Shit scaling

Systemic Heuristic for Intelligent Tenability(SHIT)

Chapter 1: Essence and Purpose of the System

The main goal of SHIT system is not the cataloging of "heroic feats," but the assessment of the intellectual justification of actions within the context of a closed, sequential system. The system resembles a stop-system (though I have not even seen a doc about it).

The system uses the reader's perspective(unbelievable). This means the analysis is conducted with the partial elimination of authorial intent and the examination of the text through empirical and logical frameworks accessible to the reader.

Consequently, a successful plot based on random luck, plot armor, or unjustified exposition is recognized as shit. More shit — higher the rank.

Chapter 2: Foundational Principles

Intelligence is evaluated, not assumed; intelligence is not an assertion, but a step-by-step demonstration. The absence of errors, realism, and thoroughness are more important than the demonstrated level of intelligence.

The system is based on the principle of "equal cosmology." A character's abilities and intelligence are placed within logic comparable to our reality. The key indicator: can an ordinary person, given the necessary information and/or training, replicate this achievement?

The baseline for any scene are the processes/psychology of the real world (unless the plot explicitly redefines this). For assessment, it is important whether one can trace the logic of the achievement, conduct reverse engineering, and explain it.

Evaluation is conducted from the point of view of a reader applying the "tools of comparison" of the real world (logic, science, empirical experience) as a basic context, which can only be overridden by the internally consistent logic of the work itself. The system heavily depends on the intuition, intelligence, and observability of the reader.

The system gives preference to reproducibility for the average human benchmark. A globally reduced stress level for all or certain characters is permitted to simplify dramaturgy.

Chapter 3: Special Cases and Exceptions

A character can fail or make mistakes without increasing their rating, provided these errors are an inevitable consequence of their character, a fatal lack of information, or an extreme complexity of the situation.

A feature lying at the foundation of the system: A high rank in this system is assigned not only to a work where characters are "stupid," but to one where the author failed to provide intellectual justification for actions within the established rules.

At the same time, a world where all or some are super-intelligent cannot be a reason for raising the rank. A world where a recognized genius commits an unmotivatedly stupid act, serving the plot, increases the rank.

In this system, if a character has a lower rank, it does not mean they are smarter from the plot's point of view.

Success or failure of an action are not primary criteria. The primary factor is the process — the logical structure that led to the solution. An action devoid of visible cognitive operation (sudden victory, an inference "from nothing") is considered shit if it cannot be retroactively justified.

Every intellectual manifestation is stress-tested within the holistic system of the world. Internal consistency (consistency) and the reproducibility of logic in similar situations are important.

Exception for developing characters. Characters with developing storylines may have early anti-achievements that do not lower their assessment if followed by: explicit improvements in thinking/actions, recognition of shortcomings by the character themselves or the narrative, demonstration of change as a result.

Example: a character at the beginning of the work acts impulsively and fails. This is explicated in the narrative as a problem. The character realizes this, changes their approach, and in a similar situation later demonstrates an improved methodology for decision-making.

Calculated Irrationality. An action at first glance seems reckless or illogical, but in reality possesses a hidden purpose and makes sense in a broader strategic context.

Criteria for valid calculated irrationality: the character has a hidden reason for committing this action; the action misleads the opponent; the action leads to a long-term advantage; the reader is able to retrospectively reconstruct the logic of the action.

Example: a character intentionally makes a mistake in the presence of a potential opponent to create an impression of incompetence and lower the opponent's vigilance. The narrative explicates that the character was aware of the opponent's presence and intentionally created a false impression.

With a deliberate unreliable narrator and limited perspective, the work must be evaluated as a whole or retrospectively.

Chapter 4: Provability and Justification

The truthfulness of an achievement is determined by the possibility of explaining it so that a hypothetical "ordinary person," possessing analogous knowledge and skills, could replicate it or, at the very least, follow the logical chain.

All assertions about intelligence (e.g., "IQ 200") are ignored. All achievements and thoughts are considered.

Is it shown that the achievement was performed intelligently, or is it merely the story of characters or fans? Did the success of the achievement depend on coincidence?

The presence of a sufficient quantity of logical and/or empirical evidence confirming the direct actions underlying the feat, through inferences, personal conjectures, or general plot conclusions. Is the situation interpretable?

