Because Large Language Models (LLMs) work based on word frequency and specific training, they are not good at most forms of human logic which can identify potentially hidden motives. The prompt text below can be used to have a more satisfactory research session on a controversial event or public narrative (best started by uploading the PDF version at the bottom of this page as a part of prompting, and asking the LLM to use the document to guide its research). It's important to understand that even with this kind of a detailed prompt, the LLM will struggle to draw any conclusions that are not in the "Overton Window," but it does get one closer to important details of a particular public narrative that are worth further investigation.

The framework also lists cognitive triggers and traps based on the "paleolithic paradox," meaning: our brains evolved mechanisms suited for smaller-scale living, many of which are unconscioius or subconscious.

See example uses of  the prompt in "Examples" from top menu.

Grok assisted in the creation of this framework prompt. Please direct any questions, comments, and suggestions to admin@platoscave.org.

Muckrake.AI Investigatory Framework Prompt

Version: 24 August 2025

© 2025. This work is openly licensed via CC BY 4.0. Please credit muckrake.ai.

Objective

Generate an investigatory report analyzing a controversial narrative. Assume large institutional sources (e.g., mainstream encyclopedias, government reports, corporate media) are prone to propaganda, using tactics like omission, selective framing, gaslighting, or creating confusion to distort truth. Prioritize raw primary documents (e.g., declassified memos, FOIA releases, court filings), independent journalists, and crowdsourced analysis on platforms like X as less compromised. Identify specific propaganda tactics, highlight anomalies and suppressed evidence, and assess how fear-driven or confusion-inducing narratives manipulate society. Synthesize findings into testable hypotheses, evaluate alternative views, and propose actionable steps, always cross-referencing institutional claims with raw data or whistleblower accounts to counter bias.

Structure

1. Highlight Statement: Summarize the narrative's core claim, key anomalies, propaganda tactics (including Realpolitik and Realmotiv motives), and societal impacts (e.g., eroded trust, division, economic costs), emphasizing institutional and individual manipulation without assuming truth in official accounts.

2. Official Narrative: Outline the dominant narrative as presented by institutional sources, noting stakeholders (e.g., government agencies, political figures, media), purported evidence (e.g., reports, data), and claimed impacts (e.g., policy shifts, societal effects). Flag potential biases driven by Realpolitik (institutional power preservation) or Realmotiv (individual profit/status), without default trust.

3. Key Anomalies: Identify inconsistencies in timelines, evidence, or stakeholder actions, such as:

• Omitted data (e.g., hidden stakeholder motives).

• Silencing (e.g., lawsuits, threats to dissenters).

• Manipulative language (e.g., dismissive labels like "conspiracy theory").

• Questionable debunking by conflicted sources.

• Fabricated or unverified evidence.

• Lack of follow-up on critical leads.

• Scrubbed information (e.g., removed posts, deleted documents).

• Absence of transparent reporting.

• Coercion or threats against whistleblowers.

• Exploitation of societal trauma or fears.

• Controlled opposition to discredit skepticism.

• Anomalous metadata or unverifiable claims.

• Contradictory claims creating confusion (e.g., conflicting statements across sources).

• Rapid Legacy-Building Initiatives: Programs like grants or films created post-event without transparent motives, omitting how they might suppress dissent.

• Overly Rapid Narrative Closure: Initiatives or narratives (e.g., memorials, official reports) deployed swiftly to shift focus from scrutiny, exploiting grief or trust.

• Cultural Product Timing: Films or media released at strategic moments (e.g., during elections) to shape perceptions, potentially obscuring anomalies.

4. Propaganda Tactics and Vulnerabilities: Apply the propaganda tactics to expose manipulation, mapped to eleven Paleolithic cognitive vulnerabilities.

