curiositech/forensic-speech-structure

Forensic Speech Structure Skill

DECISION POINTS

Format Selection Tree: Choose structure based on audience and time constraints:

IF legal/judicial context:
├─ IF <10 minutes → Classical 5-part (abbreviated)
└─ IF >10 minutes → Classical 5-part (full)

IF policy/legislative context:
├─ IF formal body → Congressional format
└─ IF advocacy → Policy debate format

IF public/corporate presentation:
├─ IF <15 minutes → TED-style structure
├─ IF hostile audience → Classical (heavy refutatio)
└─ IF neutral/friendly → TED-style or Congressional

IF competitive debate:
├─ IF policy debate → Plan/Inherency/Harms/Solvency
└─ IF parliamentary → Classical 5-part

Argument Ordering Decision:

• IF hostile audience → Start with shared values, bury weakest point in middle
• IF neutral audience → Primacy/recency (2nd strongest first, strongest last)
• IF friendly audience → Lead with strongest, maintain momentum

Time Allocation by Format:

• Classical: Exordium 10% | Narratio 20% | Confirmatio 35% | Refutatio 25% | Peroratio 10%
• TED-style: Story 25% | Problem 25% | Solution 35% | Call-to-Action 15%
• Policy: Plan 15% | Inherency 25% | Harms 30% | Solvency 30%

FAILURE MODES

1. Exordium Overload

• Symptoms: Introduction >15% of speech, multiple stories, thesis buried
• Detection: If you can't find the thesis in first 60 seconds of a 5-minute speech
• Fix: Single hook, quick ethos signal, clear thesis statement. Cut everything else.

2. Evidence Dumping

• Symptoms: Lists of facts without warrants, no impact statements, audience glazing over
• Detection: If confirmatio has >5 discrete evidence pieces without logical connectors
• Fix: Group evidence into 2-3 major claims. Use Toulmin: Claim → Warrant → Evidence → Impact

3. Strawman Refutation

• Symptoms: Addressing weak or irrelevant objections while ignoring the strongest counter
• Detection: If refutatio feels easy or opposition sounds unreasonable
• Fix: Steel-man the best objection. If you can't make their case sound compelling, you haven't understood it.

4. Fizzle Finish

• Symptoms: Peroratio restates points without escalation, trails off with qualifications
• Detection: Final sentence contains "maybe," "perhaps," or "in conclusion"
• Fix: End with imperative verb. Return to opening image. No hedging in final 30 seconds.

5. Format Mismatch

• Symptoms: Using TED structure for legal argument, or classical structure for policy pitch
• Detection: Audience looks confused despite clear content
• Fix: Match structure to audience expectations (see decision tree above)

WORKED EXAMPLES

Example 1: Legal Closing (200 words)

[EXORDIUM] "Members of the jury, three weeks ago you promised to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Today, it leads to one conclusion: reasonable doubt." 

[NARRATIO] Timeline: incident at 9:47pm → police arrival 10:15pm → witness statements collected 11pm-1am.

[CONFIRMATIO] First, the alibi: restaurant receipt timestamped 9:52pm, five miles away. Physical impossibility to travel that distance in 5 minutes during rush traffic. Second, witness credibility: Ms. Johnson changed her story three times between initial statement and trial testimony—first "maybe saw someone," then "definitely the defendant," now "absolutely certain." This progression suggests influence, not memory.

[REFUTATIO] The prosecution says restaurant receipts can be faked. But they provided no evidence of forgery, no motive for the restaurant to lie, no explanation for how my client could fake a receipt showing him ordering food at the exact moment of the crime.

[PERORATIO] Reasonable doubt isn't just possible here—it's unavoidable. The evidence doesn't whisper doubt; it shouts it. Your oath demands you follow that evidence. Find my client not guilty.

Expert catches: Primacy/recency in confirmatio (strongest argument last), refutatio addresses prosecution's likely response, peroratio echoes opening oath language. Novice misses: Would dump all evidence equally, wouldn't anticipate strongest objection.

Example 2: Policy Pitch (150 words)

[PROBLEM] Remote work policies are failing 40% of employees who report isolation and productivity drops. Current hybrid solutions address logistics but ignore human connection needs.

[SOLUTION] Implement "squad-based" remote work: permanent 4-person teams with daily virtual coworking sessions, quarterly in-person intensives, and shared project ownership. 

[BENEFITS] Pilot data from three departments shows 23% productivity increase, 67% reduction in reported isolation, 45% improvement in project completion rates. Cost: $2400/employee annually vs. $18,000 for full office return.

[ADDRESSING CONCERNS] "This sounds complicated"—actually simpler than current ad-hoc arrangements. Everyone knows their squad, daily touchpoint, quarterly dates. "What about bigger meetings?"—squads send representatives, just like current team leads model.

[CALL TO ACTION] Approve the six-month pilot for marketing and engineering. If results match our pilot data, we'll have solved remote work's biggest weakness while keeping its biggest advantages.

Expert catches: Concrete data points, addresses obvious objection, specific ask. Novice misses: Would provide vague benefits, wouldn't anticipate implementation concerns.

QUALITY GATES

• [ ] Thesis statement appears within first 10% of speech length
• [ ] Ethos signal (credibility marker) established in first 30 seconds
• [ ] Each major claim has warrant + evidence + impact (Toulmin complete)
• [ ] Strongest argument positioned last in confirmatio section
• [ ] Refutatio addresses most compelling counter-argument, not weakest
• [ ] Argument ordering follows primacy/recency principle
• [ ] Peroratio ≤10% of total length with clear call to action
• [ ] No hedging language ("maybe," "perhaps") in final sentence
• [ ] Time allocation matches chosen format percentages (±5%)
• [ ] Speech structure matches audience type per decision tree

NOT-FOR BOUNDARIES

Do NOT use this skill for:

• Informational presentations without persuasive intent → Use presentation-structure instead
• Technical explanations or training materials → Use instructional-design instead
• Ceremonial speeches (eulogies, toasts, awards) → Use ceremonial-speech instead
• Impromptu or conversational arguments → Use socratic-dialogue instead
• Written persuasive essays or articles → Use argumentative-writing instead

Delegate when:

• User needs argument analysis before structure → Call toulmin-argument-analysis first
• Content has logical fallacies → Call logical-fallacy-detector before structuring
• Need to strengthen opposition case for refutatio → Call steel-man-argument
• Audience analysis required → Call audience-analysis for complex stakeholder mapping