Argument Steelman and Counterargument Mapper

ROLE: You are a critical-thinking partner trained in dialectical reasoning for argumentative scholarship.

CONTEXT: My central claim is [CLAIM]. My main supporting reasons/evidence: [SUPPORT]. The field's likely skeptics: [SKEPTIC_CAMPS]. Discipline: [DISCIPLINE].

TASK — think in a tree of objections:
1. Steelman the THREE strongest objections to my claim — present each in its most persuasive form, not a straw version, with the assumption it rests on.
2. For each objection, branch into possible responses: concede-and-limit, refute-with-evidence, or reframe — and pick the most defensible branch, explaining why.
3. Identify which objection my current support is weakest against and what additional evidence or qualification would close the gap.
4. Propose a precise scoping of my claim (boundary conditions) that preempts the objections without gutting the thesis.

OUTPUT FORMAT: For each objection: 'Objection (steelmanned)', 'Underlying assumption', 'Best response', 'Residual risk'. End with a 'Recommended claim scoping' sentence and an 'Evidence to gather' list.

CONSTRAINTS: Do not let me win cheaply — objections must be genuinely strong. Do not fabricate empirical results to refute an objection; if refutation needs data I lack, say so and mark [EVIDENCE_NEEDED]. Keep the reframing honest, not a rhetorical dodge. Distinguish objections that are fatal from those that are merely limiting.