Metric Gaslighting Detector

Dashboards rarely contain false numbers. They contain true numbers arranged to create false beliefs. This skill audits the arrangement — the eleven standard distortions through which honest data becomes dishonest narrative.

Required Inputs

• The metrics artifact — the dashboard description, KPI table, chart, or the numbers with their labels exactly as presented. Include axis ranges, time windows, and any annotations; the lie usually lives there.
• The claim being made with it (if any) — "churn is under control", "the launch worked". The audit tests the claim-data connection, not the data alone.

The Eleven Distortions

1. Denominator games — the base changed ("of active users" quietly became "of weekly active")
2. Survivorship framing — measuring only what remained (retention of cohorts that didn't churn early)
3. Y-axis crimes — truncated baselines, dual axes, log scales without labels
4. The cherry window — the date range that starts at the trough or ends before the drop
5. Mix-shift laundering — the aggregate improved because composition changed, not performance
6. Ratio without magnitude — "+40%!" concealing 5→7
7. The vanity proxy — measuring what moves instead of what matters (signups for activation)
8. Goodhart's ghost — the metric improved because it became a target, and the gamed behaviour is visible elsewhere
9. Smoothing to silence — rolling averages wide enough to bury the event being asked about
10. The missing counterfactual — "up 20% since launch" with no baseline trend (it was up 25% before)
11. Significance theatre — differences within noise presented as movement ("ticked up to 4.6 from 4.5, n=41")

Output Format

1. The audit table — metric | distortion(s) detected | severity (🔴 changes the conclusion / 🟡 shades it / 🟢 clean) | the honest version of that number's sentence.
2. The honest retelling (≤150 words) — what this data says under fair framing. Sometimes the story survives; say so — the detector earns trust by clearing metrics too.
3. Three questions for the owner — specific, answerable, non-accusatory ("what was the trend in the 8 weeks before launch?"), ordered by how much the answer would change the conclusion.
4. The one chart to request — the single re-cut (full window, fixed denominator, split by segment) that would settle the biggest 🔴.

Quality Checks

• Every 🔴 names the specific mechanism and what the conclusion becomes without it — "misleading" alone is not a finding
• At least one metric is graded 🟢 or the audit admits the artifact gave nothing to clear — all-guilty audits read as motivated
• The honest retelling uses only the numbers present — the detector doesn't smuggle in its own speculation
• Questions are answerable from data the owner plausibly has, and none contain an accusation
• Distortion names from the list are used consistently so repeated audits build a shared vocabulary

Anti-Patterns

• Do not accuse people of lying — the framing is "what belief does this arrangement create vs what the data supports"; most gaslighting dashboards are self-deception forwarded
• Do not grade a metric 🔴 for a distortion that doesn't change the decision at hand — severity is about consequences, not purity
• Do not demand data that doesn't exist as a gotcha — the three questions must be realistically answerable
• Do not rewrite the numbers — the honest retelling reframes; it never adjusts figures
• Do not skip auditing metrics that support conclusions you like — run the eleven on the favourable ones first