Counter-model
A complete, court-ready account of why a motion fails, grounded in the record and constrained by the governing standard, offered to the court as a replacement draft of its order rather than as a list of objections.
First used in What a Best-in-Class Opposition System Must Actually Do
The term rests on an observation about courts: judges sign orders, not arguments. A conventional opposition walks the motion's headings and objects paragraph by paragraph. Even when every objection lands, the judge is left holding one coherent account of the dispute and a list of complaints about it.
A counter-model supplies the second account: the correct standard quoted, the burden put back where the rules place it, the record speaking through pin cites, the movant's authorities answered or cut loose, and a route to denial the judge can adopt without doing the opposition's work.
Its working artifact is a board mapping every assertion the motion depends on to its current state: holds, contested, severed or conceded. A cell without provenance is shown as work remaining, not as argument.