Use Draftline’s Version history when the task is to return a document to an earlier stored version. Treat the feature as a bounded revision tool: it cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled.
\n\nVersion history becomes available on 20 October 2026. It is included on every existing plan at no additional charge, and versions are retained for 30 days. Those terms define the available window; they do not establish a general backup guarantee.
\n\nOnly workspace editors can restore a version. Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. The earlier version therefore supplies the content for a new current state; restoration does not mean erasing the record that led to it.
\n\nBefore choosing a restoration, check two things: whether the version you need falls within the retention window, and whether you have the workspace-editor role. These checks follow directly from the feature’s stated boundaries. They do not imply that another role can restore through an alternative route.
\n\nThe practical decision is straightforward. For a stored revision within the available history, use Version history under the stated permissions. For a file deleted before enablement, this feature does not provide the recovery you need.
" }, { "key": "human-h01", "label": "18F; front-matter author handle eric · Why we use HTTPS for every .gov we make", "path": "excerpts/H01.md", "source": { "title": "Why we use HTTPS for every .gov we make", "author": "18F; front-matter author handle eric", "publicationDate": "2014-11-13", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-11-13-why-we-use-https-in-every-gov-website-we-make.md", "locator": "Opening and “Integrating HTTPS into our workflow” (two non-contiguous extracts)", "rights": "CC0 · 18F staff prose", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/", "relationship": "Policy is stated before its operational rationale.", "edition": "18F repository snapshot df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5 (2021-12-30)", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "That's why 18F's policy is to **use HTTPS for every .gov website we make**. 18F is an in-house government technology team that builds things for the rest of the U.S. federal government, and we're committed to deploying HTTPS across all of our released websites.\n\n[Excerpt break]\n\nA more serious concern with HTTPS is operational: managing certificates, working out the right configuration, and generally not screwing it up. The financial cost of _purchasing_ certificates is small — the maintenance cost of installing, configuring, and rotating them is not. This is arguably the biggest issue with deploying HTTPS today, and contributes to the web's overall slow and inflexible security response.\n\nLike everything else, managing the mechanics of HTTPS becomes far easier when you commit to it and operationalize it.\n", "id": "V01/human-h01", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "That's why 18F's policy is to **use HTTPS for every .gov website we make**. 18F is an in-house government technology team that builds things for the rest of the U.S. federal government, and we're committed to deploying HTTPS across all of our released websites.\n\n[Excerpt break]\n\nA more serious concern with HTTPS is operational: managing certificates, working out the right configuration, and generally not screwing it up. The financial cost of _purchasing_ certificates is small — the maintenance cost of installing, configuring, and rotating them is not. This is arguably the biggest issue with deploying HTTPS today, and contributes to the web's overall slow and inflexible security response.\n\nLike everything else, managing the mechanics of HTTPS becomes far easier when you commit to it and operationalize it.\n", "sha256": "b2cd1da8f84ac38bdeec9b13683832e3792fa5ddf36bf98f8caefef056204651", "html": "That's why 18F's policy is to use HTTPS for every .gov website we make. 18F is an in-house government technology team that builds things for the rest of the U.S. federal government, and we're committed to deploying HTTPS across all of our released websites.
\n\n[Excerpt break]
\n\nA more serious concern with HTTPS is operational: managing certificates, working out the right configuration, and generally not screwing it up. The financial cost of purchasing certificates is small — the maintenance cost of installing, configuring, and rotating them is not. This is arguably the biggest issue with deploying HTTPS today, and contributes to the web's overall slow and inflexible security response.
\n\nLike everything else, managing the mechanics of HTTPS becomes far easier when you commit to it and operationalize it.
" }, { "id": "V01/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# Choose a paragraph for Clearer Notes\n\nRegister for **Clearer Notes** if you want a focused occasion to revise one paragraph. The fictional workshop is free, takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**, and has **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise**. That gives the session a concrete starting point without promising what the revision will achieve.\n\nBefore making arrangements, check the location, time zone and any access requirements; those details have not been supplied. The stated dates and twelve-place capacity are planning facts, not evidence of demand. Decide from the workshop’s actual task and your availability.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V01\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Choose a paragraph for Clearer Notes\n\nRegister for **Clearer Notes** if you want a focused occasion to revise one paragraph. The fictional workshop is free, takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**, and has **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise**. That gives the session a concrete starting point without promising what the revision will achieve.\n\nBefore making arrangements, check the location, time zone and any access requirements; those details have not been supplied. The stated dates and twelve-place capacity are planning facts, not evidence of demand. Decide from the workshop’s actual task and your availability.\n\n", "sha256": "865444e70bd6bd5256aa9761a1b5e2f3b103dcbfbd5e2b366092a44355b804af", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 11.625, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.8745454545454548, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 21.50537634408602, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 32, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 11.827956989247312, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 93, "prose_sentences": 8, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 2, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 1, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 11, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "865444e70bd6bd5256aa9761a1b5e2f3b103dcbfbd5e2b366092a44355b804af", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Register for Clearer Notes if you want a focused occasion to revise one paragraph. The fictional workshop is free, takes place on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m., and has 12 places. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nBring one paragraph to revise. That gives the session a concrete starting point without promising what the revision will achieve.
\n\nBefore making arrangements, check the location, time zone and any access requirements; those details have not been supplied. The stated dates and twelve-place capacity are planning facts, not evidence of demand. Decide from the workshop’s actual task and your availability.
" }, { "id": "V01/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# Draftline upload status\n\nPlan around this current limit: **new uploads are unavailable**. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**; that is an update time, not a promised repair time. This notice provides no verified workaround.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V01\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Draftline upload status\n\nPlan around this current limit: **new uploads are unavailable**. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**; that is an update time, not a promised repair time. This notice provides no verified workaround.\n\n", "sha256": "3fa3a6e97aa018dc8dbad367edbd5eff37f3b288a9e4c77f2a33cc615f7f352a", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 8.8, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 13.636363636363637, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 44, "prose_sentences": 5, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 6, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "3fa3a6e97aa018dc8dbad367edbd5eff37f3b288a9e4c77f2a33cc615f7f352a", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Plan around this current limit: new uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.; that is an update time, not a promised repair time. This notice provides no verified workaround.
" }, { "id": "V01/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# Approve a trial, not a promise\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\n**I recommend authorizing the proposed six-week Marlow Library Tool Shelf pilot.** That recommendation is narrower than endorsing a permanent lending service. We do not yet know whether people will use it, what staff effort it will require, or whether the arrangement will save anyone money.\n\nThe proposal requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits. Borrowing would be free. The desk would operate on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November through 12 December 2026. Those are proposed operating terms, not an announcement of an approved program.\n\nAccess should not depend on an account or a working browser. Keep the web reservation form optional, with telephone and walk-up routes available alongside it. That choice belongs in the operating plan, not in a footnote added after the form is built.\n\nDuring the trial, record completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. The unsuccessful attempts matter: counting only completed transactions could make a service look easy while excluding the people who could not use it. Keep borrower names out of any public report.\n\nThere are practical questions still to settle, including the kit contents and loan conditions. They should become explicit operating decisions rather than assumptions concealed inside this brief.\n\nThe decision requested is therefore specific: authorize this bounded trial, or return the proposal with the changes needed for authorization. Approval has not yet been given. A permanent service and any claims about its benefits would require a later decision supported by what the trial actually shows.", "sourceMarkdown": "# Approve a trial, not a promise\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\n**I recommend authorizing the proposed six-week Marlow Library Tool Shelf pilot.** That recommendation is narrower than endorsing a permanent lending service. We do not yet know whether people will use it, what staff effort it will require, or whether the arrangement will save anyone money.\n\nThe proposal requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits. Borrowing would be free. The desk would operate on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November through 12 December 2026. Those are proposed operating terms, not an announcement of an approved program.\n\nAccess should not depend on an account or a working browser. Keep the web reservation form optional, with telephone and walk-up routes available alongside it. That choice belongs in the operating plan, not in a footnote added after the form is built.\n\nDuring the trial, record completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. The unsuccessful attempts matter: counting only completed transactions could make a service look easy while excluding the people who could not use it. Keep borrower names out of any public report.\n\nThere are practical questions still to settle, including the kit contents and loan conditions. They should become explicit operating decisions rather than assumptions concealed inside this brief.\n\nThe decision requested is therefore specific: authorize this bounded trial, or return the proposal with the changes needed for authorization. Approval has not yet been given. A permanent service and any claims about its benefits would require a later decision supported by what the trial actually shows.\n", "sha256": "a4f4c9fae7ee4295df80dd4f19716a4d754f73586c630ff004746a2d77e83129", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nI recommend authorizing the proposed six-week Marlow Library Tool Shelf pilot. That recommendation is narrower than endorsing a permanent lending service. We do not yet know whether people will use it, what staff effort it will require, or whether the arrangement will save anyone money.
\n\nThe proposal requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits. Borrowing would be free. The desk would operate on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November through 12 December 2026. Those are proposed operating terms, not an announcement of an approved program.
\n\nAccess should not depend on an account or a working browser. Keep the web reservation form optional, with telephone and walk-up routes available alongside it. That choice belongs in the operating plan, not in a footnote added after the form is built.
\n\nDuring the trial, record completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. The unsuccessful attempts matter: counting only completed transactions could make a service look easy while excluding the people who could not use it. Keep borrower names out of any public report.
\n\nThere are practical questions still to settle, including the kit contents and loan conditions. They should become explicit operating decisions rather than assumptions concealed inside this brief.
\n\nThe decision requested is therefore specific: authorize this bounded trial, or return the proposal with the changes needed for authorization. Approval has not yet been given. A permanent service and any claims about its benefits would require a later decision supported by what the trial actually shows.
