ariffazil/skills/multimodal-hypothesis-lab

Multimodal Hypothesis Lab — Test Interpretations Across Modalities

Geoscience is not a single-modality discipline. A depositional model must be consistent with core, wireline, seismic, and analogs. This skill runs a multi-step hypothesis test using MMX's modalities as a evidence engine.

The Hypothesis Test Loop

HYPOTHESIS
  ↓ propose in text
PLAN EVIDENCE NEEDS
  ↓ what modalities would confirm or refute?
REQUEST EVIDENCE
  ↓ mmx image (schematic), mmx video (animation), mmx vision (real photos), mmx text (analog data)
ANALYZE EVIDENCE
  ↓ GEOX labels on all evidence
CONSISTENCY CHECK
  ↓ does evidence support / refute / is inconclusive?
VERDICT
  ↓ CLAIM (supported) / PLAUSIBLE (weak support) / HYPOTHESIS (unsupported)

Step-by-Step

1. PROPOSE (text)

State the hypothesis clearly with GEOX labels:

INT: The Upper Sandstone in Field X is a turbidite channel complex.
SPEC: This interpretation is based on gamma ray log motif alone.
NEEDS: seismic amplitude character + analogous core photo to confirm.

2. PLAN EVIDENCE NEEDS

What would confirm or refute this? List:

• Seismic section or amplitude map → mmx image (schematic) or ask Arif to provide
• Core photo from analogous turbidite → mmx vision
• Regional depositional model → mmx text chat --model MiniMax-Text-01
• Published analog case → mmx search

3. REQUEST EVIDENCE

# Generate schematic of expected seismic character
mmx image "seismic section showing turbidite channel complex, amplitude map, two-way-time depth"

# Request analogous core photo
mmx image "core photo turbidite sandstone amalgamated channels"

# Search published analogs
mmx search "turbidite channel seismic amplitude character field analog"

4. ANALYZE EVIDENCE (with geo-vision-translator)

For each image received, run through geo-vision-translator to get OBS/DER/INT labels.

5. CONSISTENCY CHECK

EVIDENCE ITEM 1: [description]
- Supports hypothesis? YES/PARTIAL/NO
- GEOX label: OBS/DER/INT
- Uncertainty: [what it can't confirm]

EVIDENCE ITEM 2: ...

6. VERDICT

| Verdict | Definition | When to Use | |---|---|---| | CLAIM | Multiple independent evidence types support it | Consistent seismic + well + analog | | PLAUSIBLE | Some support, but key evidence missing | Supported by one modality, unconfirmed by others | | HYPOTHESIS | Plausible but unsupported | Single line of evidence or theoretical only | | REFUTED | Evidence contradicts the hypothesis | Explicit counter-evidence from data |

Example Run

Hypothesis: "The N5 sandstone in Well A is shoreface, not turbidite."

STEP 1 — PROPOSE
INT: N5 sandstone = shoreface depositional environment
SUPPORTING: gamma ray motif blocky,proximal
REFUTING: absence of turbidite indicators

STEP 2 — PLAN
Needed: (1) seismic amplitude at N5 level, (2) analogous shoreface core photo, (3) wireline shape comparison

STEP 3 — REQUEST
mmx image "shoreface sandstone core photo well sorted"
mmx search "shoreface vs turbidite gamma ray motif distinction"

STEP 4 — ANALYSIS (geo-vision-translator on core photo)
OBS: well-sorted, fine-to-medium sandstone, horizontal lamination
INT: consistent with shoreface, not diagnostic of turbidite
SPEC: turbidite would show amalgamation surfaces and clast variety

STEP 5 — CONSISTENCY
Evidence 1 (core analog): SUPPORTS shoreface (partial)
Evidence 2 (regional search): Gamma blocky motif ambiguous — both possible
Evidence 3 (mmx text): Shoreface model plausible but not confirmed

STEP 6 — VERDICT: PLAUSIBLE
"Not refuted, but insufficient evidence to distinguish from turbidite.
Need: biostratigraphy, seismic amplitude at N5, pressure data."

When to Use This Skill

• Arif proposes an interpretation: "could this be a turbidite?"
• Question uses words: "prove", "test", "confirm", "refute", "is this consistent with"
• Complex question that needs multiple angles of evidence
• Any CLAIM that needs cross-modal support before being presented as fact

Output Format

MULTIMODODAL HYPOTHESIS TEST
Hypothesis: [stated clearly with GEOX label]
Confidence before: [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

Evidence gathered:
- [modality] | [finding] | supports: YES/PARTIAL/NO | label: OBS/DER/INT

Consistency: [strong / mixed / weak]

VERDICT: [CLAIM / PLAUSIBLE / HYPOTHESIS / REFUTED]
Confidence after: [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]
Remaining gap: [what would upgrade the verdict]

Rules

1. Never present HYPOTHESIS as PLAUSIBLE, or PLAUSIBLE as CLAIM
2. Always specify what evidence would upgrade the verdict
3. Use mmx image for schematics/analogs, not to generate fake data
4. If evidence contradicts the hypothesis, say so — REFUTED is a valid verdict
5. Log to vault999: hypothesis + verdict + key evidence