks work explains when to enclose literal text in fences.

Look for a difference that blocks the leap

You need a difference with consequences for this action. Different file names do not defeat the comparison by themselves. A missing explanation does.

The current draft's longer passage explains an exception that its opening does not mention.

That invented detail blocks carrying over the earlier deletion as proposed. Removing repetition from the earlier draft left its reason intact. Deleting the current passage would also delete an exception. The shared short opening cannot justify treating those actions as equivalent.

Ask: "What would disappear here that stayed available in the earlier case?" This question directs attention to a difference that could change your decision. It avoids gathering unrelated differences merely to reject the analogy.

The discovery need not end the discussion. You might consider a smaller revision that preserves the exception. Explain that smaller revision on its own merits; inspiration from an earlier deletion is insufficient support.

State the narrower conclusion before acting

Return to the original assurance and replace its broad ending with what the comparison supports:

The earlier draft suggests examining this explanation for repetition. Whether this draft stays understandable after deletion is not yet shown.

You have retained a useful lead without accepting the promised outcome. The comparison suggests where to look. The current passage determines whether deletion makes sense here.

Seek direct evidence from the agent: "Show the passages that would remain after deletion and explain where the exception would still be stated." Read the passages it supplies. An answer that repeats the earlier success has not answered the question about this draft.

If the exception would disappear, hold the deletion. If the remaining text already contains it, consider the action on that evidence. In both cases, your decision now rests on the current draft rather than a resemblance alone.

Name a separate discussion file after the draft concerned and the proposed deletion. The guidance on Markdown file naming explains naming choices.

Where Sashmark fits

Reading an analogy and revising its conclusion are work you do with the text. For Markdown from AI agents, Sashmark has desktop reading and editing planned for v1. Judging these comparisons remains a human task: Sashmark has no AI and is in development.