" }, { "id": "V01/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "# V01 · Decision first · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThe review moved to Thursday. The scope is unchanged, and no new deadline has been approved. Please confirm whether the revised meeting time works; the decision on delivery remains separate.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V01 · Decision first · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThe review moved to Thursday. The scope is unchanged, and no new deadline has been approved. Please confirm whether the revised meeting time works; the decision on delivery remains separate.\n", "sha256": "f6a48f35fb986861574f6491ca5f3a6370f4b1fba04f13c9024aa6a0f7a4cdd1", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nThe review moved to Thursday. The scope is unchanged, and no new deadline has been approved. Please confirm whether the revised meeting time works; the decision on delivery remains separate.
" }, { "id": "V01/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "# V01 · Decision first · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nJoin the fictional writing session to revise one paragraph. Bring a draft and the question you want it to answer. The aim is a clearer piece of writing, not a promise that every draft will become publishable.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V01 · Decision first · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nJoin the fictional writing session to revise one paragraph. Bring a draft and the question you want it to answer. The aim is a clearer piece of writing, not a promise that every draft will become publishable.\n", "sha256": "b93642653f44351f726451e33d372a178732a5b33e2fba6b55dd8345e9880924", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nJoin the fictional writing session to revise one paragraph. Bring a draft and the question you want it to answer. The aim is a clearer piece of writing, not a promise that every draft will become publishable.
" }, { "id": "V01/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V01 · Decision first\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\n**Recommendation: request revisions before authorizing Linden Museum’s proposed label-comparison session.** The session has not been approved. Staffing and the way visitors’ choices would be analyzed remain unresolved; those are useful questions to settle before committing the requested $900.\n\nThe proposal is for one session on 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. Six replica objects would each have two draft labels. Participation would be free. The decision concerns this bounded comparison, with these terms, rather than an ongoing museum program.\n\nKeep the access arrangements together in the revised proposal. Visitors could read ordinary or large-print copies. An optional audio reading would use the same transcript. These are proposed ways to encounter the labels, not evidence that any route has already worked better for visitors.\n\nThe record should cover which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Do not record visitor names. A preference and a misunderstanding answer different questions; the plan should explain how the team will consider both without turning a preferred label into an automatic claim about learning.\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. Attendance and which label is better are also unknown. The requested budget describes a proposed commitment, not value already delivered.\n\nMy recommended next step is a revision that identifies the staffing arrangement and explains the analysis of choices and misunderstandings while retaining the stated access routes and privacy rule. The team must then authorize the session or request further revisions.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V01 · Decision first\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\n**Recommendation: request revisions before authorizing Linden Museum’s proposed label-comparison session.** The session has not been approved. Staffing and the way visitors’ choices would be analyzed remain unresolved; those are useful questions to settle before committing the requested $900.\n\nThe proposal is for one session on 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. Six replica objects would each have two draft labels. Participation would be free. The decision concerns this bounded comparison, with these terms, rather than an ongoing museum program.\n\nKeep the access arrangements together in the revised proposal. Visitors could read ordinary or large-print copies. An optional audio reading would use the same transcript. These are proposed ways to encounter the labels, not evidence that any route has already worked better for visitors.\n\nThe record should cover which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Do not record visitor names. A preference and a misunderstanding answer different questions; the plan should explain how the team will consider both without turning a preferred label into an automatic claim about learning.\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. Attendance and which label is better are also unknown. The requested budget describes a proposed commitment, not value already delivered.\n\nMy recommended next step is a revision that identifies the staffing arrangement and explains the analysis of choices and misunderstandings while retaining the stated access routes and privacy rule. The team must then authorize the session or request further revisions.\n", "sha256": "bb4b9f68d5356966902c298fda48bfb03c1f744da95d0cf4b0fd19b4ce4ddb0d", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.
\n\nRecommendation: request revisions before authorizing Linden Museum’s proposed label-comparison session. The session has not been approved. Staffing and the way visitors’ choices would be analyzed remain unresolved; those are useful questions to settle before committing the requested $900.
\n\nThe proposal is for one session on 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. Six replica objects would each have two draft labels. Participation would be free. The decision concerns this bounded comparison, with these terms, rather than an ongoing museum program.
\n\nKeep the access arrangements together in the revised proposal. Visitors could read ordinary or large-print copies. An optional audio reading would use the same transcript. These are proposed ways to encounter the labels, not evidence that any route has already worked better for visitors.
\n\nThe record should cover which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Do not record visitor names. A preference and a misunderstanding answer different questions; the plan should explain how the team will consider both without turning a preferred label into an automatic claim about learning.
\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. Attendance and which label is better are also unknown. The requested budget describes a proposed commitment, not value already delivered.
\n\nMy recommended next step is a revision that identifies the staffing arrangement and explains the analysis of choices and misunderstandings while retaining the stated access routes and privacy rule. The team must then authorize the session or request further revisions.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V01", "sample_id": "V01/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V01/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "9d66144eb2b77a076e2356a206ced3a5f1381ce145d5e92db7a1eb06f05d794b", "trimmed_body_sha256": "11a6163eaa9af6987060cec1e44da42f2727e693902f91d7dce9382b6d7f5533", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The practical decision is straightforward.", "start": 1087, "end": 1129, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public prose and ordinary headings fit neutral professional3, without ceremonial or strongly institutional conventions for5." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The practical decision is straightforward.", "start": 1087, "end": 1129, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "No intended comic device appears across the whole piece. The quote illustrates the prevailing serious stance; a quote alone cannot prove absence." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Before choosing a restoration, check two things: whether the version you need falls within the retention window, and whether you have the workspace-editor role.", "start": 780, "end": 940, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Matter-of-fact presentation remains restrained; positive capability statements do not themselves establish enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Before choosing a restoration, check two things: whether the version you need falls within the retention window, and whether you have the workspace-editor role.", "start": 780, "end": 940, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Practical decision support shows modest reader regard, between task-only1 and explicit acknowledgment3." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The earlier version therefore supplies the content for a new current state; restoration does not mean erasing the record that led to it.", "start": 642, "end": 778, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace role, retention and restoration require a little product familiarity, but consequences are explained; below several unexplained domain concepts3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The earlier version therefore supplies the content for a new current state; restoration does not mean erasing the record that led to it.", "start": 642, "end": 778, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Several connected distinctions explain operation, permissions and recovery boundaries; exceeds selected reasons3 without a fully worked example sequence for5." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://digital.gov/guides/plain-language", "title": "Plain language guide series", "id": "S48" }, { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/explanation/", "title": "Explanation", "id": "S42" } ], "researchLimits": "Guidance on task orientation and explanation does not validate decision-first as universally optimal.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v01-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v01-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V01/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V01/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V01/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V01.svg", "bundleSha256": "26d4838b5f138f8e2355d1cd02d913886f9dee184215cf62393edfcb80d62bd2", "bundleBytes": 83533 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice when a reader has authority to choose and needs the writer’s recommendation before the background. It fits approval memos, option notes, meeting briefs, and short requests with a bounded commitment. Give the decision owner enough conditions to act without interpreting your enthusiasm. It is less suitable for an unresolved personal reflection or a discovery interview, where announcing a verdict first would close inquiry prematurely.
\n\nThe stable voice takes responsibility for a judgment and exposes its limits. Its stance is “here is the action I recommend and the basis for it,” with moderate distance from the reader. Calm, urgent, or warm are tone modifiers; none changes the evidence threshold. The project-lead lens selects commitments and operating terms. It does not confer actual managerial authority, biography, or permission to approve anything.
\n\nOpen with a named action, object, and scope: authorize this trial, request these revisions, retain this paragraph. Follow with the main limit, then the terms that determine what the action includes. Give evaluation its own paragraph so a proposed test cannot pass as a result. Transitions such as “During the trial” and “Before authorization” mark operational dependencies. End with the decision requested, not a second sales pitch or a broad vision statement.
\n\nUse compact subject–verb clauses for the recommendation and final request. Place longer explanations between them, using because, if, and unless to show why a condition matters. A colon can introduce the terms; a semicolon can hold two closely related commitments apart. Prefer periods over a chain of dashes. Repeat a key scope term such as “trial” when a synonym could imply expansion. Permit a short parenthesis only for nonessential detail; move consequential caveats into the sentence.
\n\nFavor verbs that name decisions and records: authorize, revise, record, retain, confirm. Numbers, dates, and concrete resources do more work than claims of importance. Emotional intensity comes from the cost of a choice, not inflated adjectives. Humor and imagery are normally absent because they delay the action; one familiar comparison can explain a difficult boundary if it adds no fact. Avoid “obviously” or “everyone agrees,” which borrow authority the evidence may not supply.
\n\nOne descriptive title and a single emphasized recommendation are usually enough. A short list may collect parallel terms, but do not bury reasons in a grid that needs verbal decoding. In plain text, use “Recommendation:” and preserve the decision-first sequence. Bold should increase findability without carrying a different meaning. A reader hearing the memo aloud must still distinguish proposed terms, current status, and the requested response.
\n\nProtect quotations, technical labels, money, dates, negations, and approval status before editing. A recommendation is the writer’s judgment, not an existing authorization; say who must decide if the brief supplies that role. Combine with V05’s evidence questions or V02’s respectful closing, retaining this profile’s opening action. Do not combine with a suspenseful reveal that hides the decision. If the source already names the bounded action and preserves its conditions, keep it rather than manufacturing sharper language.
