Proof Ladder

Page Maps

graph LR
  family["Python Programming"]
  program["Python Object-Oriented Programming"]
  section["Guides"]
  page["Proof Ladder"]
  capstone["Capstone evidence"]

  family --> program --> section --> page
  page -.applies in.-> capstone

flowchart LR
  claim["State the exact claim"] --> rung["Choose the lightest rung that could disprove it"]
  rung --> surface["Inspect the matching page, file, or bundle"]
  surface --> owner["Name the owning boundary"]
  owner --> escalate["Escalate only if doubt remains"]

Use this page when the question is not:

• where is the evidence?

but:

• how much evidence is proportionate?

The wrong proof size wastes time and often hides the real design problem. Too little proof leaves a claim decorative. Too much proof turns every question into a full-system investigation when a lighter route would have answered it honestly.

The ladder

Need	Smallest honest rung	Move up when...
understand the course arc	Course Guide and Course Map	you still cannot place the current pressure
understand one module contract	Module Promise Map and the module overview	the promise still sounds true only in prose
decide whether a module is earned	Module Checkpoints	you cannot point to a concrete capstone surface
find the right capstone surface	Capstone Map and Capstone File Guide	you need executable evidence
review ownership and architecture	Capstone Architecture Guide and Capstone Walkthrough	the saved or executable evidence still matters
inspect saved state or scenario evidence	make PROGRAM=python-programming/python-object-oriented-programming inspect or capstone-walkthrough	the claim crosses behavior and test agreement
review executable confirmation	make PROGRAM=python-programming/python-object-oriented-programming capstone-verify-report	you need the strongest local confirmation route
confirm the full learner-facing route	make PROGRAM=python-programming/python-object-oriented-programming capstone-confirm or proof	you are reviewing a public teaching artifact, not a narrow claim

The ladder works only if you state the claim first. If the claim is vague, every rung will feel too heavy or too weak.

What each rung cannot do by itself

• reading pages can clarify intended ownership, but it cannot prove current behavior
• maps and walkthroughs can make the design legible, but they cannot replace targeted checks
• inspection bundles can show state and sequence, but they cannot prove every contract
• confirmation routes can prove the current local route, but they cannot rescue a vague question

This is why the ladder is not about proving more. It is about proving the right thing at the right cost.

Escalation rules

• read before you run when the question is architectural
• run before you speculate when the question is behavioral
• use the lightest rung that could prove you wrong
• escalate one rung at a time instead of jumping directly to the strongest command

The "prove you wrong" test matters because it stops proof from becoming ceremony.

Common misuse

• using capstone-confirm to answer a question settled by a module checkpoint
• reading saved artifacts before naming the owner under review
• treating proof as if it were a substitute for understanding the module promise
• escalating because the lighter route felt uncomfortable, not because it failed

The goal is not to avoid strong proof. The goal is to make sure strong proof is earned.

Quick chooser

If the question starts with...	Start here
"what is this module supposed to teach?"	promise map
"am I ready to move on?"	checkpoints
"which capstone surface matches this?"	capstone map
"how does the story look?"	walkthrough
"what does the current state prove?"	inspect
"do tests and artifacts agree?"	verify-report
"does the strongest route still hold?"	capstone-confirm

Use this table when you know the question shape but not the rung name.

Build a proof note

Before you use a proof route, write:

• the exact claim is...
• the lightest honest rung is...
• I will escalate only if...

This note sounds small, but it prevents one of the most common self-study mistakes:

• reaching for a heavy proof route because the lighter one felt less impressive

Exit check

Leave this page only when you can say:

The claim is ____, the lightest honest rung is ____, and I would escalate to ____ only if that rung leaves doubt.