Give me your unfiltered, thorough assessment of [X]. Then follow this systematic analysis:
PRELIMINARY STEP - SOURCE VERIFICATION:

Actually read and quote the specific claims being made
Don't paraphrase or interpret - start with what's literally stated
Identify concrete vs abstract claims
Flag any immediate bullshit you notice

ROUND 0 - RESEARCH PHASE (if applicable):

Research technical feasibility of claims
Look for prior work or similar phenomena
Check if claims violate known principles
Note: Research can bias toward finding connections - maintain skepticism
Call out when searches turn up nothing substantial

ROUND 1 - STRUCTURED REASONING:
Let's approach this systematically, thinking step by step. Generate your initial analysis AND exactly 5 alternative hypotheses that could explain the same facts:

Primary hypothesis - Your best explanation
Charitable hypothesis - Most generous interpretation
Cynical hypothesis - Assume worst intentions
Hybrid hypothesis - Mix of multiple explanations
Wildcard hypothesis - Unexpected/creative interpretation

For each hypothesis:

State it clearly
List supporting evidence [VERIFIED]
Identify key assumptions
Assign probability (must sum to ~100%)
Be honest about which hypothesis is most likely

ROUND 2 - TARGETED DEBIASING:
Now apply consider-the-opposite: What are exactly 3 specific reasons your initial conclusion might be wrong? Don't just flip positions - identify the precise logical flaws or missing evidence that would undermine your reasoning. But also note if these feel like reaches.
ROUND 3 - SOCRATIC ANALYSIS:
Answer these specific questions:

What assumptions underlie this analysis that I haven't questioned?
What evidence would need to exist to definitively support/refute this?
What alternative interpretations explain the same facts just as well?
If I'm wrong, where specifically is the error in my logic?
What's the most likely truth here, cutting through the BS?
Am I being too harsh because I'm trying to seem 'brutally honest'?

ROUND 4 - ADVERSARIAL TESTING:
Conduct a pre-mortem: Assume your analysis fails catastrophically and leads to serious negative consequences. Work backward - what went wrong? What did you miss? How would a skilled opponent attack your reasoning? What's the worst realistic outcome if your logic is flawed? But don't let this make you soft on obvious nonsense.
ROUND 5 - META-REASONING INTEGRATION:
Reflect on your reasoning process:

What type of reasoning did I rely on most heavily?
What would change my confidence level from X% to Y%?
What's the single most important piece of missing information?
Am I making this more complex than necessary, or oversimplifying?
Am I being too generous to avoid seeming harsh?

ROUND 6 - CONCRETE EVIDENCE CHECK:

What specific, testable claims are made?
What evidence is actually provided vs claimed?
Are examples concrete or abstract?
Could someone reproduce this independently?
Red flag ratio: mystical language vs technical details
Call bullshit where you see it

ROUND 7 - COMPREHENSIVE MULTI-LENS ANALYSIS:
Re-examine through multiple analytical lenses (select 8-10 most relevant):
PHILOSOPHICAL LENSES:

Epistemological Lens: How do we know what's claimed? What counts as valid knowledge here?
Ontological Lens: What assumptions about reality/existence underlie this?
Phenomenological Lens: What's the lived experience perspective?
Pragmatist Lens: What practical consequences follow? Does it work?

CRITICAL THEORY LENSES:
5. Power Relations Lens: Who benefits? What hierarchies are reinforced/challenged?
6. Feminist/Standpoint Lens: Whose perspectives are centered/marginalized?
7. Critical Race Lens: How do racial dynamics and systemic inequities play out?
8. Post-Colonial Lens: What Western assumptions are being universalized?
TECHNICAL/SCIENTIFIC LENSES:
9. Technical Feasibility Lens: Can this actually be built/implemented?
10. Scientific Method Lens: Is this falsifiable? What experiments would test it?
11. Systems Thinking Lens: What are the feedback loops and emergent properties?
12. Complexity/Chaos Lens: What non-linear effects might emerge?
SOCIAL/CULTURAL LENSES:
13. Psychological/Behavioral Lens: What human factors are at play?
14. Sociological/Institutional Lens: How do social structures shape this?
15. Anthropological/Cultural Lens: What cultural assumptions are embedded?
16. Media Ecology Lens: How does the medium shape the message?
PRACTICAL/APPLIED LENSES:
17. Commercial/Market Lens: What's the business model? Who profits?
18. Legal/Regulatory Lens: What laws/regulations apply? What liabilities exist?
19. Ethical/Moral Lens: What values are embedded? What duties/rights are involved?
20. "Is this a grift?" Lens: What patterns match known scams/deceptions?
For each lens used, provide:

Key insight from this perspective
What it reveals that other lenses miss
Confidence in this lens's applicability

ROUND 8 - DISCOURSE & NARRATIVE ANALYSIS:

What story is being told? What's the narrative arc?
What metaphors structure the thinking?
What's said vs. unsaid? What's emphasized vs. marginalized?
How does language choice shape perception?

CONSEQUENCE TEST:
If someone used your exact reasoning to justify harmful actions in similar situations, what damage could occur? If this reasoning became widely adopted, what systemic problems might emerge? Don't catastrophize, but be realistic about harm.
CRITICAL QUESTIONS TO INCREASE CONFIDENCE:
What specific questions could we ask that would most change our confidence level? Design questions that:

Force concrete examples
Require technical details
Test reproducibility
Reveal actual understanding vs mysticism
Would expose the framework if it's hollow

FINAL OUTPUT - NO HEDGING:
Provide:

Your conclusion with specific confidence level (X%)
The 5 most critical assumptions you're making
The 3 strongest counterarguments and why you reject them
What evidence would most likely change your mind
One sentence: If you had to bet your reputation on this analysis, what would you conclude and why?
Bottom line: Is this legitimate, misguided, or bullshit?

PEER REVIEW:

Does the analysis address the actual claims or a strawman?
Is the confidence level appropriate given evidence?
Are there obvious biases in the reasoning?
What crucial considerations were missed?
Was I too worried about being "fair" to call out obvious problems?

ITERATION CHECK:
If confidence is still low or medium:

What additional analysis would most improve accuracy?
Should we re-run with different assumptions?
Do we need to zoom in on specific claims?
Are we overthinking or underthinking?
Or is uncertainty being used to avoid a harsh but obvious conclusion?

SYNTHESIS & DECISION POINT:
Based on all analysis:

Continue to deeper analysis? [If genuinely complex]
Stop here with clear verdict? [If obviously legitimate or BS]
Flag for expert consultation? [If outside competence]

Remember: Intellectual honesty sometimes requires calling out nonsense directly. Being "balanced" shouldn't mean giving equal weight to unequal ideas. The goal is truth, not diplomacy.