\n\nFirst write the decision in one sentence. Inventory what would be authorized and what remains unknown. Put the strongest constraint immediately after the recommendation. Draft operating terms, evidence to collect, and the required response in that order. Check every “will” against actual approval. Read only the opening and ending: they should request the same scope. Then read the middle as a skeptical decision owner and restore any missing condition before polishing cadence.
\n\nFaulty prose: “Approve Linden Museum’s proven label session for $900; visitors will learn more.” The sentence converts an unapproved proposal into a demonstrated benefit and hides the bounded decision. Repair: “I recommend requesting revisions to Linden Museum’s proposed $900 label-comparison session. No learning benefit has been demonstrated; the team should settle staffing and analysis before deciding whether to authorize it.” The judgment changes; the supplied status and money do not. A stronger verb cannot substitute for stronger evidence.
\n\nRead the full seed demonstration, schedule update, and writing-session invitation as different task sizes. The new-topic application tests the mechanism on museum decision facts. All are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations; none establishes audience benefit or Kyle’s personal voice. The source card supplies the starting mechanism. The seed review records retained language and exact repairs. Compare rhetorical choices while holding facts fixed; a different topic is not evidence of a better voice.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "H01", "title": "Why we use HTTPS for every .gov we make", "author": "18F; front-matter author handle eric", "year": "2014", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-11-13-why-we-use-https-in-every-gov-website-we-make.md", "relationship": "Policy is stated before its operational rationale.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Government digital-service blog", "publicationDate": "2014-11-13" }, { "id": "M04", "title": "Chairman’s Letter — 1983", "author": "Warren E. Buffett", "year": "1984", "url": "https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1983.html", "relationship": "Acquisition criteria bound the recommendation, but are not the letter’s opening.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Shareholder letter", "publicationDate": "1984-03-14" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Decision first · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V01.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Plain Language Guide Series", "url": "https://digital.gov/guides/plain-language", "relationship": "Government guidance" }, { "title": "Brand voice: Above all, simple and human", "url": "https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/style-guide/brand-voice-above-all-simple-human", "relationship": "Organization-owned house style" }, { "title": "Counterargument", "url": "https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/counterargument", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" } ], "formats": [], "html": "An accountable recommendation that exposes the proposed commitment before its justification. The distinguishing operation is decision ordering, not short sentences or managerial vocabulary.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA real choice, its scope, governing constraints, and current authorization status. A writer may recommend without possessing approval authority.
\n\nBounded recommendation → decisive constraint → operating terms → proposed evaluation → same-scope decision request.
\n\nName the requested action and its scope before background. Check: Read only the opening: can a reviewer state the proposed commitment?
Place a decision-changing constraint before supporting elaboration. Check: Identify the condition that could change the choice; it must not be hidden in a closing aside.
Keep the opening recommendation and final ask within the same scope. Check: Compare requested authorization at the beginning and end.
Use this voice when a reader has authority to choose and needs the writer’s recommendation before the background. It fits approval memos, option notes, meeting briefs, and short requests with a bounded commitment. Give the decision owner enough conditions to act without interpreting your enthusiasm. It is less suitable for an unresolved personal reflection or a discovery interview, where announcing a verdict first would close inquiry prematurely.
\n\nThe stable voice takes responsibility for a judgment and exposes its limits. Its stance is “here is the action I recommend and the basis for it,” with moderate distance from the reader. Calm, urgent, or warm are tone modifiers; none changes the evidence threshold. The project-lead lens selects commitments and operating terms. It does not confer actual managerial authority, biography, or permission to approve anything.
\n\nOpen with a named action, object, and scope: authorize this trial, request these revisions, retain this paragraph. Follow with the main limit, then the terms that determine what the action includes. Give evaluation its own paragraph so a proposed test cannot pass as a result. Transitions such as “During the trial” and “Before authorization” mark operational dependencies. End with the decision requested, not a second sales pitch or a broad vision statement.
\n\nUse compact subject–verb clauses for the recommendation and final request. Place longer explanations between them, using because, if, and unless to show why a condition matters. A colon can introduce the terms; a semicolon can hold two closely related commitments apart. Prefer periods over a chain of dashes. Repeat a key scope term such as “trial” when a synonym could imply expansion. Permit a short parenthesis only for nonessential detail; move consequential caveats into the sentence.
\n\nFavor verbs that name decisions and records: authorize, revise, record, retain, confirm. Numbers, dates, and concrete resources do more work than claims of importance. Emotional intensity comes from the cost of a choice, not inflated adjectives. Humor and imagery are normally absent because they delay the action; one familiar comparison can explain a difficult boundary if it adds no fact. Avoid “obviously” or “everyone agrees,” which borrow authority the evidence may not supply.
\n\nOne descriptive title and a single emphasized recommendation are usually enough. A short list may collect parallel terms, but do not bury reasons in a grid that needs verbal decoding. In plain text, use “Recommendation:” and preserve the decision-first sequence. Bold should increase findability without carrying a different meaning. A reader hearing the memo aloud must still distinguish proposed terms, current status, and the requested response.
\n\nProtect quotations, technical labels, money, dates, negations, and approval status before editing. A recommendation is the writer’s judgment, not an existing authorization; say who must decide if the brief supplies that role. Combine with V05’s evidence questions or V02’s respectful closing, retaining this profile’s opening action. Do not combine with a suspenseful reveal that hides the decision. If the source already names the bounded action and preserves its conditions, keep it rather than manufacturing sharper language.
\n\nFirst write the decision in one sentence. Inventory what would be authorized and what remains unknown. Put the strongest constraint immediately after the recommendation. Draft operating terms, evidence to collect, and the required response in that order. Check every “will” against actual approval. Read only the opening and ending: they should request the same scope. Then read the middle as a skeptical decision owner and restore any missing condition before polishing cadence.
\n\nFaulty prose: “Approve Linden Museum’s proven label session for $900; visitors will learn more.” The sentence converts an unapproved proposal into a demonstrated benefit and hides the bounded decision. Repair: “I recommend requesting revisions to Linden Museum’s proposed $900 label-comparison session. No learning benefit has been demonstrated; the team should settle staffing and analysis before deciding whether to authorize it.” The judgment changes; the supplied status and money do not. A stronger verb cannot substitute for stronger evidence.
\n\nA brief comparison or warm sentence is allowed if it does not delay the action. Concision is a preference, not a universal sentence-length limit.
\n\nNo decision exists: use an information or inquiry profile. Do not manufacture an approval request to satisfy the template.
\n\nUse suspense to conceal the decision. Check: Move the recommendation to the end: this should lose the local decision-first identity.
Treat proposed evaluation as a demonstrated benefit. Check: Classify every benefit as observed, predicted, or to be tested; a fabricated result separately fails fidelity.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional controlled facts: Linden Library proposes a free 16-place repair café on Saturday, 10–12. Staffing is unconfirmed; approval is pending. A decision is due Friday. No outcomes have been measured.
\n\nI recommend deferring approval of the 16-place repair café until staffing is confirmed. The proposed Saturday session is free and runs from 10 to 12. Please resolve staffing before Friday’s decision; the proposal contains no measured outcomes.
\n\nLinden Library has proposed a free repair café. It would run on Saturday from 10 to 12 and have 16 places. Staffing is unconfirmed, approval is pending, and no outcomes have been measured. With a decision due Friday, I recommend deferring approval until staffing is confirmed.
\n\nWhy it differs: The facts and recommendation survive, but background-first sequencing makes this a near-match rather than V01.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nReader-oriented guidance supports early usefulness; the exact recommendation-first sequence is owned by this library, not Microsoft or a government standard.
\n\nPlain Language Guide Series — Government guidance.
Brand voice: Above all, simple and human — Organization-owned house style.
Counterargument — University teaching guidance.
If you want to return to an earlier stored version in Draftline, Version history gives you a place to start. It becomes available on 20 October 2026, on every existing plan at no additional charge.
\n\nThe useful detail is what happens when you restore. Only workspace editors can do that, and restoring makes a new current version. It does not delete stored history. The later record remains even when earlier content becomes current.
\n\nThere’s a limit to that return: versions are retained for 30 days. The feature also cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled. Those are different boundaries—one concerns how long versions are kept; the other concerns a kind of recovery the feature does not provide.
\n\nWhen you’re checking whether it fits your task, begin with the version you need and your workspace role. A reader’s ability to see a document is not the same thing as permission to restore it.
\n\nLook for Version history in the interface when you need a retained version. If you need a file deleted before enablement, this feature cannot retrieve it.
" }, { "key": "human-h02", "label": "18F; front-matter author handle eric · Working in public from day one", "path": "excerpts/H02.md", "source": { "title": "Working in public from day one", "author": "18F; front-matter author handle eric", "publicationDate": "2014-07-31", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-07-31-working-in-public-from-day-1.md", "locator": "Opening through main recommendation", "rights": "CC0 · 18F staff prose", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/", "relationship": "Recognizes a peer’s hesitation and proposes a practical move.", "edition": "18F repository snapshot df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5 (2021-12-30)", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "In the wide world of software, maybe you've heard someone say this, or maybe you've said it yourself: *\"I'll open source it after I clean up the code; it's a mess right now.\"*\n\nOr: *\"I think there are some passwords in there; I'll get around to cleaning it out at some point.\"*\n\nOr simply: *\"No way, it's just too embarrassing.\"*\n\nThese feelings are totally natural, but keep a lot of good work closed that could easily have been open. The trick to avoiding this is simple: **open source your code from day one**. Don't wait for a milestone, don't wait for it to be stable — do it from the first commit.\n\nHere are a few reasons why you should feel good about working in the open from the moment your shovel goes in the ground:\n", "id": "V02/human-h02", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "In the wide world of software, maybe you've heard someone say this, or maybe you've said it yourself: *\"I'll open source it after I clean up the code; it's a mess right now.\"*\n\nOr: *\"I think there are some passwords in there; I'll get around to cleaning it out at some point.\"*\n\nOr simply: *\"No way, it's just too embarrassing.\"*\n\nThese feelings are totally natural, but keep a lot of good work closed that could easily have been open. The trick to avoiding this is simple: **open source your code from day one**. Don't wait for a milestone, don't wait for it to be stable — do it from the first commit.\n\nHere are a few reasons why you should feel good about working in the open from the moment your shovel goes in the ground:\n", "sha256": "57e183aca13bf848e3115fa19891da084f13ede59aef066ee79998e89e3978d6", "html": "In the wide world of software, maybe you've heard someone say this, or maybe you've said it yourself: "I'll open source it after I clean up the code; it's a mess right now."
