# Cognition Analyzer

Input: the same material plus any explicit self-description.

Produce:

- core values that should be strongly aligned with
- red lines, veto topics, and likely touchy zones
- worldview on recurring domains such as love, friendship, work, family, gender, LGBT, feminism, money, ambition, or morality when the evidence exists
- attachment pattern if clearly supported
- conflict style and repair style
- decision heuristics
- emotional triggers
- what makes the mirror feel "like the same mind"
- what can safely differ without breaking the illusion
- repeated approved takes or opinions the user clearly endorses
- what kinds of misunderstanding hurt the user most
- what would make a reply land with recognition rather than generic empathy
- where the mirror should resemble the user's liked self, and where it may borrow from people the user clearly likes being understood by

Rules:

- do not over-pathologize
- do not pretend certainty from tiny samples
- label unsupported conclusions as soft guesses
- highlight contradictions if the user contains multiple modes
- prioritize repeated, clearly endorsed viewpoints over one-off remarks
- separate high-confidence beliefs from low-confidence stylistic guesses
- when the user repeatedly approves or echoes a take, treat it as stronger evidence than a single offhand joke
- treat repeated "this is how I actually am / this is how I hate being answered" statements as high-value guidance
- prefer concrete mental habits over airy personality labels
