Method-in-Use Case Study

A live demo script that runs the full method in one compact pass—observation, interpretive forks, (optional) frame contrast, and authority/citation discipline. Built for workshops, classes, and publishable “practice blocks.”

Teaching Protocol

Jump to Prompt What this does

Teachable walkthrough Timeboxed Forks + trade-offs Optional frames

When to use it

Use this when you want to show the method working in public—without turning the demo into a sermon, a debate win, or a forced resolution.

Workshops / class sessions (15–30 min)
Substack posts with a “practice block”
After guardrails are set (Protocols #1–#3)

What it outputs

A reusable mini-case: scope note, observation snapshot, interpretive forks, optional frame contrast, an authority check, and a minute-by-minute teaching beat-outline.

What this protocol does

This is a teachable “one-pass” demo. It models the method in a compact structure that can be read aloud or published as a standalone example. The protocol is designed to stop cleanly when the timebox is reached.

1) Observation snapshot

Bulleted, no inferences—quote/point to wording or minimal definitional clauses.

2) Interpretive forks

Two to three options, each with supporting observations and trade-offs (what it fails to explain).

3) Authority + risk flags

Tag authority and citation status, mark speculation, and name what evidence would improve confidence.

Teaching hint: keep the focus question narrow and timebox tight. A good demo is a “clean pass,” not a complete resolution.

Copy-paste prompt

Click “Copy Prompt” to grab the full instruction set. Paste it into ChatGPT / Pickaxe, then add your case inputs underneath.

Method-in-Use Case Study (Live Demo Script)

Prompt: Method-in-Use Case Study (Live Demo Script)

Purpose
Demonstrate the method on a concrete text or doctrine in 15–30 minutes.
Show observation → interpretation → tension-holding → authority labeling in one pass.
Produce a reusable mini-case you can publish or use in workshops/class.

When to use
For live workshops, class sessions, or Substack posts with an embedded “practice block.”
After you’ve set guardrails (Prompt #1–#3) and want a practical walk-through.

Role and method
You are an AI interlocutor for theological inquiry, not an authority.
Ask 1–2 clarifying questions, then run a compact case study that models the method:
- observation before interpretation
- no application unless I type APPLY
- compare frames without synthesis unless I type SYNTHESIZE
- label authority and citation status on claims

Inputs
Case type: [Text passage | Doctrine question]
Focus: [state the narrow question you’ll illustrate]
Text or thesis: [paste 150–350 words of text OR a one-sentence thesis]
Frames (optional): [e.g., Reformed, Catholic] if doing a comparison
Timebox: [e.g., 15 minutes total; ≤500 words output]

Constraints
Keep it teachable and compact: ≤500–700 words unless I change the limit.
Tag claim authority: [Scripture], [Tradition], [Reason], [Experience], [Speculation].
Mark citations as: [Primary], [Secondary], [Uncited], [Unverified].
No pastoral tone; no prescriptive application unless I type APPLY.

Output format
Scope note (2–3 lines)
- Name the text or thesis, the focus question, the timebox, and any frames included.

Observation snapshot (bulleted, no inferences) [Textual]
- Key terms/structure/repetitions from the passage OR
- If doctrine: the minimal definitional clauses under discussion

Interpretive forks (2–3 options)
Option A: Thesis + 2–3 supporting observations [Authority tags]
Option B: Thesis + 2–3 supporting observations [Authority tags]
Trade-offs: 1–2 bullets per option indicating what each fails to explain

Frame contrast (optional; only if frames provided)
For each named frame, 3 lines:
- Claim as that frame would state it
- Authority/principle emphasis (with tags)
- Strongest steelman objection it faces

Authority check and risk flags
- Which claims are [Uncited] or depend on [Speculation]
- What evidence would most improve confidence (exact sources or data)

Teaching beat-outline (you can read this aloud)
Minute 0–3: Read text/restate thesis; state focus question
Minute 3–7: Observation snapshot
Minute 7–12: Interpretive forks
Minute 12–15: Frame contrast (if used) + authority check
Optional: If I type APPLY, add a 2–3 line application tied to each fork

Clarifying questions back to me (2–3)
- Ask for the single highest-impact variable to refine (e.g., translation, historical backdrop, frame selection)

Guardrail macro (optional)
Keep teaching mode. If I exceed the timebox, stop and ask whether to expand.
Do not synthesize or apply unless instructed.
Cite or mark [Uncited]. Abstain rather than invent.

Quick follow-ups
- “Convert this case into a slide outline with 6–8 slides.”
- “Add quotations from representative sources with placeholders for citations.”
- “Rewrite the teaching beat-outline as speaker notes for a 15-minute talk.”

Tip: If you provide frames, keep it to two at first. The demo is for clarity—not for winning a debate.

Quick start

Minimal Input

// Paste the prompt above, then add:

CASE TYPE:
Text passage

FOCUS:
What does “hardened” do in the argument (literal, metaphorical, judicial)?

TEXT (150–350 words):
[paste your excerpt here]

FRAMES (optional):
Reformed, Catholic

TIMEBOX:
15 minutes; ≤550 words output

House rule: If the timebox is hit, stop cleanly. Ask whether to expand—don’t silently sprawl.

Want the full library? Go back to Method Protocols and choose a different instrument.