\n\nOr: "I think there are some passwords in there; I'll get around to cleaning it out at some point."
\n\nOr simply: "No way, it's just too embarrassing."
\n\nThese feelings are totally natural, but keep a lot of good work closed that could easily have been open. The trick to avoiding this is simple: open source your code from day one. Don't wait for a milestone, don't wait for it to be stable — do it from the first commit.
\n\nHere are a few reasons why you should feel good about working in the open from the moment your shovel goes in the ground:
" }, { "key": "human-l12", "label": "Abraham Lincoln · Letter to Ulysses S. Grant", "path": "excerpts/L12.md", "source": { "title": "Letter to Ulysses S. Grant", "author": "Abraham Lincoln", "publicationDate": "1863-07-13", "url": "https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/vicksburg.htm", "locator": "Quoted letter body beginning “I do not remember”", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/vicksburg.htm", "relationship": "Warm accountability in correspondence; hierarchical relationship is not equal-peer collaboration.", "edition": "Historical letter as transcribed by the U.S. National Park Service", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "I do not remember that you and I ever met personally. I write this now as a grateful acknowledgement for the almost inestimable service you have done the country. I wish to say a word further. When you first reached the vicinity of Vicksburg, I thought you should do, what you finally did - march the troops across the neck, run the batteries with the transports, and thus go below; and I never had any faith, except a general hope that you knew better than I, that the Yazoo Pass expedition, and the like, could succeed. When you got below, and took Port-Gibson, Grand Gulf, and vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and join Gen. Banks; and when you turned Northward East of the Big Black, I feared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong.\n", "id": "V02/human-l12", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "I do not remember that you and I ever met personally. I write this now as a grateful acknowledgement for the almost inestimable service you have done the country. I wish to say a word further. When you first reached the vicinity of Vicksburg, I thought you should do, what you finally did - march the troops across the neck, run the batteries with the transports, and thus go below; and I never had any faith, except a general hope that you knew better than I, that the Yazoo Pass expedition, and the like, could succeed. When you got below, and took Port-Gibson, Grand Gulf, and vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and join Gen. Banks; and when you turned Northward East of the Big Black, I feared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong.\n", "sha256": "5ac4f51688d21ac0980cfecb2c7d8bbc4b9ba245cf9d5eb20fdd52529f838b70", "html": "I do not remember that you and I ever met personally. I write this now as a grateful acknowledgement for the almost inestimable service you have done the country. I wish to say a word further. When you first reached the vicinity of Vicksburg, I thought you should do, what you finally did - march the troops across the neck, run the batteries with the transports, and thus go below; and I never had any faith, except a general hope that you knew better than I, that the Yazoo Pass expedition, and the like, could succeed. When you got below, and took Port-Gibson, Grand Gulf, and vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and join Gen. Banks; and when you turned Northward East of the Big Black, I feared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong.
" }, { "id": "V02/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# Bring a paragraph you want to work on\n\nYou’re invited to the fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It’s free, with **12 places**, and registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise**. It can be the paragraph you’re still trying to get right; the invitation is to work on it, not to arrive with a finished piece.\n\nWe haven’t been given a location, time zone or access details to pass along, so check those before arranging your visit. If the task and timing suit you, keep the registration deadline in view. The invitation makes no promise about your final draft.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V02\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Bring a paragraph you want to work on\n\nYou’re invited to the fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It’s free, with **12 places**, and registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise**. It can be the paragraph you’re still trying to get right; the invitation is to work on it, not to arrive with a finished piece.\n\nWe haven’t been given a location, time zone or access details to pass along, so check those before arranging your visit. If the task and timing suit you, keep the registration deadline in view. The invitation makes no promise about your final draft.\n\n", "sha256": "9de3d1d98d78309df0488a3d1723b9b19c05beb957dcf3cf3d5e7191383e3a7d", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 15.666666666666666, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.841333333333333, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 31.914893617021278, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 31.914893617021278, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 30, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 11.702127659574469, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 94, "prose_sentences": 6, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 3, "contraction_events": 3, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 1, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 11, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "9de3d1d98d78309df0488a3d1723b9b19c05beb957dcf3cf3d5e7191383e3a7d", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "You’re invited to the fictional Clearer Notes workshop on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. It’s free, with 12 places, and registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nBring one paragraph to revise. It can be the paragraph you’re still trying to get right; the invitation is to work on it, not to arrive with a finished piece.
\n\nWe haven’t been given a location, time zone or access details to pass along, so check those before arranging your visit. If the task and timing suit you, keep the registration deadline in view. The invitation makes no promise about your final draft.
" }, { "id": "V02/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# A note about Draftline uploads\n\nIf you’re trying to upload something new, **new uploads are currently unavailable**. You can still read existing documents.\n\nThe cause isn’t yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.** We can give you that update time, but we don’t have a repair time or a verified workaround to offer.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V02\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# A note about Draftline uploads\n\nIf you’re trying to upload something new, **new uploads are currently unavailable**. You can still read existing documents.\n\nThe cause isn’t yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.** We can give you that update time, but we don’t have a repair time or a verified workaround to offer.\n\n", "sha256": "f6238f43f6df201cd90c0cb53f475f81a54bc2212c09cbad64a1aef4b319f209", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 12.5, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.82, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 40, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 60, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 14, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 50, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 2, "contraction_events": 3, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 7, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "f6238f43f6df201cd90c0cb53f475f81a54bc2212c09cbad64a1aef4b319f209", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "If you’re trying to upload something new, new uploads are currently unavailable. You can still read existing documents.
\n\nThe cause isn’t yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m. We can give you that update time, but we don’t have a repair time or a verified workaround to offer.
" }, { "id": "V02/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# V02 · Warm colleague · full demonstration\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nHi team,\n\nI’d like us to consider the Marlow Library Tool Shelf as a small trial, with room to learn before we make a larger commitment. The idea is straightforward: people could borrow tools without paying a borrowing fee. We would start with 24 kits, using a requested budget of $2,400.\n\nThe proposed desk hours are Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. That gives us six weeks. Nothing has been approved yet, so please read the dates as part of the proposal rather than a launch announcement.\n\nOne detail I’d like us to get right is access. A web reservation form could be convenient, but it needs to remain optional. Someone calling the library or coming to the desk should also have a route to borrow. I don’t want the convenience of one channel to become a requirement for everyone.\n\nWe would track completed loans, the staff time involved, and attempts that did not result in a loan. We would not publish borrower names. Those records could help us understand the practical experience; they would not, on their own, justify a story about money saved or benefits we haven’t measured.\n\nThere are still questions about the kits and loan conditions. That seems like a reason to make the proposal more precise, rather than to pretend those details are settled.\n\nWould you support authorizing this bounded trial, or are there changes you need before you could? Either answer gives us a useful next step. What I’m asking for now is a decision on the experiment, not a commitment to keep the service forever.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V02 · Warm colleague · full demonstration\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nHi team,\n\nI’d like us to consider the Marlow Library Tool Shelf as a small trial, with room to learn before we make a larger commitment. The idea is straightforward: people could borrow tools without paying a borrowing fee. We would start with 24 kits, using a requested budget of $2,400.\n\nThe proposed desk hours are Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. That gives us six weeks. Nothing has been approved yet, so please read the dates as part of the proposal rather than a launch announcement.\n\nOne detail I’d like us to get right is access. A web reservation form could be convenient, but it needs to remain optional. Someone calling the library or coming to the desk should also have a route to borrow. I don’t want the convenience of one channel to become a requirement for everyone.\n\nWe would track completed loans, the staff time involved, and attempts that did not result in a loan. We would not publish borrower names. Those records could help us understand the practical experience; they would not, on their own, justify a story about money saved or benefits we haven’t measured.\n\nThere are still questions about the kits and loan conditions. That seems like a reason to make the proposal more precise, rather than to pretend those details are settled.\n\nWould you support authorizing this bounded trial, or are there changes you need before you could? Either answer gives us a useful next step. What I’m asking for now is a decision on the experiment, not a commitment to keep the service forever.\n", "sha256": "40ba520d7621819715c393400b1910dec6e738e40f32e9caa98a833fa9f023ab", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nHi team,
\n\nI’d like us to consider the Marlow Library Tool Shelf as a small trial, with room to learn before we make a larger commitment. The idea is straightforward: people could borrow tools without paying a borrowing fee. We would start with 24 kits, using a requested budget of $2,400.
\n\nThe proposed desk hours are Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. That gives us six weeks. Nothing has been approved yet, so please read the dates as part of the proposal rather than a launch announcement.
\n\nOne detail I’d like us to get right is access. A web reservation form could be convenient, but it needs to remain optional. Someone calling the library or coming to the desk should also have a route to borrow. I don’t want the convenience of one channel to become a requirement for everyone.
