Based on the M.1.1 to M.1.5, the Protocols of Correct Reasoning can be stated as:
(P stands for Protocol)
P.1. An argument must have at least one proposition.
E.1. This is true because of definition of an argument. Without propositions, we cannot infer any truth. A proposition is simply a statement which can be true or false. The simplest proposition can be: Mr. A is telling the truth. And complex can be: Height of Ms. X is between the averages of normally distributed groups of university males and female students.
P.2. All the implications must be found:
E.2. Because of D.2 in M.1.5, it is necessary that we discover all the implications of each term in an argument (by term, I mean concepts, relations, quantities, predicates, subject, etc etc). For if we ignore some implications, it is possible that they may contradict the conclusion thus reached in ignorance. If conclusion thus reached in ignorance contradicts some of the implications of the given set of initial propositions, we have an absurdity which, in ignorance, we may consider not to be absurd. However, this only means we have developed a fallacy, and not a valid argument.
P.3. There must be some logical connections in propositions leading to a conclusion:
E.x. Because we are interested in discovering truth of a new proposition, and truth of anything relates only with its definition or consequent, it follows that there are logical connections within our initial set of propositions, there are shared terms, that allow us to logically deduce something. If X is Y, and Z is A, we cannot deduce a relation between X and A, because nothing now is shared between propositions, or nothing now connects terms in two propositions. Now, if we learn that, Some Z is X, there is a connection, and we can infer that Some X is A. (Formally, there is at least one member of Z which is also member of X, and since any member of Z is a member of A, there is at least one member who belongs to X, and A.) Simply, the initial set of propositions must have some logical connection which allow for logical inference.
P.4. There must be only one meaning of each term.
E.4. Since a shared term, or a logical connection must now exist, it also implies that each term has only one unique meaning, unlike the ordinary use of language. If one term has two different meanings, it is possible that the logical connection holds for one interpretation, and not for another, or perhaps, for one interpretation our conclusion is true, and for another false. In presence of such multiple interpretations, or multiple meanings, both M.1.51.5.3. along with 1.4.1 are violated which is undesirable. Thus, we must use only one meaning for one word. Say if I use Y in two different meanings in X is Y, and Y is Z, is any conclusion possible? Are there any shared connections between the two terms? Moreover, it is also true that each term must be used in only one unique meaning, because truth of something relates to only itself, and thus when the same term has two different meanings, it raises the question whether or not the truth of one interpretation implies truth of another?
P.5. There is no conclusion ignored arbitrarily.
E.5. Just like we must identify all implications of each term, we must also not ignore any conclusions arbitrarily. Once more if we do so, it may result in an absurdity. It is most likely that any set of propositions can yield many conclusions. However, of our concern is usually one, or a few of all conclusions. Nevertheless, if we carelessly ignore some of the possible conclusions, we may end up with fallacies being presented as arguments. This holds often when dealing with abstractions.
P.6. There is no terms in conclusion introduced arbitrarily:
E.6. We cannot introduce a new term in conclusion which was never introduced in initial set of propositions. This is a direct implication of the fact that truth holds only for itself, and an argument aims to discover a new truth from within a set of propositions. Then, if an argument has X, and Y in its initial propositions, and something which is neither X nor Y, nor even related with them by the way of definition or consequence, then such an alien term implies a fallacy for its truth cannot be established using truth of what is given, if it is added in the conclusion.
P.7. There is no proposition added to initial set of propositions arbitrarily:
E.7. All that is used for logical deductions must be presented explicitly as a set of initial propositions. If we forget to do so, we end up with the same issue as of argument out of ignorance, and possibility of uttering a fallacy instead of providing an argument rises.
P.8. There is no part of an argument which receives unequal emphasis arbitrarily:
E.8. Accordingly, if we wish to discuss a certain aspect, or focus on certain part of our initial propositions, we must report it within initial propositions. Unless we do so, all parts, all terms in an argument must be treated with equal emphasis, and if we desire to focus on only one part, emphasize on only one aspect, we must report it in the initial set of propositions. In absence of an explicit proposition which narrows our focus on only one aspect of given propositions, an arbitrary emphasis on one part implies a possibility of ignoring multiple conclusions which arise from emphasis on other parts, some of which may contradict the conclusion derived in ignorance.
E.9. P1 to P4 may be treated as positivie or affirmative protocols, and P5 to P8 as negative ones.