The puzzle was unsolvable without "insider information." Although the result is success, the justification is absent.

Off-screen logical architecture of a feat. An achievement is not shit if the character has an established model of methodical sequence or if contextual clues allow for logical interpolation of their actions.

Chapter 5: Unrealism and Conditional Worlds

Unrealism (superpowers, magic, advanced technology) is considered valid if it is: consistent with the internal logic of the work, fits into the established system, is publicly available or accessible to those with whom the character interacts and influences.

Example: in this world, magic exists, and all or a sufficient number of people have equal opportunities to use it, or if everyone possesses different abilities. If some unrealities are built-in for the sake of the plot but possess internal logic, they qualify as realistic or partially realistic.

Chapter 6: Categories of Justification Defects

Defects of internal consistency: something happens despite the fact that, according to previously established or implied logic, it should have been impossible.

Example: it is established in the work that telepathy works only with visual contact. Later, a character uses telepathy through a wall without any explanation.

In practically identical scenarios, the same action leads to completely different results without explanation of the reasons.

Example: Character A strikes Character B, who falls unconscious. In a similar situation later, the same strike from the same Character A against Character B produces no effect.

Defects of characterological consistency: discrepancy between actions and stated character traits, background experience, and current emotional state.

Example: a character established as a cold-blooded strategist with ten years of experience makes an impulsive, emotionally conditioned decision in a routine situation without any extraordinary provocation.

Defect of world response: a character performs an action that in a real situation would lead to physical injury, imprisonment, or other failure. If the world ignores these consequences, and the plot develops smoothly, the character is granted "narrative convenience." This increases their rank.

If a character acts with impunity because "the villain is too incompetent to fight back," the character becomes shittier.

If a character demonstrates foresight, but the only reason they do so is that "no one else in the world thought of it," the rank increases.

Unjustified invisibility: a character acts openly but is ignored by observers or opponents who are usually attentive.

Defects of information processing: making key decisions with an egregious lack of data, which the character themselves does not attempt to replenish, or ignoring available and critically important information without clear intra-character motivation.

Luckiness and plot armor. Systematic obtaining of favorable outcomes not justified by the character's actions.

Example: a character regularly survives lethal situations thanks to random intervention by factors not previously established (a random passerby, an unexpected earthquake, sudden rain).

Defects of influence and position: Discrepancy between the degree of a character's influence on the plot and their competencies, resources, and status.

Example: a young student without connections, resources, or specialized knowledge tells the country's president some strategy.

Defects of manipulative credibility. To what degree a character, given their pre-defined personality type and cognitive profile, should plausibly react to attempts of influence or manipulation by another.

Example: a character established as paranoid and distrustful after a traumatic experience of betrayal immediately and completely trusts a stranger based on minimal interaction.

Defects of probabilistic credibility: An action is unrealistic if it establishes a clear cause-and-effect relationship, and the probability of this connection occurring is not sufficiently high (for the action to make sense in the given context) when assessed from the point of view of real probability, using logic, science, empirical data, and intuition.

Example: a character survives falling from a skyscraper by landing on a truck with pillows that happened to be passing by precisely at that moment in that exact place.

Chapter 7: Control Questions for Assessment

Questions: Is the chain of reasoning traceable (explicitly or through contextual clues)? Can the success be reverse-engineered? Was the success dependent on coincidence? Did the characters anticipate the actions of others and lay out alternatives?

Bad example: A detective names the murderer based on a thing invisible to the reader and illogical in the context of the evidence. The thought process is hidden.

Good example: A detective, step by step, comparing testimonies, alibis, and physical evidence, arrives at a conclusion that an attentive reader can replicate.

Internal consistency and consistency with the logic of the real world are critically important. Consistency is a key evaluation parameter.

Questions: Do the actions correspond to the stated traits, experience, and emotional state? Does the world react plausibly to the character's actions (socially, physically, legally)? Do the character/world follow the established in-world rules?

Bad example: A hardened veteran panics at the sight of blood in a domestic situation without a history of trauma. Or: the hero publicly insults the king but is not executed because "he is the hero."

Good example: A coward shows bravery not suddenly to save the plot, but because there is nowhere left to retreat, and their panic is shown as part of the struggle.

