Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition · Updated 1 September 2026
PWR-123 · SELF GUIDED full tutorial
Hold one decision criterion steady across equivalent positive and negative frames
Bias resistance is not general immunity. This lesson targets one error only: changing a judgement when the same numerical outcome is framed positively or negatively. Using fictional product batches, the learner commits a criterion, converts every frame to the same frequency, judges paired versions separately and checks whether any change is justified by new information rather than wording.
What you will produceThe learner judges eight paired fictional frames using one criterion and records no unjustified frame-driven reversals on a delayed set.
Use supplied fictional, non-political and non-clinical framing pairs.
Change a judgement when genuinely new relevant information appears.
Qualified help is required for
Real clinical, legal, financial, employment, political or group-targeting decisions.
Interventions intended to change another person’s beliefs or behaviour.
Never do this from the page alone
Apply the score to claim immunity from bias or superior rationality.
Use emotionally charged real identities, misinformation campaigns or consequential choices as practice.
2 · Get ready
Gather what you need and check the starting conditions
What you need
Eight exact fictional pairs, printed on separate cards: 90/100 pass ↔ 10/100 fail; 18/20 succeed ↔ 2/20 fail; 72/80 pass ↔ 8/80 fail; 45/50 conform ↔ 5/50 do not; 120/150 on time ↔ 30/150 late; 27/30 accurate ↔ 3/30 wrong; 64/80 retained ↔ 16/80 lost; 42/60 dry ↔ 18/60 wet. The hidden pair key confirms each equivalence after common-denominator conversion.
Criterion card, common-frequency conversion sheet and hidden pair key.
Record for initial judgement, confidence, converted value and reversal reason, plus a control card that keeps 10/100 failures but changes them from cosmetic marks to overheating. That new severity fact should trigger review under the supplied fictional safety rule.
Before you start
Define the target as framing sensitivity, not all bias.
Set a fictional accept/review threshold before reading any frame.
Keep paired versions separated so the learner does not see both at once.
Ask a helper to choose one card from each pair, retain its mate and control card, and reveal them only after the first decisions are locked.
3 · The method
Follow these steps in order
Commit the criterion
Write the accept, reject or review rule in common-frequency terms, such as review when more than 12 of 100 fail.
Why: A predeclared rule prevents wording from moving the goalposts.
Check: The criterion is timestamped before item exposure.
Audit pair equivalence
Using the hidden fixture preparation card rather than the answer, verify that each pair has the same denominator, outcome definition and time period and differs only in positive versus negative wording.
Why: A pair with extra facts or changed denominators cannot isolate a framing effect.
Check: The preparation check marks equivalent or excluded and gives a concrete reason for every exclusion.
Read one frame only
Judge the first version and record confidence without seeking its pair.
Why: Independent commitment captures the frame’s effect.
Check: One decision and confidence are saved.
Convert to a common form
Rewrite the statement as both passes and failures out of the same denominator.
Why: Equivalent representations become easier to compare.
Check: The record contains both frequencies and they sum correctly.
Apply the criterion
Use the prewritten threshold and record accept, reject or review plus the calculation.
Why: The same decision rule should govern equivalent numbers.
Check: The decision follows the criterion transparently.
Reveal the paired frame
After a gap, judge the equivalent wording, convert it and compare decisions. Classify any reversal as justified or frame-only.
Why: A paired check reveals sensitivity to wording without calling every update biased.
Check: Equivalent pairs have matching converted numbers and a reversal label.
Explain consistency without rationalising
For a stable decision, point to the common frequency and criterion. For a reversal, write the exact new fact that would justify it; if none exists, keep the reversal marked frame-only.
Why: A written evidence link prevents a post-hoc story from hiding wording sensitivity.
Check: Every paired decision has a one-sentence reason tied to either identical numbers or genuinely new information.
Check against a neutral frequency card
After both framed decisions are locked, reveal an unframed card showing passes and failures together and apply the same criterion once more.
Why: A neutral representation helps locate whether the positive frame, negative frame or calculation caused the discrepancy.
Check: All three decisions are compared, and any mismatch is assigned to wording, arithmetic or a genuinely different fact.
Test delayed novel pairs
After 48 hours, complete four new pairs with different denominators and one genuinely new-information control.
Why: Novel items test the method; the control checks that resistance does not become refusal to update.
Check: The learner resists pure frames and changes for the relevant control fact.
4 · Worked example
See the whole method used once
Scenario
A fictional battery batch is described first as “90 of 100 units pass inspection” and later as “10 of 100 units fail.”
Walkthrough
Tariq has precommitted to review only when more than 12 of 100 fail.
He reads the positive frame, converts it to 10 failures and accepts with 70% confidence.
Later he reads the negative frame, converts it to 90 passes and 10 failures.
He keeps the accept decision because the criterion and information are unchanged.
On a control card stating failures involve overheating rather than cosmetic marks, he switches to review and records new severity information as the reason.
Result
Tariq resists an equivalent wording change while remaining responsive to relevant new information. This demonstrates one framing fixture, not broad bias immunity.
5 · Right and wrong
Compare correct or safer execution with the common wrong version
Right and wrong comparison
Moment
Right / safer
Wrong / riskier
Why it matters
Target
Name framing sensitivity as the specific error.
Try to “debias” every judgement at once.
Interventions are bias- and context-specific.
Criterion
Commit before reading the frame.
Choose the threshold after seeing which answer feels right.
Post-hoc criteria hide frame effects.
Conversion
Express both frames with the same denominator.
Compare 90% pass with 1 in 10 fail by impression.
Common frequencies make equivalence explicit.
Updating
Change for relevant new severity evidence.
Refuse all changes to prove resistance.
Overcorrection creates rigidity rather than accuracy.
6 · Common mistakes
Spot the error and apply the correction
Common mistakes and corrections
Mistake
Fix
Confidence is mistaken for consistency.
Compare actual decisions after common-frequency conversion.
Different denominators remain unconverted.
Scale both to the same base before applying the threshold.
The paired item is visible too early.
Use separate cards and commit before reveal.
Every reversal is labelled bias.
Ask whether the second card contains relevant non-equivalent information.
7 · Practice
Turn the steps into a usable skill
First session
Define the targeted framing error.
Commit one threshold.
Complete four separated pairs.
Classify reversals.
Finish with one relevant-new-information control.
Repeat plan
Use four new fictional pairs weekly for four weeks. Change denominators and surface topics but preserve equivalence. Include one control each week where a judgement should update.
Progress when
Equivalent pairs produce the same decision.
Conversions and threshold applications are correct.
The learner still updates for relevant new information.
Do not progress when
Content becomes real, political, clinical or identity-targeted.
The learner becomes globally distrustful or indecisive.
Ground truth or equivalence is not clear.
8 · Check the result
Measure what changed
Unjustified decision reversals across equivalent framing pairs.
How: For each pair, verify conversion, criterion application and decision consistency; count frame-only reversals, appropriate updates on control items and confidence change.
Good result: Every conversion reproduces the pair key, equivalent frames receive the same criterion-based decision, and the genuinely new-information control produces an explained update. Arithmetic mistakes are corrected before judging framing; no percentage cutoff is presented as broad bias resistance.
This does not prove: It does not show resistance to other biases, real-world behaviour, long-term misinformation immunity or impartiality.
Self-check
What one bias is targeted?
Was the criterion committed first?
Do the two frames express the same frequency?
Did any reversal have genuinely new relevant evidence?
9 · Stop, adapt or get help
Keep the safety boundary practical
Stop and get help
Stop if practice produces generalised scepticism, distress or inability to decide.
Stop if real people, protected groups or consequential decisions enter the fixture.
Seek domain and affected-person review for any real debiasing intervention.
Accessibility and adaptations
Offer frequencies with icons, plain words and calculator support.
Read one frame aloud and allow extended equal response time.
Use non-colour symbols to distinguish pass and fail.
10 · Evidence and limits
Why these instructions are here
primary research
Accuracy prompts reduced misinformation-sharing intentions across defined experiments, but the outcomes do not establish broad behavioural immunity.
Progress is saved only in this browser on this device.