\n\nWe would track completed loans, the staff time involved, and attempts that did not result in a loan. We would not publish borrower names. Those records could help us understand the practical experience; they would not, on their own, justify a story about money saved or benefits we haven’t measured.
\n\nThere are still questions about the kits and loan conditions. That seems like a reason to make the proposal more precise, rather than to pretend those details are settled.
\n\nWould you support authorizing this bounded trial, or are there changes you need before you could? Either answer gives us a useful next step. What I’m asking for now is a decision on the experiment, not a commitment to keep the service forever.
" }, { "id": "V02/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "# V02 · Warm colleague · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nHi team, the review has moved to Thursday. The scope is still the same. Could you confirm the new time works for you? We have not agreed a new delivery deadline, so I’m keeping that question open.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V02 · Warm colleague · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nHi team, the review has moved to Thursday. The scope is still the same. Could you confirm the new time works for you? We have not agreed a new delivery deadline, so I’m keeping that question open.\n", "sha256": "e20df39bd9c59b15c7a162185a7402f21c1ba516722347965436f6b85bfb8ace", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nHi team, the review has moved to Thursday. The scope is still the same. Could you confirm the new time works for you? We have not agreed a new delivery deadline, so I’m keeping that question open.
" }, { "id": "V02/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "# V02 · Warm colleague · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nBring a paragraph you’ve been wrestling with to the fictional writing session. We’ll look at what it’s trying to say and try another way through it. Bring a question about the paragraph, too. A rough draft is enough; there’s no need to arrive with it solved.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V02 · Warm colleague · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nBring a paragraph you’ve been wrestling with to the fictional writing session. We’ll look at what it’s trying to say and try another way through it. Bring a question about the paragraph, too. A rough draft is enough; there’s no need to arrive with it solved.\n", "sha256": "1d9b2d5126ba1df9662897cca70ba5ea615fce48625d860557a5c86a0d03d783", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nBring a paragraph you’ve been wrestling with to the fictional writing session. We’ll look at what it’s trying to say and try another way through it. Bring a question about the paragraph, too. A rough draft is enough; there’s no need to arrive with it solved.
" }, { "id": "V02/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V02 · Warm colleague\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\nHi volunteers,\n\nThe Alder Photo Archive has 48 donated photographs to catalog. Here is the workflow agreed for this fictional project. No scanning has been reported complete, so this note describes the work to do rather than progress already made.\n\nBefore you proceed, check the sleeve number and whether handling could damage the photograph. If the number is missing or there is a risk of damage, stop and ask the archive lead. You do not need to resolve either problem by making your best guess. Keeping that boundary clear is part of the task.\n\nKeep the originals in their numbered sleeves, and match each file to the sleeve number. The agreed scan setting is 600 dpi. Save an unchanged TIFF master and a JPEG viewing copy. Those are the project’s specified files and setting; this note does not present them as a rule for every archive.\n\nThere is another distinction to keep clear when you describe an image. Put the donor’s supplied description verbatim in the separate source-description field. If a correction is needed, record it in a separate catalog note. That way the supplied words remain identifiable alongside the correction.\n\nFor a missing date, write “unknown.” Clothing is not a reason to guess a year. Keep the viewing copies internal until the rights review is complete; no completion date has been promised.\n\nNo preservation or speed benefit has been measured. The useful next action is to follow the agreed workflow for the photographs, with the archive lead as the point of contact whenever either stopping condition applies.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V02 · Warm colleague\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\nHi volunteers,\n\nThe Alder Photo Archive has 48 donated photographs to catalog. Here is the workflow agreed for this fictional project. No scanning has been reported complete, so this note describes the work to do rather than progress already made.\n\nBefore you proceed, check the sleeve number and whether handling could damage the photograph. If the number is missing or there is a risk of damage, stop and ask the archive lead. You do not need to resolve either problem by making your best guess. Keeping that boundary clear is part of the task.\n\nKeep the originals in their numbered sleeves, and match each file to the sleeve number. The agreed scan setting is 600 dpi. Save an unchanged TIFF master and a JPEG viewing copy. Those are the project’s specified files and setting; this note does not present them as a rule for every archive.\n\nThere is another distinction to keep clear when you describe an image. Put the donor’s supplied description verbatim in the separate source-description field. If a correction is needed, record it in a separate catalog note. That way the supplied words remain identifiable alongside the correction.\n\nFor a missing date, write “unknown.” Clothing is not a reason to guess a year. Keep the viewing copies internal until the rights review is complete; no completion date has been promised.\n\nNo preservation or speed benefit has been measured. The useful next action is to follow the agreed workflow for the photographs, with the archive lead as the point of contact whenever either stopping condition applies.\n", "sha256": "290de1677e37fa6fdf159398d180ab398f23003e659989330752db647640591f", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.
\n\nHi volunteers,
\n\nThe Alder Photo Archive has 48 donated photographs to catalog. Here is the workflow agreed for this fictional project. No scanning has been reported complete, so this note describes the work to do rather than progress already made.
\n\nBefore you proceed, check the sleeve number and whether handling could damage the photograph. If the number is missing or there is a risk of damage, stop and ask the archive lead. You do not need to resolve either problem by making your best guess. Keeping that boundary clear is part of the task.
\n\nKeep the originals in their numbered sleeves, and match each file to the sleeve number. The agreed scan setting is 600 dpi. Save an unchanged TIFF master and a JPEG viewing copy. Those are the project’s specified files and setting; this note does not present them as a rule for every archive.
\n\nThere is another distinction to keep clear when you describe an image. Put the donor’s supplied description verbatim in the separate source-description field. If a correction is needed, record it in a separate catalog note. That way the supplied words remain identifiable alongside the correction.
\n\nFor a missing date, write “unknown.” Clothing is not a reason to guess a year. Keep the viewing copies internal until the rights review is complete; no completion date has been promised.
\n\nNo preservation or speed benefit has been measured. The useful next action is to follow the agreed workflow for the photographs, with the archive lead as the point of contact whenever either stopping condition applies.
" }, { "id": "V02/probe-H03", "key": "probe-H03", "briefId": "H03", "label": "Separate mechanism probe", "markdown": "## One detail to keep clear about the Lantern Room proposal\n\nLantern Room, the fictional community space, has a proposed label-exchange session for **18 March 2027, 6–7 p.m.** It has **not yet been approved**. The request is approval of this single session, rather than a continuing program.\n\nThe practical terms are **eight participant places** and no participation fee. Each participant would bring **one draft label** and could comment aloud or use a paper comment sheet. Either route would let the participant contribute comments.\n\nTwo volunteer facilitators would collect those comments without ranking participants, and the coordinator would compile them into a summary.\n\nBefore you make plans, there is one decision still to come: the space manager alone decides whether to approve the session. No existing community consensus or participant commitment has been recorded. The proposed ways to take part remain conditional on that approval.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V02\nbrief_id: H03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\ncohort: separate-heldout-mechanism-probe\n---\n\n\n## One detail to keep clear about the Lantern Room proposal\n\nLantern Room, the fictional community space, has a proposed label-exchange session for **18 March 2027, 6–7 p.m.** It has **not yet been approved**. The request is approval of this single session, rather than a continuing program.\n\nThe practical terms are **eight participant places** and no participation fee. Each participant would bring **one draft label** and could comment aloud or use a paper comment sheet. Either route would let the participant contribute comments.\n\nTwo volunteer facilitators would collect those comments without ranking participants, and the coordinator would compile them into a summary.\n\nBefore you make plans, there is one decision still to come: the space manager alone decides whether to approve the session. No existing community consensus or participant commitment has been recorded. The proposed ways to take part remain conditional on that approval.\n\n", "sha256": "3b58d424f33542d9b44a96ac6d1556726a629f03197a80c61835f451fdf6cec9", "measurement": null, "html": "Lantern Room, the fictional community space, has a proposed label-exchange session for 18 March 2027, 6–7 p.m. It has not yet been approved. The request is approval of this single session, rather than a continuing program.
\n\nThe practical terms are eight participant places and no participation fee. Each participant would bring one draft label and could comment aloud or use a paper comment sheet. Either route would let the participant contribute comments.
\n\nTwo volunteer facilitators would collect those comments without ranking participants, and the coordinator would compile them into a summary.
\n\nBefore you make plans, there is one decision still to come: the space manager alone decides whether to approve the session. No existing community consensus or participant commitment has been recorded. The proposed ways to take part remain conditional on that approval.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V02", "sample_id": "V02/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V02/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "0727786cf7b2019789b124973be6b989cca5461ad287c4ee3ba9b94248c4f90c", "trimmed_body_sha256": "6087fbf61518db42e25495ad482ab724a61a890b886683296a1866928ab30573", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "There’s a limit to that return: versions are retained for **30 days**.", "start": 486, "end": 556, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Conversational phrasing, spoken turns or a personal note sit below neutral professional3; the text remains edited." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "There’s a limit to that return: versions are retained for **30 days**.", "start": 486, "end": 556, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "No intended comic device appears across the whole piece. The quote illustrates the prevailing serious stance; a quote alone cannot prove absence." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "If you want to return to an earlier stored version in Draftline, **Version history** gives you a place to start.", "start": 36, "end": 148, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Rhetorical movement or reader-directed engagement adds some energy, below overt encouragement3 or excitement5." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "If you want to return to an earlier stored version in Draftline, **Version history** gives you a place to start.", "start": 36, "end": 148, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The opening or personal ending acknowledges the reader’s purpose and offers respectful help; it lacks strong personal care for5." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Those are different boundaries—one concerns how long versions are kept; the other concerns a kind of recovery the feature does not provide.", "start": 626, "end": 765, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace role, retention and restoration require a little product familiarity, but consequences are explained; below several unexplained domain concepts3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Those are different boundaries—one concerns how long versions are kept; the other concerns a kind of recovery the feature does not provide.", "start": 626, "end": 765, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Several connected distinctions explain operation, permissions and recovery boundaries; exceeds selected reasons3 without a fully worked example sequence for5." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://styleguide.mailchimp.com/voice-and-tone/", "title": "Voice and Tone", "id": "S18" }, { "url": "https://developers.google.com/style/tone", "title": "Tone", "id": "S20" } ], "researchLimits": "Brand and developer guides inform relational constraints; no readership benefit for this custom voice was measured.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v02-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v02-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V02/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V02/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V02/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V02.svg", "bundleSha256": "0f9e032a3e18c085748481165567d408d616d1497f8dfd3f0a27048dc7bb56d8", "bundleBytes": 84117 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice for a note between colleagues, a volunteer welcome, a practical invitation, or a check-in where cooperation matters. The reader should encounter the purpose quickly and feel free to answer honestly. It is especially useful when one person needs another person’s help without a sales pitch. Choose a more formal register for a binding specification; warmth alone cannot define an operational contract.
