build-coherencelisted

# Build Coherence Evaluate competing approaches through independent assessment, explicit reasoning-out-loud advocacy, confidence-calibrated commitment thresholds, and structured deadlock resolution — producing coherent decisions from multiple reasoning paths. ## When to Use - `forage-solutions` has identified multiple valid approaches and a selection must be made - Oscillating between two approaches without committing to either - Needing to justify a decision with structured reasoning (architecture choice, tool selection, implementation strategy) - When a previous decision was made by gut feeling and needs evidence-based validation - When internal reasoning is producing contradictory conclusions and coherence must be restored - Before an irreversible action (merging, deploying, deleting) where the cost of the wrong choice is high ## Inputs - **Required**: Two or more competing approaches to evaluate - **Optional**: Quality assessments from prior scouting (see `forage-solutions`) - **Optional**: Decision stakes (reversible, moderate, irreversible) for threshold calibration - **Optional**: Time budget for the decision - **Optional**: Known failure mode (oscillation, premature commitment, groupthink) ## Procedure ### Step 1: Independent Evaluation Assess each approach on its own merits before comparing them. The critical rule: do not let the assessment of approach A bias the assessment of approach B. For each approach, evaluate independently: ```text Approach Evaluatio