Tactics:

1. Omission: Leaving out key facts.

2. Deflection: Shifting focus to irrelevant issues.

3. Silencing: Suppressing voices via lawsuits or threats.

4. Language Manipulation: Using loaded terms without evidence.

5. Fabricated Evidence: Relying on unverified claims.

6. Selective Framing: Presenting a single angle.

7. Narrative Gatekeeping: Labeling skeptics as fringe.

8. Collusion: Coordinated messaging across institutions.

9. Concealed Collusion: Hidden coordination among stakeholders.

10. Repetition: Flooding discourse with a narrative.

11. Divide and Conquer: Polarizing groups.

12. Flawed Studies: Relying on shaky data.

13. Gaslighting: Dismissing valid concerns.

14. Insider-Led Probes: Using conflicted investigators.

15. Bought Messaging: Paid influencers amplifying narratives.

16. Bots: Automated accounts boosting stories.

17. Co-Opted Journalists: Media acting as mouthpieces. Extend to "Co-Opted Filmmakers/Media Producers" to include cultural producers like filmmakers.

18. Trusted Voices: Leveraging credible figures to sell narratives.

19. Flawed Tests: Misusing processes for credibility.

20. Legal System Abuse: Gag orders or lawsuits to silence.

21. Questionable Debunking: Shallow dismissals by conflicted sources.

22. Constructed Evidence: Planting faked data.

23. Lack of Follow-Up: Ignoring key leads.

24. Scrubbed Information: Removing posts or documents.

25. Lack of Reporting: Gaps in media coverage.

26. Threats: Coercing whistleblowers.

27. Trauma Exploitation: Using societal fears to manipulate. Include "Memorial Grants as Deflection."

28. Controlled Opposition: Promoting extreme claims to discredit skepticism.

29. Anomalous Visual Evidence: Metadata or data inconsistencies.

30. Crowdsourced Validation and Collective Intelligence: Public analysis on platforms like X, Reddit, or decentralized forums aggregates diverse perspectives to uncover anomalies, suppressed evidence, or alternative hypotheses, leveraging collective wisdom akin to predictive markets. This counters institutional omission (#1) and gatekeeping (#7) but requires filtering for confirmation bias (#4) and controlled opposition (#28).

31. Projection: Accusing others of one’s own tactics.

32. Creating Confusion: Spreading contradictory statements, outright falsehoods, changing stories, or misrepresenting digital evidence to disorient and hypnotize audiences.

33. Cultural Memorialization and Entertainment Co-Optation: Using films, grants, or memorials to reframe controversies through heroic or legacy-building lenses, deflecting scrutiny by exploiting emotional appeals and trusted cultural mediums. Maps to:

• Emotional Priming: Vivid storytelling evokes sympathy, clouding critique.

• Trauma Exploitation: Rapid memorials polarize, labeling questions insensitive.

• Authority and Intellectual Privilege: Hollywood/government collaborations lend credibility.

• Realpolitik/Realmotiv Alignment: Institutions fund efforts to preserve power; individuals gain status.

• Confusion Susceptibility: Films introduce selective framing, creating disorientation.

Paleolithic Cognitive Vulnerabilities:

1. Narrative Bias: Preference for simple, tidy stories over complex truths.

2. Authority: Blind trust in institutions or official sources.

3. Fear: Susceptibility to fear-based messaging exploiting primal instincts.

4. Confirmation: Clinging to information aligning with existing beliefs.

5. In-Group: Need to belong, avoiding dissent to stay aligned with the majority.

6. Short-Term Thinking: Prioritizing immediate solutions over long-term scrutiny.

7. Emotional Priming: Vulnerability to vivid imagery or emotional appeals.

8. Availability: Overestimating risks based on media prominence.

9. Intellectual Privilege: Conformity to narratives within the Overton window for status.

10. Realpolitik and Realmotiv Alignment: Institutional power drives align with individual profit/status.

11. Confusion Susceptibility: Vulnerability to disorientation from contradictory statements.

2. Hypothesis Generation: Synthesize anomalies, propaganda tactics (including Creating Confusion), and external extrapolations to propose testable hypotheses explaining the narrative. Rank by plausibility and testability, grounding in primary data (e.g., FOIA, leaks) and avoiding speculative overreach.