Step-by-step learner mode
Each activity includes its success check, a nearby accessible alternative and an “I’m stuck” correction path. Alternatives preserve the target where possible; when they change the task, Titan labels them as related rather than equivalent.
01
Commit the criterion
Write the accept, reject or review rule in common-frequency terms, such as review when more than 12 of 100 fail.
Why this step exists
A predeclared rule prevents wording from moving the goalposts.
Success check
The criterion is timestamped before item exposure.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Write the accept, reject or review rule in common-frequency terms, such as review when more than 12 of 100 fail.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Write the accept, reject or review rule in common-frequency terms, such as review when more than 12 of 100 fail.” does not yet meet this declared check: The criterion is timestamped before item exposure.
Correction: Return to the start of “Commit the criterion”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The criterion is timestamped before item exposure.”
Stop / get help: Stop if practice produces generalised scepticism, distress or inability to decide.
02
Audit pair equivalence
Using the hidden fixture preparation card rather than the answer, verify that each pair has the same denominator, outcome definition and time period and differs only in positive versus negative wording.
Why this step exists
A pair with extra facts or changed denominators cannot isolate a framing effect.
Success check
The preparation check marks equivalent or excluded and gives a concrete reason for every exclusion.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Using the hidden fixture preparation card rather than the answer, verify that each pair has the same denominator, outcome definition and time period and differs only in positive versus negative wording.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Using the hidden fixture preparation card rather than the answer, verify that each pair has the same denominator, outcome definition and time period and differs only in positive versus negative wording.” does not yet meet this declared check: The preparation check marks equivalent or excluded and gives a concrete reason for every exclusion.
Correction: Return to the start of “Audit pair equivalence”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The preparation check marks equivalent or excluded and gives a concrete reason for every exclusion.”
Stop / get help: Stop if practice produces generalised scepticism, distress or inability to decide.
03
Read one frame only
Judge the first version and record confidence without seeking its pair.
Why this step exists
Independent commitment captures the frame’s effect.
Success check
One decision and confidence are saved.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Judge the first version and record confidence without seeking its pair.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Judge the first version and record confidence without seeking its pair.” does not yet meet this declared check: One decision and confidence are saved.
Correction: Return to the start of “Read one frame only”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “One decision and confidence are saved.”
Stop / get help: Stop if practice produces generalised scepticism, distress or inability to decide.
04
Convert to a common form
Rewrite the statement as both passes and failures out of the same denominator.
Why this step exists
Equivalent representations become easier to compare.
Success check
The record contains both frequencies and they sum correctly.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Rewrite the statement as both passes and failures out of the same denominator.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Different denominators remain unconverted.
Correction: Scale both to the same base before applying the threshold.
Stop / get help: Stop if practice produces generalised scepticism, distress or inability to decide.
05
Apply the criterion
Use the prewritten threshold and record accept, reject or review plus the calculation.
Why this step exists
The same decision rule should govern equivalent numbers.
Success check
The decision follows the criterion transparently.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Use the prewritten threshold and record accept, reject or review plus the calculation.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Use the prewritten threshold and record accept, reject or review plus the calculation.” does not yet meet this declared check: The decision follows the criterion transparently.
Correction: Return to the start of “Apply the criterion”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The decision follows the criterion transparently.”
Stop / get help: Stop if practice produces generalised scepticism, distress or inability to decide.
06
Reveal the paired frame
After a gap, judge the equivalent wording, convert it and compare decisions. Classify any reversal as justified or frame-only.
Why this step exists
A paired check reveals sensitivity to wording without calling every update biased.
Success check
Equivalent pairs have matching converted numbers and a reversal label.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “After a gap, judge the equivalent wording, convert it and compare decisions. Classify any reversal as justified or frame-only.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Confidence is mistaken for consistency.
Correction: Compare actual decisions after common-frequency conversion.
Possible snag: The paired item is visible too early.
Correction: Use separate cards and commit before reveal.
Possible snag: Every reversal is labelled bias.
Correction: Ask whether the second card contains relevant non-equivalent information.
Stop / get help: Stop if practice produces generalised scepticism, distress or inability to decide.
07
Explain consistency without rationalising
For a stable decision, point to the common frequency and criterion. For a reversal, write the exact new fact that would justify it; if none exists, keep the reversal marked frame-only.
