Scientific reasoning loop that uses multiple MMX modalities to test a hypothesis. Activates when: (1) Arif proposes a geological model or interpretation; (2) a complex question needs visual + textual + data evidence; (3) Arif asks to "prove" or "test" an interpretation. Runs: hypothesis → request image/video evidence → mmx vision analysis → GEOX consistency check → CLAIM/PLAUSIBLE/HYPOTHESIS verdict.
Geoscience is not a single-modality discipline. A depositional model must be consistent with core, wireline, seismic, and analogs. This skill runs a multi-step hypothesis test using MMX's modalities as a evidence engine.
HYPOTHESIS
↓ propose in text
PLAN EVIDENCE NEEDS
↓ what modalities would confirm or refute?
REQUEST EVIDENCE
↓ mmx image (schematic), mmx video (animation), mmx vision (real photos), mmx text (analog data)
ANALYZE EVIDENCE
↓ GEOX labels on all evidence
CONSISTENCY CHECK
↓ does evidence support / refute / is inconclusive?
VERDICT
↓ CLAIM (supported) / PLAUSIBLE (weak support) / HYPOTHESIS (unsupported)
State the hypothesis clearly with GEOX labels:
INT: The Upper Sandstone in Field X is a turbidite channel complex.
SPEC: This interpretation is based on gamma ray log motif alone.
NEEDS: seismic amplitude character + analogous core photo to confirm.
What would confirm or refute this? List:
mmx image (schematic) or ask Arif to providemmx visionmmx text chat --model MiniMax-Text-01mmx search# Generate schematic of expected seismic character
mmx image "seismic section showing turbidite channel complex, amplitude map, two-way-time depth"
# Request analogous core photo
mmx image "core photo turbidite sandstone amalgamated channels"
# Search published analogs
mmx search "turbidite channel seismic amplitude character field analog"
For each image received, run through geo-vision-translator to get OBS/DER/INT labels.
EVIDENCE ITEM 1: [description]
- Supports hypothesis? YES/PARTIAL/NO
- GEOX label: OBS/DER/INT
- Uncertainty: [what it can't confirm]
EVIDENCE ITEM 2: ...
| Verdict | Definition | When to Use |
|---|---|---|
| CLAIM | Multiple independent evidence types support it | Consistent seismic + well + analog |
| PLAUSIBLE | Some support, but key evidence missing | Supported by one modality, unconfirmed by others |
| HYPOTHESIS | Plausible but unsupported | Single line of evidence or theoretical only |
| REFUTED | Evidence contradicts the hypothesis | Explicit counter-evidence from data |
Hypothesis: "The N5 sandstone in Well A is shoreface, not turbidite."
STEP 1 — PROPOSE
INT: N5 sandstone = shoreface depositional environment
SUPPORTING: gamma ray motif blocky,proximal
REFUTING: absence of turbidite indicators
STEP 2 — PLAN
Needed: (1) seismic amplitude at N5 level, (2) analogous shoreface core photo, (3) wireline shape comparison
STEP 3 — REQUEST
mmx image "shoreface sandstone core photo well sorted"
mmx search "shoreface vs turbidite gamma ray motif distinction"
STEP 4 — ANALYSIS (geo-vision-translator on core photo)
OBS: well-sorted, fine-to-medium sandstone, horizontal lamination
INT: consistent with shoreface, not diagnostic of turbidite
SPEC: turbidite would show amalgamation surfaces and clast variety
STEP 5 — CONSISTENCY
Evidence 1 (core analog): SUPPORTS shoreface (partial)
Evidence 2 (regional search): Gamma blocky motif ambiguous — both possible
Evidence 3 (mmx text): Shoreface model plausible but not confirmed
STEP 6 — VERDICT: PLAUSIBLE
"Not refuted, but insufficient evidence to distinguish from turbidite.
Need: biostratigraphy, seismic amplitude at N5, pressure data."
MULTIMODODAL HYPOTHESIS TEST
Hypothesis: [stated clearly with GEOX label]
Confidence before: [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]
Evidence gathered:
- [modality] | [finding] | supports: YES/PARTIAL/NO | label: OBS/DER/INT
Consistency: [strong / mixed / weak]
VERDICT: [CLAIM / PLAUSIBLE / HYPOTHESIS / REFUTED]
Confidence after: [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]
Remaining gap: [what would upgrade the verdict]