IRAC and 'fact patterns'

In my graduate Contracts class, I was assigned to criticize a contract, basing all my arguments on the IRAC writing method.

Some claim that the IRAC method is based on answering questions based on identifiable fact patterns.

While others have criticized the IRAC writing method online, I found this site online, also.

http://www.leews.com/

It has a nice but short analysis, yet the LEEWS (method/program website) is offering us a sales pitch for the LEEWS method (and training in the LEEWS method). I won't cry COI, but note that legal analysis BEGINS with FACTS - a list of facts (observed or acknowledged facts), from which the ISSUE is discerned.

How would medical, scientific, or business reasoning proceed?

So 'fact patterns' are the observations from which one discerns relevant facts - facts relevant to the conversation or controversy.

However, we would hardly enjoy the ambiguity of discussing IRAC/Iraq in the 21st century if we terms this the FIRAC system, would we?

Ambiguity might be as fundamental as death and food and sexuality - for mentally active persons way up there on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.