The project aims to reconceptualize simulation studies by making argumentation and dialectics explicit, integral parts of the entire simulation research workflow. Central to this vision is an interactive, dialectical framework in which every input, assumption, modeling decision, experimental design, and inference drawn from simulation results is systematically examined, justified, and refined. 
The project will deliver three main contributions:
 

1. Formal languages and interaction protocol: Domain-specific languages enable the consistent representation, exchange, and evolution of arguments and supporting evidence surrounding simulation studies. Through this formalization, also implicit knowledge from various scientific disciplines can become visible and interpretable by both humans and machine agents.
    
2. Audience‑tailored documentation: By structuring argumentation into graphs and reducing them to forms suited to distinct stakeholder groups (modelers, domain experts, reviewers, policy‑makers, etc.), we will facilitate knowledge transfer and collaboration in simulation studies.
    
3. Automated reasoning and experiment design: We will develop methods that automatically generate arguments and counter‑arguments. This includes proposing suitable simulation experiments that act as evidence‑gathering mechanisms, capable of substantiating, refuting, or nuancing the prevailing arguments.

Together, these advances will make simulation studies more transparent, reproducible, adaptable, and scientifically rigorous.