Adequacy of situation complexity. Questions: Are the intellectual resources employed by the character proportionate to the complexity of the opponent and the setting? Does the character draw conclusions with an egregious lack of data, not attempting to replenish it? Does they ignore critically important information without internal motivation?

Bad example: The hero defeats a centuries-old demon-strategist using the simplest trick, which the latter could not have failed to anticipate.

Good example: The hero loses to a seasoned politician in a diplomatic duel because they failed to consider the cultural context — and this defeat logically stems from their origin.

Explainability and "equalized" realism. Questions: Is the feat explained sufficiently for the average reader to understand? If the explanation is complex (higher mathematics, deep psychology), is a conceptual overview provided? Does the unrealistic element (magic, tech) retain internal logic and limitations?

Bad example: "He deceived everyone because he is very smart." How exactly — is not shown.

Good example: "Using the knowledge that a mage can only cast one spell at a time, the hero tries to provoke them into casting a second spell, creating a moment of vulnerability." The logic of the limitation is partially explained.

Completeness of foresight. Did the characters anticipate the actions of others? Could they adapt under conditions of uncertainty? How resistant is the strategy to changes and actions of others? How well does the strategy maximize benefit? Does the strategy predict future events and include a sequence of actions and backup options?

Source of information: Where did the character know this from? Shown/implied?

Chain of decisions: Is the logical transition from data to decision traceable?

Consideration of alternatives: Did the character consider other options (even hinted at)?

World reaction: Were there realistic consequences/risks? Were they shown?

Retrospective justification: Can the success be explained, knowing everything post-factum, without "authorial luck"?

Chapter 8: Procedure for Applying the System

Isolation of the object. Determine what you are evaluating: the entire story, an arc, a specific character. Evaluating only a part can give an incomplete picture and distort the rank.

Setting the world's "standards": Identify explicit and implicit rules of the universe: technology level, social norms, laws of magic/physics.

Inventory of feats: Write down key actions, thoughts, decisions, victories, and defeats.

Weighing. Proceed from the presumption: "This achievement has flaws in its justification." Look for them. Determine the "specific weight" of each error or lack of justification. A minor logical inaccuracy in a domestic scene weighs less than a failure in the logic of a climactic confrontation.

Assignment of rank: Based on the cumulative impression, frequency, and severity of violations, determine the place in the hierarchy. Use intuition synthesizing all verified criteria.

Debates and re-evaluation: The system is dependent on discussions. The rank may change upon consideration of new arguments or perspectives. Ranks are not final, they are fluid and relative.

Chapter 9: Limitations and Complexities of the System

Complexity of defining benchmarks: The system requires contextual expertise, which the average reader lacks. What level of abstraction is acceptable? Where is the boundary between "internally consistent unrealism" and "shit"?

It can be difficult to determine subtext, metaphorical action, non-verbal communication, other hidden and non-obvious things. Sometimes illogicality can be the author's goal, for example for the sake of absurdity, postmodernism, parable, joke, surrealism, allegory — this increases the rank less if: the logic of the world is secondary (allegory/dream/theater of the absurd), causality is intentionally destroyed, and this is consistent throughout the work, the audience is warned by genre/form (otherwise it's just an excuse for holes).

An epistemological paradox is a logically correct reasoning leading to contradictory or mutually exclusive conclusions regarding the knowledge of truth. It points to the boundaries of the knowability of the world and the imperfection of abstractions, forcing a revision of habitual ideas.

Characters with too few actions cannot have a rank.

A low rank is received not only by one who avoided a mistake, but by one who made a realistic mistake stemming from character and demonstrated change as a result.

Non-fixed scenarios, by their nature, lack (or in most cases lack) explicit rules and variables. When checking achievements, readers often ignore a significant number of interpretations and assumptions, and this is a problem for assessment.

Chapter 10: Ranks

Tiers in order of decreasing justification.

0)
FRESH tier is reserved as empty, a theoretical near-ideal of intellectual justification.

1)
VERY LOW tier. The pinnacle of achievable narrative coherence. Violations of justification are singular, insignificant, and do not affect the perception of the whole. Minimal conventions are allowed to maintain pace or genre expectations (e.g., a secondary character agrees to cooperate slightly faster than in an absolutely realistic scenario), but these conventions do not determine the outcome of the main conflicts. The world possesses a high degree of inertia and plausibly resists the characters' actions. Errors, if they exist, have a high and proportionate cost. Intellectual victories require the character to mobilize visible resources, specific knowledge, or account for the opponent's vulnerabilities. The thought process of key decisions is either shown or unambiguously recoverable from context.