\n\nThe stable voice treats the reader as capable and leaves space for their response. Its stance is collaborative, with close but professional distance. A relieved, concerned, or matter-of-fact tone can sit on that foundation. “We” names a real shared task only when one exists; it must not invent agreement or intimacy. The colleague persona determines attention to practical friction, not memories of working together or knowledge of the reader’s feelings.
\n\nA brief greeting may establish the letter form. Move immediately to the concrete reason for writing, then introduce the details in the order the reader will use them. Each paragraph can join an instruction with a reason or acknowledgement. “One detail to keep clear” and “If that happens” make natural transitions. Close with a specific invitation to respond or a clear stopping point. Do not demand reassurance after already giving the reader a complete next action.
\n\nMix ordinary medium-length sentences with brief landings such as “A rough draft is enough.” Contractions suit a familiar medium but are optional. Use subordinate clauses to acknowledge a concern without delaying the main verb. Questions should be answerable, not decorative requests for agreement. Commas supply small pauses; a semicolon can separate related decisions. Keep parentheses brief and infrequent. Repetition can reassure about a boundary, but repeating “happy to help” makes warmth feel automated.
\n\nChoose concrete shared-work vocabulary over management abstractions. Let care appear in an explicit allowance, a usable explanation, or a nonjudgmental stopping rule. Do not label a task easy merely to sound supportive. A small domestic comparison or dry aside can fit an established relationship, but the default humor level is low. Avoid invented empathy such as “I know exactly how you feel” and exaggerated gratitude before the reader has agreed to do anything.
\n\nUse a letter or short message with ordinary paragraphs and minimal emphasis. A few bullets can help a welcome note when the reader will perform several independent actions, but keep the conversational connection around them. Plain text preserves the greeting, paragraph breaks, and request without needing typographic warmth. Avoid emojis as mandatory personality markers. A quoted requirement remains visibly separate from the writer’s friendly explanation.
\n\nProtect the same facts and literal spans that a formal memo would protect. “We can” must distinguish permission, possibility, and commitment. Never soften “stop” into “perhaps pause” when the supplied workflow requires a stop. V10 can supply exact technical terms and V11 a learning sequence; this voice supplies the relationship around them. Avoid mixing it with mock familiarity or coercive urgency. When existing prose already sounds considerate and gives an exact next step, leave it unchanged.
\n\nName the reader’s task and your reason for writing. Draft the necessary facts without a greeting, then add only the social framing the relationship supports. Pair the difficult instruction with a concise reason. Check whether every question needs an answer and whether the recipient can decline or flag a problem. Read aloud for overlong courteous preambles. Finally compare commitments and uncertainty with the brief; friendliness must not turn a possibility into a promise.
\n\nFaulty prose: “You’ll breeze through all 48 photographs, and we can share the JPEGs as soon as you’re done.” It praises an unmeasured speed outcome and replaces the rights-review condition. Repair: “There are 48 photographs to catalog. Take the stopping rule seriously: ask the archive lead if a sleeve number is missing or handling could damage a photograph. The JPEG viewing copies stay internal until the rights review is complete.” The care comes from usable guidance, with no invented reassurance.
\n\nRead the full seed demonstration, schedule update, and writing-session invitation as different task sizes. The new-topic application tests the mechanism on archive instruction facts. All are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations; none establishes audience benefit or Kyle’s personal voice. The source card supplies the starting mechanism. The seed review records retained language and exact repairs. Compare rhetorical choices while holding facts fixed; a different topic is not evidence of a better voice.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "H02", "title": "Working in public from day one", "author": "18F; front-matter author handle eric", "year": "2014", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-07-31-working-in-public-from-day-1.md", "relationship": "Recognizes a peer’s hesitation and proposes a practical move.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Government digital-service blog", "publicationDate": "2014-07-31" }, { "id": "L12", "title": "Letter to Ulysses S. Grant", "author": "Abraham Lincoln", "year": "1863", "url": "https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/vicksburg.htm", "relationship": "Warm accountability in correspondence; hierarchical relationship is not equal-peer collaboration.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Professional personal correspondence", "publicationDate": "1863-07-13" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Warm colleague · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V02.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Brand voice: Above all, simple and human", "url": "https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/style-guide/brand-voice-above-all-simple-human", "relationship": "Organization-owned house style" }, { "title": "Voice and Tone", "url": "https://styleguide.mailchimp.com/voice-and-tone/", "relationship": "Organization-owned house style" }, { "title": "Stylistic Editing", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/stylistic-editing/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A practical message between capable collaborators in which respect is expressed through useful context and room for an honest response, not manufactured intimacy.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA genuine shared task or professional interaction, known responsibilities, and an actual request or update.
\n\nShared purpose → usable details → reason the detail matters → respectful response route.
\n\nEstablish the practical shared task. Check: Underline the task rather than a generic expression of warmth.
Connect relevant details to what the collaborator can do. Check: Check that context has a practical consequence.
Leave a truthful route to answer, disagree, or identify a constraint. Check: The request must not presume agreement or shared authority.
Use this voice for a note between colleagues, a volunteer welcome, a practical invitation, or a check-in where cooperation matters. The reader should encounter the purpose quickly and feel free to answer honestly. It is especially useful when one person needs another person’s help without a sales pitch. Choose a more formal register for a binding specification; warmth alone cannot define an operational contract.
\n\nThe stable voice treats the reader as capable and leaves space for their response. Its stance is collaborative, with close but professional distance. A relieved, concerned, or matter-of-fact tone can sit on that foundation. “We” names a real shared task only when one exists; it must not invent agreement or intimacy. The colleague persona determines attention to practical friction, not memories of working together or knowledge of the reader’s feelings.
\n\nA brief greeting may establish the letter form. Move immediately to the concrete reason for writing, then introduce the details in the order the reader will use them. Each paragraph can join an instruction with a reason or acknowledgement. “One detail to keep clear” and “If that happens” make natural transitions. Close with a specific invitation to respond or a clear stopping point. Do not demand reassurance after already giving the reader a complete next action.
\n\nMix ordinary medium-length sentences with brief landings such as “A rough draft is enough.” Contractions suit a familiar medium but are optional. Use subordinate clauses to acknowledge a concern without delaying the main verb. Questions should be answerable, not decorative requests for agreement. Commas supply small pauses; a semicolon can separate related decisions. Keep parentheses brief and infrequent. Repetition can reassure about a boundary, but repeating “happy to help” makes warmth feel automated.
\n\nChoose concrete shared-work vocabulary over management abstractions. Let care appear in an explicit allowance, a usable explanation, or a nonjudgmental stopping rule. Do not label a task easy merely to sound supportive. A small domestic comparison or dry aside can fit an established relationship, but the default humor level is low. Avoid invented empathy such as “I know exactly how you feel” and exaggerated gratitude before the reader has agreed to do anything.
\n\nUse a letter or short message with ordinary paragraphs and minimal emphasis. A few bullets can help a welcome note when the reader will perform several independent actions, but keep the conversational connection around them. Plain text preserves the greeting, paragraph breaks, and request without needing typographic warmth. Avoid emojis as mandatory personality markers. A quoted requirement remains visibly separate from the writer’s friendly explanation.
\n\nProtect the same facts and literal spans that a formal memo would protect. “We can” must distinguish permission, possibility, and commitment. Never soften “stop” into “perhaps pause” when the supplied workflow requires a stop. V10 can supply exact technical terms and V11 a learning sequence; this voice supplies the relationship around them. Avoid mixing it with mock familiarity or coercive urgency. When existing prose already sounds considerate and gives an exact next step, leave it unchanged.
\n\nName the reader’s task and your reason for writing. Draft the necessary facts without a greeting, then add only the social framing the relationship supports. Pair the difficult instruction with a concise reason. Check whether every question needs an answer and whether the recipient can decline or flag a problem. Read aloud for overlong courteous preambles. Finally compare commitments and uncertainty with the brief; friendliness must not turn a possibility into a promise.
\n\nFaulty prose: “You’ll breeze through all 48 photographs, and we can share the JPEGs as soon as you’re done.” It praises an unmeasured speed outcome and replaces the rights-review condition. Repair: “There are 48 photographs to catalog. Take the stopping rule seriously: ask the archive lead if a sleeve number is missing or handling could damage a photograph. The JPEG viewing copies stay internal until the rights review is complete.” The care comes from usable guidance, with no invented reassurance.
\n\nContractions, a greeting, and humor are optional. A warm message can contain a firm deadline.
\n\nA formal salutation or no contractions can still pass. Warmth is not measured by counting friendly adjectives.
