Skip to content

Free for nonprofits, NGOs, think tanks, and institutes. Grant funded by James Scott, administered by the Embassy Row Project.

ArtOfTheHack home

KRYOS-XS Hypercube method

Contradiction Detection and Evidence Validation

Sources that disagree are surfaced rather than averaged, and every contributing record is scored for reliability, freshness, independence, and completeness.

What it is

The method in plain terms

When the mail gateway says benign, the user says suspicious, and threat intelligence says the infrastructure is hostile, most systems resolve the conflict silently by weighting one source. KRYOS-XS retains the disagreement and reports it as part of the decision.

Each record is scored on four axes: how reliable the source is, how recent the observation is, whether it is genuinely independent of other records, and how complete it is.

Why it matters

The evidence that contradicts the leading explanation is usually the evidence that would have prevented the mistake. Preserving it is what makes a decision defensible to a board or a court.

Applied

How it is used in a nonprofit environment

  • Distinguishing urgent field collaboration from data exfiltration when both look identical in a log
  • Preventing a single stale intelligence record from driving a lockout decision
  • Showing a trustee exactly what was known, and what was disputed, at the moment of the decision

Limits

Where the method stops

  • Scoring reflects the metadata the source system exposes
  • Contradiction detection reduces error; it does not eliminate the possibility of a wrong determination

Applied to evidence read from existing systems in place. Nothing is copied out of a source system to be scored.