Criterion of show/reconstruction: Intellectual events (planning, deduction, strategic calculations) must be either explicitly shown through the character's thoughts, explanatory dialogues, or detailed demonstration of the process, or unambiguously reconstructable from the presented information without conjecture. The logical chain from condition to solution is absolutely transparent. The reader either becomes a witness to the thought process or, looking back, can imply it. It is not required to show every step of routine actions, but key, plot-forming intellectual feats must possess full provability.

2)
LOW tier represents a balance between narrative engagement and logical rigor. Violations of justification are noticeable upon detailed analysis but do not hinder immersion and overall do not undermine trust in the work's logic. Minor manifestations of "plot armor" (the hero gets slightly lucky) or one-time logical leaps to initiate or conclude the plot may be present, but they are not the main driver of the narrative. The reader is aware of the conventions but accepts them for the sake of the story's engagingness.

Criterion of show/reconstruction: The logic of key intellectual events is generally understandable and reconstructable. It is allowed that some technical or specialized aspects remain "off-screen" (e.g., specific formulas), but the strategic and tactical logic of the solution must be clear. The reader may wonder "how exactly did they do that technically?" but should not doubt why it was done and what the overall logic of the plan was. Reproducibility remains excellent at the conceptual level.

3)
MID tier. The justification of actions begins to noticeably yield to other narrative goals but has not yet collapsed. This is a zone of compromise: the work retains a coherent internal logic in key scenes and characters, but periodically allows noticeable simplifications to maintain drama, pace, or spectacle. Unjustified elements here are not singular but form a recurring background — characters may act slightly contrary to their usual disposition for the sake of an immediate conflict, the world sometimes offers them unexpectedly convenient opportunities precisely at the right moment, and complex problems are sometimes solved by a sudden insight or a tactical error by the opponent, whose logic remains not fully revealed.

The reader notices the roughness and at times is forced to "trust the author," but the overall impression of the world's consistency and motivations remains generally positive. Works at this level often sacrifice logical purity for greater emotional saturation, dynamics, or scale.

Criterion of show/reconstruction: The logical connection between actions and their intellectual justification begins to blur. Some important decisions may be explained in general terms but without detailed elaboration ("he foresaw everything in advance because he is a genius"). The reader often has to take the character's competence on faith, as the demonstration of this competence lags behind its results.

Intellectual "jumps" are possible — the character arrives at the correct conclusion, bypassing several logical steps that remain unvoiced. Reconstruction is possible but requires the reader to make some assumptions and conjectures to fill the gaps left by the author. Reproducibility becomes conditional: the reader sees the result and understands its causes but cannot fully trace the algorithm of its achievement.

4)
HIGH tier. Problems form a stable, systemic model, critical for an attentive reader. At this stage, violations of logic are no longer singular concessions to the genre but recurring patterns that begin to form an alternative, simplified reality within the work. The internal logic of characters is regularly violated: they demonstrate inconsistency in decisions, acting "out of character" to create plot-necessary confrontations, emotional peaks, or unexpected turns.

The world gradually loses autonomy and begins to feel managed by the plot — its rules (social, physical, magical) demonstrate flexibility and subtly adjust to the outcome required by the author, especially in climactic moments. The phenomenon of the "idiot ball" is widespread — key turns often depend on characters committing obviously irrational acts (refusal of simple communication, unnecessary risk, ignoring obvious solutions) solely to maintain dramatic tension or advance the plot in a predetermined direction.

Intellectual superiority or special competence is often declared (the character is called a genius, everyone fears them), but on screen it boils down to passive winning because the opponent makes crude, unmotivated errors. "Luckiness" accumulates — favorable coincidences for the hero form a stable chain without which his success would be impossible. Information critically important for understanding motivations or plans may be withheld from the reader until the moment of "revelation," depriving them of the opportunity to assess the logic of the character's actions at the time they were performed. The world ceases to adequately punish for mistakes, and consequences often have a symbolic or temporary nature.
Criterion of show/reconstruction: none.