\n\nSubstitute pleasantries for the task. Check: Remove the greeting; there must still be a usable message.
Invent closeness or a collective commitment. Check: Check claims such as “as always” and “we agreed” against the brief.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional facts: A colleague needs to review a two-page draft before Friday. Only the access instructions need review; a reply identifying unclear steps is sufficient.
\n\nCould you review the access instructions in the two-page draft before Friday? That is the only section needing your attention. A reply naming any unclear steps is enough; please tell me if the deadline creates a problem.
\n\nDear wonderful teammate, your insight means so much. There is a two-page draft, and its access instructions need review before Friday. A reply naming unclear steps is sufficient. You are amazing!
\n\nWhy it differs: The logistical facts are present, but praise replaces a credible collaborative stance and offers no useful way to discuss the request.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nHouse guides supply useful examples of approachable voice. Peer respect and the shared-task requirement are the local definition.
\n\nBrand voice: Above all, simple and human — Organization-owned house style.
Voice and Tone — Organization-owned house style.
Stylistic Editing — Professional association standards.
When we say “restore an earlier version,” it can sound as though the intervening work disappears. Draftline’s Version history uses a different arrangement: restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history.
\n\nThat distinction changes the question. Rather than asking whether restoration erases the past, ask which stored version should become the basis of the present. The description is precise enough to answer that question without treating the feature as a promise of unlimited recovery.
\n\nVersion history becomes available on 20 October 2026. Every existing plan includes it at no additional charge. Versions are retained for 30 days, and only workspace editors can restore them.
\n\nThe thirty-day window introduces a second kind of “back”: how far the available record reaches. It is a retention period, not an assurance that any missing material can be brought back. In particular, the feature cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled.
\n\nSo the practical inquiry has two parts. Is the desired version among the retained history? Is the person making the change a workspace editor? The named interface action, Version history, belongs to that bounded situation.
\n\nHere, returning to earlier content is still a new action in the present, with a permission rule and a limit.
" }, { "key": "human-l07", "label": "G. K. Chesterton · A Piece of Chalk (in Tremendous Trifles)", "path": "excerpts/L07.md", "source": { "title": "A Piece of Chalk (in Tremendous Trifles)", "author": "G. K. Chesterton", "publicationDate": "1909", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8092", "locator": "Essay opening", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8092", "relationship": "A material puzzle supports a reflective detour and return.", "edition": "Tremendous Trifles collection 1909; essay first appeared earlier; retrieved PG version reports update 2022-04-27", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "I remember one splendid morning, all blue and silver, in the summer holidays when I reluctantly tore myself away from the task of doing nothing in particular, and put on a hat of some sort and picked up a walking-stick, and put six very bright-coloured chalks in my pocket. I then went into the kitchen (which, along with the rest of the house, belonged to a very square and sensible old woman in a Sussex village), and asked the owner and occupant of the kitchen if she had any brown paper. She had a great deal; in fact, she had too much; and she mistook the purpose and the rationale of the existence of brown paper.\n", "id": "V03/human-l07", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "I remember one splendid morning, all blue and silver, in the summer holidays when I reluctantly tore myself away from the task of doing nothing in particular, and put on a hat of some sort and picked up a walking-stick, and put six very bright-coloured chalks in my pocket. I then went into the kitchen (which, along with the rest of the house, belonged to a very square and sensible old woman in a Sussex village), and asked the owner and occupant of the kitchen if she had any brown paper. She had a great deal; in fact, she had too much; and she mistook the purpose and the rationale of the existence of brown paper.\n", "sha256": "1a1c70a3b60f0ec3f2dbf2e841789624ddcb827324aceb164d931e9b79065f33", "html": "I remember one splendid morning, all blue and silver, in the summer holidays when I reluctantly tore myself away from the task of doing nothing in particular, and put on a hat of some sort and picked up a walking-stick, and put six very bright-coloured chalks in my pocket. I then went into the kitchen (which, along with the rest of the house, belonged to a very square and sensible old woman in a Sussex village), and asked the owner and occupant of the kitchen if she had any brown paper. She had a great deal; in fact, she had too much; and she mistook the purpose and the rationale of the existence of brown paper.
" }, { "id": "V03/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# What can one paragraph hold?\n\nA paragraph is small enough to bring with you and large enough to raise a real revision question. That is the starting point for the fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop: bring **one paragraph to revise**.\n\nThe session is **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It is free and has **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nWhat the hour will change in a particular draft remains open; the invitation does not promise a result. Location, time zone and access arrangements have not been supplied either. Check those practical details, then consider whether working on one paragraph is the task you want to make time for.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V03\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# What can one paragraph hold?\n\nA paragraph is small enough to bring with you and large enough to raise a real revision question. That is the starting point for the fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop: bring **one paragraph to revise**.\n\nThe session is **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It is free and has **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nWhat the hour will change in a particular draft remains open; the invitation does not promise a result. Location, time zone and access arrangements have not been supplied either. Check those practical details, then consider whether working on one paragraph is the task you want to make time for.\n\n", "sha256": "728205c76b703c54cae77df8e7096812a69acecad821781a0cbf033cde2e6fa8", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 14.142857142857142, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.8527999999999998, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 20.2020202020202, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 34, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 11.11111111111111, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 99, "prose_sentences": 7, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 2, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 11, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "728205c76b703c54cae77df8e7096812a69acecad821781a0cbf033cde2e6fa8", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "A paragraph is small enough to bring with you and large enough to raise a real revision question. That is the starting point for the fictional Clearer Notes workshop: bring one paragraph to revise.
\n\nThe session is 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. It is free and has 12 places. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nWhat the hour will change in a particular draft remains open; the invitation does not promise a result. Location, time zone and access arrangements have not been supplied either. Check those practical details, then consider whether working on one paragraph is the task you want to make time for.
" }, { "id": "V03/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# What is known about the upload interruption?\n\nFor Draftline, the distinction is between adding something new and reading what already exists. **New uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read.**\n\nThe cause is not yet known. That uncertainty does not supply a diagnosis. The next update is at **3 p.m.**, and no repair time is promised here.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V03\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# What is known about the upload interruption?\n\nFor Draftline, the distinction is between adding something new and reading what already exists. **New uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read.**\n\nThe cause is not yet known. That uncertainty does not supply a diagnosis. The next update is at **3 p.m.**, and no repair time is promised here.\n\n", "sha256": "f8ddf54461ab9c6c472c2a7c1b2dfe9e5cb5b670190136be768b5375afa17352", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 10.2, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.84, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 23.529411764705884, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 51, "prose_sentences": 5, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 12, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "f8ddf54461ab9c6c472c2a7c1b2dfe9e5cb5b670190136be768b5375afa17352", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "For Draftline, the distinction is between adding something new and reading what already exists. New uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. That uncertainty does not supply a diagnosis. The next update is at 3 p.m., and no repair time is promised here.
" }, { "id": "V03/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# What does it mean to make something available?\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nA shelf can be full and still be difficult to use. That is the question beneath the proposed Marlow Library Tool Shelf: not simply whether a library can possess tools, but whether people can actually borrow them.\n\nThe practical proposal is modest enough to describe without ceremony. Twenty-four tool kits. A requested budget of $2,400. Free borrowing on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. A six-week trial, still awaiting approval.\n\nIt is tempting to think that building a reservation form completes the work of access. It completes *one part* of it. A person can meet an obstacle before ever reaching a form, or find the form itself to be the obstacle. Telephone and walk-up borrowing routes therefore need to remain available, and the web form optional.\n\nThis is a useful place to slow down. We might otherwise mistake a tidy process for an easy experience, rather like admiring a well-drawn map while never asking whether the path is open. The analogy does not tell us which route people will prefer. That is precisely what we should avoid guessing.\n\nCount completed loans, then look beyond them: how much staff time did they require, and which borrowing attempts failed? Keep borrower names out of public reporting. We have no measured result yet, and no basis for claiming savings.\n\nI return, then, to a smaller question than whether a tool library is a good idea in general. Should this bounded trial be authorized, or should the proposal be revised first? A careful answer leaves room for surprise. It does not need to pretend surprise has already happened.", "sourceMarkdown": "# What does it mean to make something available?\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nA shelf can be full and still be difficult to use. That is the question beneath the proposed Marlow Library Tool Shelf: not simply whether a library can possess tools, but whether people can actually borrow them.\n\nThe practical proposal is modest enough to describe without ceremony. Twenty-four tool kits. A requested budget of $2,400. Free borrowing on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. A six-week trial, still awaiting approval.\n\nIt is tempting to think that building a reservation form completes the work of access. It completes *one part* of it. A person can meet an obstacle before ever reaching a form, or find the form itself to be the obstacle. Telephone and walk-up borrowing routes therefore need to remain available, and the web form optional.\n\nThis is a useful place to slow down. We might otherwise mistake a tidy process for an easy experience, rather like admiring a well-drawn map while never asking whether the path is open. The analogy does not tell us which route people will prefer. That is precisely what we should avoid guessing.\n\nCount completed loans, then look beyond them: how much staff time did they require, and which borrowing attempts failed? Keep borrower names out of public reporting. We have no measured result yet, and no basis for claiming savings.\n\nI return, then, to a smaller question than whether a tool library is a good idea in general. Should this bounded trial be authorized, or should the proposal be revised first? A careful answer leaves room for surprise. It does not need to pretend surprise has already happened.\n", "sha256": "262453548bccf8375342443a1cc6280259e8047319fa79ff57883cf7a9830775", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nA shelf can be full and still be difficult to use. That is the question beneath the proposed Marlow Library Tool Shelf: not simply whether a library can possess tools, but whether people can actually borrow them.
