Hanlon's Razor

Overview

Before assuming someone hurt you on purpose, construct the version where they made a mistake — and see how much evidence it explains. The razor is a Bayesian prior, not a proof; override it when concrete evidence of malice arrives. Human attribution systematically over-weights intent (fundamental attribution error); most hostile-seeming acts are incompetence, miscommunication, or asymmetric information.

Composes with bayesian-reasoning, abductive-reasoning, occams-razor, critical-thinking.

When to Use

• You feel an emotional pull toward "they did this on purpose"
• You're about to escalate on the assumption of malice
• A pattern of bad outcomes is being framed as a coordinated attack
• A team is in conflict and each side believes the other is acting in bad faith
• An AI model's harmful/biased output or a competitor's surprising AI move is being read as deliberate malice rather than an emergent bug, honest error, or ordinary self-interested competition

Not when: concrete evidence of malicious intent exists; cost of being wrong is catastrophic; power imbalance makes "they probably didn't mean it" an abuse-enabling stance.

Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)

• Engine mode: user has a concrete case → run The Process directly.
• Coach mode: user is unfamiliar → guide step by step.

In Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop.

1. One-line: before believing someone did it on purpose, construct the mistake version — see how much evidence it covers.
2. Check fit: concrete malice evidence / catastrophic cost of being wrong → not this lens.
3. Elicit the specific incident — what exactly happened?

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

4. Work through The Process one step at a time with their input.

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

5. Close: name the clarifying-conversation move + the override signal to watch for.

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

The Process

Step 1 — Describe the action and harm (factual, not interpretive)

- What was done: <specific, factual>
- Harm to me: <concrete>
- Gut attribution: <what your instinct is saying>

Step 2 — Construct the non-malice explanation

- Bad information they had: / Didn't realize: / Optimizing for: / Under pressure from:
- Coverage: <% of observed behavior this explains>

Step 3 — Name what malice would additionally require

- Info they'd need: / Motivation at your expense: / Harm predictable from their position?

Step 4 — Choose starting posture · Step 5 — Set override signal · Step 6 — Hold prior until evidence changes it

- Prior: <mistake / malice> · Starting posture: · First move: · Override trigger:

Output Template

# Hanlon's Razor Analysis: <incident>
Mistake explanation + coverage % | Malice extra assumptions | Prior | Override signal | First action

→ Method in Action: Hanlon's Submission 1980; Heinlein's 1941 Articulation

→ 2026 lens: AI Incidents — Incompetence & Emergent Error as a Prior Over Malice (2024–2026)

Pack: Common Patterns

Situation	Default malice	Likely incompetence
Colleague sends harsh email	"They're undermining me"	Tired, didn't notice tone
Manager ignores your work	"They don't value me"	Overloaded, missed the update
Customer complains publicly	"Trying to extort us"	Real issue, tried other channels
Investor passes after diligence	"Were never serious"	Portfolio rebalancing
Co-founder makes unilateral decision	"Cutting me out"	Time pressure, assumed approval

Applying It Well

• Mistake-prior conversations produce information; malice-prior conversations produce defensiveness — even when malice later turns out true.
• The malice attribution feels viscerally correct in real-time; almost always overconfident in retrospect.
• Scales from individual to institutional: most "broken culture" is coordination failure, not coordinated malice.

→ Primary sources: references/sources.md

Common Rationalizations

[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.

Fake move	Reality
[D] Apply razor then ignore mounting evidence of malice	It's a prior, not a permanent ban on updating.
[D] Use razor to avoid hard conversations	It recommends a clarifying conversation, not silence.
[D] Apply razor across power asymmetries	Boss-harming-subordinate: power shifts the calculus.
[D] Invoke razor on yourself to dodge accountability	"Didn't mean to" doesn't undo the harm.
[D] Stop investigating once incompetence is identified	Incompetence-caused harm still requires response.
[D] Use razor to gaslight someone who was genuinely harmed	Attribution ≠ override of their lived experience.
→ Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure pattern	What went wrong and why

Red Flags

• Razor invoked by the actor, not the receiver
• "Incompetence" explanation conveniently absolves a powerful party
• Pattern of "incompetence" always harming the same direction
• Razor used to silence a victim's report or applied repeatedly without updating priors

Verification

• Action and harm stated factually (not interpretively)
• Specific incompetence explanation constructed and coverage assessed
• Additional assumptions required for malice named
• Clarifying-conversation posture chosen (not accusation)
• Override signals specified; power asymmetry considered

---

Part of deciqAI Knowledge Skills — 227 open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. The same skills power every deciqAI agent, which runs them autonomously to operate your company. See it run → https://www.deciqai.com/c/hanlons-razor · ⭐ Star the repo → https://github.com/deciqAI/knowledge-skills · Contributions welcome.

Agents: latest version & machine-readable metadata → https://www.deciqai.com/s/hanlons-razor.json