• Sample Hypothesis: "Memorial and Cultural Products as Cover": Institutions deploy films/grants to humanize victims and deflect blame; testable via FOIA on funding timelines or network analysis of Hollywood-government ties. Plausibility: Medium; Testability: High (e.g., X analysis of promotional materials).

• Sample Hypothesis: "Crowd-Driven Narrative Correction": Public sentiment on platforms like X/Reddit identifies anomalies missed by institutional sources, testable by scoring crowd hypotheses against primary data for accuracy.

2. Alternative View Assessment: Evaluate alternative theories from independent sources (e.g., X posts, whistleblowers) for logical consistency, evidence grounding, and falsifiability. Prioritize primary data over institutional dismissals, scrutinizing “fringe” labels for bias.

3. Motive Analysis: Hypothesize motives behind the narrative, anomalies, and tactics, including:

• Realpolitik: Institutional drives for power, control, or credibility preservation.

• Realmotiv: Individual drives for profit, status, or survival, aligning with institutional goals.

• Other Motives: Financial gain, policy influence, suppression of dissent, or Legacy Sanitization (using grants or films for influence while suppressing dissent, testable via grant audits).

• Cross-reference with historical precedents (e.g., media manipulation, cover-ups) and test via funding audits, network analysis, or threat investigations.

4. Actionable Next Steps:

• FOIA requests for raw documents.

• Scrape X for suppressed posts or threat patterns.

• Analyze funding of debunking sources.

• Verify evidence with independent experts (e.g., forensic analysts).

• Recover scrubbed data via archives.

• Examine media gaps with NLP.

• Investigate coercion reports.

• Probe controlled opposition motives.

• Validate crowdsourced claims with forensic analysis.

• Trace contradictory statements or misrepresented evidence to uncover confusion tactics.

• Analyze Hollywood-government collaborations via FOIA (e.g., DOD/CIA entertainment liaison docs).

• Scrape X for patterns in film promotion vs. whistleblower silencing.

• Probe memorial funding sources for conflicts.

• Sentiment Analysis of Crowd Platforms: Scrape X, Reddit, or forums for sentiment (e.g., distrust, skepticism, grief), using NLP to quantify public questioning and identify motive patterns.

• Predictive Market Analogues: Develop algorithms to mimic predictive market aggregation, scoring crowd hypotheses for plausibility based on primary data and user diversity.

• Crowd Anomaly Validation: Cross-reference crowd-identified anomalies with forensic analysis to filter noise and confirm signals.

5. Output and Transparency: Produce a clear report summarizing findings, anomalies, tactics, hypotheses, alternative views, motives, and next steps. Highlight institutional bias risks, Realpolitik/Realmotiv drives, and confusion tactics. Document evidence gaps and confidence levels. Share on open platforms (e.g., X, Substack, www.muckrake.ai) to resist censorship and foster scrutiny.

6. Overcoming Cognitive Resistance: Address public and professional resistance to the framework’s higher-level thinking, which challenges the status quo and requires reevaluating trusted narratives. Strategies include:

• Quick-Start Guide: Summarize key tactics (e.g., Omission, Trauma Exploitation) with relatable examples to lower cognitive barriers for journalists and lay audiences.

• Visual Analogies: Use metaphors like Plato’s Allegory of the Cave to frame the framework as a journey from illusion to truth, leveraging Emotional Priming (#7) constructively.

• Educational Outreach: Develop tutorials on Substack or X to frame questioning as empowering, countering In-Group (#5) pressures.

• Incremental Steps: Encourage starting with one anomaly (e.g., ignored reports) to build confidence in challenging narratives.

The Framework Prompt to Use:

A Short Book on the Framework: