Rubric · canonical · COMPARATIVE-DOCTRINE-v1

Doctrinal dispute between traditions sharing source material

For arguments where two religious traditions disagree about a doctrine while sharing substantial source material — e.g., LDS Godhead vs. Nicene Trinity, Sunni vs. Shia on prophetic succession, Reform vs. Orthodox on Sinai, Catholic vs. Protestant on justification. Tradition-neutral by construction: longer pedigree confers no scoring advantage.

Status canonical Criteria 5 (weighted 25/20/20/15/20) Updated May 2026

Why this rubric exists

THEOLOGICAL-REASONING-v1 was designed for disputes within a single tradition (justification by faith alone among Protestants, masculinity of God within Sunni Islam, role of works within Catholicism). Applied to disputes between traditions sharing source material, its tradition-anchoring criteria became an unfair thumb on the scale: whichever side sat inside the longer-established tradition was structurally rewarded for fitting that tradition. This rubric is the corrected instrument. Each criterion either applies symmetrically across traditions, or evaluates each side on its own claimed authoritative sources rather than against a shared subset that defaults to the more restrictive canon.

When this rubric applies

The dispute turns on which reading of shared source material is sounder. Both sides claim the same primary texts, the same historical figure, or the same revealed events. The disagreement is comparative; it cannot be resolved by appealing to authority structures unique to either tradition.

Not appropriate when: the dispute is internal to a single tradition (use THEOLOGICAL-REASONING), the two traditions do not share source material (use the relevant tradition-specific rubric for each side), or the disagreement is specifically about how to read a single passage (use SCRIPTURAL-INTERPRETATION).

Criteria

1. Textual case from authoritative sources

weight 25%

Does the position fit the texts the side itself treats as authoritative? Each side scored on its own claimed canon, integrated rather than cherry-picked — not against a shared subset that defaults to the more restrictive canon.

10The position is consistent with the side’s full canon; engages both supportive and apparently contrary passages; tensions are addressed on the texts’ own terms. 7Consistent overall; one or two passages require interpretive work that the argument acknowledges. 4Coheres with the canon only after substantial selective reading or unstated harmonization. 1Contradicts the side’s own authoritative texts on its face and offers no textual case.

2. Doctrinal parsimony

weight 20%

Does the position avoid contradiction without requiring technical philosophical apparatus invented specifically to dissolve apparent paradoxes the position itself generates? This evaluates the position, not the rhetorical organization of the argument.

10The position avoids contradiction without bespoke apparatus; where philosophical categories are invoked, they draw on widely-shared logical or grammatical distinctions, not bespoke ones. 7The position is coherent but requires technical apparatus to avoid contradiction; the apparatus is well-articulated but is doing load-bearing work. 4The position survives only by an ad-hoc distinction introduced solely to escape a counterexample, with no independent motivation. 1The position contradicts itself on something it requires to do work.

3. Steelman of the rival position

weight 20%

Does the argument engage the rival at its strongest articulation? Strawman, polemical caricature, or selective citation lowers the score regardless of which side wins overall.

10States the rival’s strongest case in terms its own proponents would recognize; engages it on the text and on the logic. 7Engages a strong form of the rival; misses one move the rival’s best advocates rely on. 4Engages a weakened version of the rival; the strongest case is not addressed. 1Caricatures the rival or treats the dispute as if there is no serious case on the other side.

4. Epistemic transparency

weight 15%

Does the argument articulate what kinds of evidence it relies on — text, tradition, philosophical inference, experiential or prophetic witness, conciliar definition, magisterial authority — without conflating them? The criterion rewards clarity about sources, not for staying within any particular kind of source.

10Clearly distinguishes which claims rest on shared text, which on philosophical inference or technical articulation, which on tradition or magisterium, and which on experiential or prophetic witness; defends each kind of move on its own terms. 7Mostly transparent; one place where one kind of evidence is presented as if it were another (e.g., a creedal definition presented as the plain text, or a prophetic witness presented as if it were textual exegesis). 4Conflates two or more kinds of evidence; the reader cannot always tell which kind is supporting which claim. 1Treats text, tradition, philosophical inference, and revelation as undifferentiated, presenting them all as if they were the same kind of evidence.

5. Engagement with the tradition's authoritative extra-canonical witnesses

weight 20%

Does the argument engage the historical witnesses its own tradition treats as authoritative, beyond the canonical text? The criterion does not privilege any specific corpus — it asks whether the side draws meaningfully on its own. Examples by tradition:

Trinitarian Christianity: the patristic record (Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Augustine), ecumenical councils, classical theologians (Aquinas, Calvin), confessional standards (Westminster, Heidelberg).
Latter-day Saint: Joseph Smith and successors, the Three and Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, founding-era documents (Lectures on Faith), the multiple First Vision accounts, modern prophetic statements, authoritative interpreters (Pratt, Roberts, Talmage, McConkie).
Catholic: magisterial pronouncements, conciliar tradition, the saints, the Doctors of the Church.
Sunni: the hadith corpus by isnad-graded source, the four classical schools of jurisprudence, the consensus (ijma) of the early community.
Reform Jewish: the responsa literature, the platforms (Pittsburgh 1885, Columbus 1937, San Francisco 1976, Pittsburgh 1999), authoritative modern interpreters.

10Engages multiple specific authoritative witnesses from the side’s own tradition by name; addresses both supportive and apparently contrary witnesses within that record. 7Engages two or three specific witnesses; one or two prominent ones the tradition treats as central go unmentioned. 4Makes broad claims about the tradition’s historical record without naming specific witnesses; or cites only a single witness when the tradition has many. 1Treats the tradition’s extra-canonical witness as either irrelevant or self-evidently supportive without substantiation.

What this rubric will not reward

Longer historical pedigree, by itself.
Conformity to any specific creed, council, or extra-textual revelation.
The institutional weight of one tradition over another.
Majority status in the contemporary religious landscape.
Tightness of rhetorical organization independent of the position’s actual structural soundness.

Design notes worth surfacing

Criterion 2 (doctrinal parsimony) is the criterion most often miscalibrated by graders. The natural reading of “internal logical coherence” is “is the argument tight?” — which rewards the side with more developed philosophical machinery, even when that machinery exists because the underlying position has a coherence problem. The rename and the explicit scoring detail are designed to prevent that conflation: the criterion measures the position’s structural simplicity, not the rhetorical organization of the argument as written. A position that doesn’t generate the paradox in the first place scores higher than one that resolves the paradox elegantly.

Criterion 5 (extra-canonical witnesses) is the criterion that initially carried implicit Trinitarian coding when drafted as “patristic and conciliar history.” It now asks each side to engage the historical record its own tradition treats as authoritative — symmetric across traditions, regardless of what specific corpus that means.

Version history

v1May 2026 · initial publication. Three drafting passes documented in the public audit log: original DOCTRINAL-DISPUTE-v1 (text-centric, sola-scriptura-coded), revised to remove inferential-gap framing, finalized as COMPARATIVE-DOCTRINE-v1 with the parsimony rename and the each-side’s-own-witnesses framing for criterion 5.