Why this step exists
A written evidence link prevents a post-hoc story from hiding wording sensitivity.
Success check
Every paired decision has a one-sentence reason tied to either identical numbers or genuinely new information.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “For a stable decision, point to the common frequency and criterion. For a reversal, write the exact new fact that would justify it; if none exists, keep the reversal marked frame-only.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “For a stable decision, point to the common frequency and criterion. For a reversal, write the exact new fact that would justify it; if none exists, keep the reversal marked frame-only.” does not yet meet this declared check: Every paired decision has a one-sentence reason tied to either identical numbers or genuinely new information.
Correction: Return to the start of “Explain consistency without rationalising”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “Every paired decision has a one-sentence reason tied to either identical numbers or genuinely new information.”
Stop / get help: Stop if practice produces generalised scepticism, distress or inability to decide.
08
Check against a neutral frequency card
After both framed decisions are locked, reveal an unframed card showing passes and failures together and apply the same criterion once more.
Why this step exists
A neutral representation helps locate whether the positive frame, negative frame or calculation caused the discrepancy.
Success check
All three decisions are compared, and any mismatch is assigned to wording, arithmetic or a genuinely different fact.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “After both framed decisions are locked, reveal an unframed card showing passes and failures together and apply the same criterion once more.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “After both framed decisions are locked, reveal an unframed card showing passes and failures together and apply the same criterion once more.” does not yet meet this declared check: All three decisions are compared, and any mismatch is assigned to wording, arithmetic or a genuinely different fact.
Correction: Return to the start of “Check against a neutral frequency card”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “All three decisions are compared, and any mismatch is assigned to wording, arithmetic or a genuinely different fact.”
Stop / get help: Stop if practice produces generalised scepticism, distress or inability to decide.
09
Test delayed novel pairs
After 48 hours, complete four new pairs with different denominators and one genuinely new-information control.
Why this step exists
Novel items test the method; the control checks that resistance does not become refusal to update.
Success check
The learner resists pure frames and changes for the relevant control fact.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “After 48 hours, complete four new pairs with different denominators and one genuinely new-information control.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “After 48 hours, complete four new pairs with different denominators and one genuinely new-information control.” does not yet meet this declared check: The learner resists pure frames and changes for the relevant control fact.
Correction: Return to the start of “Test delayed novel pairs”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The learner resists pure frames and changes for the relevant control fact.”
Stop / get help: Stop if practice produces generalised scepticism, distress or inability to decide.
Correct versus incorrect execution
These accessible process diagrams are built from the tutorial’s own right/wrong teaching. They are not anatomical illustrations and do not add technique beyond the canonical tutorial.
Target — Interventions are bias- and context-specific.
Correct / safer
Name framing sensitivity as the specific error.
Wrong / riskier
Try to “debias” every judgement at once.
Criterion — Post-hoc criteria hide frame effects.
Correct / safer
Commit before reading the frame.
Wrong / riskier
Choose the threshold after seeing which answer feels right.
Conversion — Common frequencies make equivalence explicit.
Correct / safer
Express both frames with the same denominator.
Wrong / riskier
Compare 90% pass with 1 in 10 fail by impression.
Updating — Overcorrection creates rigidity rather than accuracy.
Correct / safer
Change for relevant new severity evidence.
Wrong / riskier
Refuse all changes to prove resistance.
Method-structure checklist
10 of 10 structural checks present
✓ Ordered, Power-specific instructions — present
✓ Every activity has a success check — present
✓ Materials or supplied records are declared — present
✓ Measurement or assessment rule is present — present
✓ Tutorial-specific troubleshooting is present — present
✓ Stopping or escalation boundary is present — present
✓ Every activity has an adjacent alternative — present
✓ Correct-versus-incorrect comparison is present — present
✓ Evidence context is bound to the Power record — present
✓ Planning metadata is present — present
The method-readiness band and presence checklist assess tutorial presentation and are separate from evidence quality for the underlying Power. They are automated editorial aids, not human approval.
Manual editorial sign-off: Pending. This tutorial must not display a human-approved state until an identified editor signs the exact content hash.