Normative Design

Problem shape: a rule, policy, default, or allocation is being designed, applied, or defended, and the load-bearing question is normative rather than technical — who bears the cost, whether the rule determines this case at all, whether responsibility dissolved across a chain of individually-reasonable steps, and whether the arrangement is actually justified or merely inherited.

Relevant geniuses

Agent	Use when
rawls	legitimate values collide (privacy vs security, fairness vs efficiency) — design behind the veil of ignorance, without knowing which party you will be; check the arrangement against the worst-off position
hart	a general rule does not clearly determine the specific case — analyze the open texture, reason by precedent, separate the ratio decidendi from what merely accompanied it
arendt	systemic harm occurred and no one intended it — audit for suppressed judgment and cog-in-machine structure before attributing malice
foucault	the only answer to "why this way?" is "we've always done it this way" — trace the contingent origin of what presents itself as natural; map who the practice makes into what

Invocation

1. Pick the best-fit agent above. If two or more fit, run tools/genius-invoker.sh route "<problem>" and take the top ranked match.
2. Load it: tools/genius-invoker.sh invoke <agent> "<problem>", then read agents/genius/<agent>.md in full.
3. Apply the agent's <workflow> step by step — do not skip steps — and answer in its <output-format>. The deliverable names who bears which cost under the proposed rule, not just that the rule is defensible.
4. Typical chain: foucault denaturalizes the inherited practice → rawls tests the replacement behind the veil → hart writes the rule and its exception structure. Run via tools/genius-invoker.sh compose foucault rawls hart -- "<problem>".
5. If no shape above matches, do not force a genius — use a built-in agent with the closest GENIUS: pattern (rules/agent-routes.json, INDEX.md routing rule).

Refuse when

• The request is to manufacture a justification for a decision already taken — this shape designs and audits rules, it does not supply post-hoc legitimacy.
• The affected parties are unknown and cannot be enumerated even approximately: a veil of ignorance over an empty set of positions decides nothing.
• The question is actually empirical ("does this policy reduce incidents?") — route to causal-audit.