\n\nThe practical proposal is modest enough to describe without ceremony. Twenty-four tool kits. A requested budget of $2,400. Free borrowing on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. A six-week trial, still awaiting approval.
\n\nIt is tempting to think that building a reservation form completes the work of access. It completes one part of it. A person can meet an obstacle before ever reaching a form, or find the form itself to be the obstacle. Telephone and walk-up borrowing routes therefore need to remain available, and the web form optional.
\n\nThis is a useful place to slow down. We might otherwise mistake a tidy process for an easy experience, rather like admiring a well-drawn map while never asking whether the path is open. The analogy does not tell us which route people will prefer. That is precisely what we should avoid guessing.
\n\nCount completed loans, then look beyond them: how much staff time did they require, and which borrowing attempts failed? Keep borrower names out of public reporting. We have no measured result yet, and no basis for claiming savings.
\n\nI return, then, to a smaller question than whether a tool library is a good idea in general. Should this bounded trial be authorized, or should the proposal be revised first? A careful answer leaves room for surprise. It does not need to pretend surprise has already happened.
" }, { "id": "V03/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "# V03 · Exploratory essay · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nMoving the review to Thursday changes the calendar, but does it change the work? Not on the information we have. The scope is unchanged, and a new delivery deadline has not been agreed. It helps to keep those two questions apart.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V03 · Exploratory essay · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nMoving the review to Thursday changes the calendar, but does it change the work? Not on the information we have. The scope is unchanged, and a new delivery deadline has not been agreed. It helps to keep those two questions apart.\n", "sha256": "31d04fd695ec628ad571dfda29101fe1df9797d5d19fc95e3641bb9b77c8b242", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nMoving the review to Thursday changes the calendar, but does it change the work? Not on the information we have. The scope is unchanged, and a new delivery deadline has not been agreed. It helps to keep those two questions apart.
" }, { "id": "V03/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "# V03 · Exploratory essay · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nWhat makes a paragraph feel finished: fewer words, or a clearer reason for each word? Bring one paragraph draft and a question about it to the fictional writing session; we will revise the paragraph. We can try the first route without assuming it is always the second.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V03 · Exploratory essay · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nWhat makes a paragraph feel finished: fewer words, or a clearer reason for each word? Bring one paragraph draft and a question about it to the fictional writing session; we will revise the paragraph. We can try the first route without assuming it is always the second.\n", "sha256": "3ae3425ed9a24417c98df929c419a0a6fd2c38dd08461ec9e38f55ba79e5bbc9", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nWhat makes a paragraph feel finished: fewer words, or a clearer reason for each word? Bring one paragraph draft and a question about it to the fictional writing session; we will revise the paragraph. We can try the first route without assuming it is always the second.
" }, { "id": "V03/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V03 · Exploratory essay\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\nWhat would it mean for one museum label to be better than another? Easier to choose, harder to misunderstand, more useful to learning? Those questions can travel together for a while without becoming the same question.\n\nLinden Museum proposes a single label-comparison session on 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. It has not been approved. Six replica objects would each have two draft labels; the request is $900, and participation would be free. That gives the question a practical frame, though not yet an answer.\n\nVisitors could read ordinary or large-print copies, with an optional audio reading using the same transcript. Think of those routes as different doors to the text. The image helps explain the intention; it cannot establish that every visitor would find a usable door, or that one label is better. Attendance remains unknown.\n\nThe proposed record would include which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. It would not include visitor names. A choice might be clear while the reason for that choice remains obscure. Recording a misunderstanding asks a different question from counting preferences, and the plan has not yet specified how choices would be analyzed.\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. Staffing is also unresolved. The temptation is to answer the largest question—whether the labels teach better—by arranging a session that makes it possible to answer a smaller one. Those are different stages of work.\n\nI return, then, to the decision available now. The team must authorize the session or request revisions. I favor revisions that settle staffing and analysis first, so that the proposed comparison has a clear purpose before it acquires a date in anyone’s calendar as an approved event.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V03 · Exploratory essay\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\nWhat would it mean for one museum label to be better than another? Easier to choose, harder to misunderstand, more useful to learning? Those questions can travel together for a while without becoming the same question.\n\nLinden Museum proposes a single label-comparison session on 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. It has not been approved. Six replica objects would each have two draft labels; the request is $900, and participation would be free. That gives the question a practical frame, though not yet an answer.\n\nVisitors could read ordinary or large-print copies, with an optional audio reading using the same transcript. Think of those routes as different doors to the text. The image helps explain the intention; it cannot establish that every visitor would find a usable door, or that one label is better. Attendance remains unknown.\n\nThe proposed record would include which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. It would not include visitor names. A choice might be clear while the reason for that choice remains obscure. Recording a misunderstanding asks a different question from counting preferences, and the plan has not yet specified how choices would be analyzed.\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. Staffing is also unresolved. The temptation is to answer the largest question—whether the labels teach better—by arranging a session that makes it possible to answer a smaller one. Those are different stages of work.\n\nI return, then, to the decision available now. The team must authorize the session or request revisions. I favor revisions that settle staffing and analysis first, so that the proposed comparison has a clear purpose before it acquires a date in anyone’s calendar as an approved event.\n", "sha256": "a246a61ec783dcfed58dfd500575319403172a584d28cd5665447ef4a958e10b", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.
\n\nWhat would it mean for one museum label to be better than another? Easier to choose, harder to misunderstand, more useful to learning? Those questions can travel together for a while without becoming the same question.
\n\nLinden Museum proposes a single label-comparison session on 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. It has not been approved. Six replica objects would each have two draft labels; the request is $900, and participation would be free. That gives the question a practical frame, though not yet an answer.
\n\nVisitors could read ordinary or large-print copies, with an optional audio reading using the same transcript. Think of those routes as different doors to the text. The image helps explain the intention; it cannot establish that every visitor would find a usable door, or that one label is better. Attendance remains unknown.
\n\nThe proposed record would include which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. It would not include visitor names. A choice might be clear while the reason for that choice remains obscure. Recording a misunderstanding asks a different question from counting preferences, and the plan has not yet specified how choices would be analyzed.
\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. Staffing is also unresolved. The temptation is to answer the largest question—whether the labels teach better—by arranging a session that makes it possible to answer a smaller one. Those are different stages of work.
\n\nI return, then, to the decision available now. The team must authorize the session or request revisions. I favor revisions that settle staffing and analysis first, so that the proposed comparison has a clear purpose before it acquires a date in anyone’s calendar as an approved event.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V03", "sample_id": "V03/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V03/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "650e8af039c90fbeea9a32f07db99794de769b750e14e4a2dc20c0b1e0ecc776", "trimmed_body_sha256": "00787ab79dbe5feb52d0f79171a6b5bd8cb57ee871056452abcaf1c999b820ee", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "That distinction changes the question.", "start": 272, "end": 310, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public prose and ordinary headings fit neutral professional3, without ceremonial or strongly institutional conventions for5." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "That distinction changes the question.", "start": 272, "end": 310, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "No intended comic device appears across the whole piece. The quote illustrates the prevailing serious stance; a quote alone cannot prove absence." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Rather than asking whether restoration erases the past, ask which stored version should become the basis of the present.", "start": 311, "end": 431, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Rhetorical movement or reader-directed engagement adds some energy, below overt encouragement3 or excitement5." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Rather than asking whether restoration erases the past, ask which stored version should become the basis of the present.", "start": 311, "end": 431, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Practical decision support shows modest reader regard, between task-only1 and explicit acknowledgment3." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The thirty-day window introduces a second kind of “back”: how far the available record reaches.", "start": 760, "end": 855, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace role, retention and restoration require a little product familiarity, but consequences are explained; below several unexplained domain concepts3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The thirty-day window introduces a second kind of “back”: how far the available record reaches.", "start": 760, "end": 855, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Several connected distinctions explain operation, permissions and recovery boundaries; exceeds selected reasons3 without a fully worked example sequence for5." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/explanation/", "title": "Explanation", "id": "S42" }, { "url": "https://aclanthology.org/2021.acl-long.185/", "title": "Style is NOT a single variable: Case Studies for Cross-Stylistic Language Understanding", "id": "S12" } ], "researchLimits": "Explanation guidance informs inquiry structure; it does not validate the particular essay cadence.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v03-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v03-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V03/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V03/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V03/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V03.svg", "bundleSha256": "ed7c670eae60ac324d9df7061a5b11cf92b7db787915f9c1cdc754db56221111", "bundleBytes": 83432 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice when a reader needs to examine a framing assumption before reaching a practical judgment. It fits reflective essays, explanatory columns, and exploratory project notes that still owe the reader a destination. The purpose is to make a revision of thought visible. Avoid it for emergency instructions, a simple confirmation, or a service notice whose answer should be immediately available without following a detour.
\n\nThe stable voice remains curious while accepting responsibility for a conclusion. Its stance is provisional rather than indecisive; the writer can change the question without claiming to discover facts. Narrative distance is moderately close: the reader follows the thinking but does not inherit an invented inner life. Wonder, doubt, or restrained frustration can modify the tone. First person marks a present judgment, never an unsupplied memory, scholarly credential, or personal history.
\n\nBegin with a question or a concrete puzzle, offer an initial answer, and identify where that answer fails. One productive detour can examine an analogy or overlooked condition. Give the return a visible hinge such as “That changes the question” or “I return to the smaller decision.” Paragraphs should move the inquiry rather than merely vary its vocabulary. End with a refined question and an actionable response, not a cloud of further questions that evades the brief.
\n\nAllow an exploratory sentence to hold a qualification, contrast, or subordinate clause, then follow it with a short landing. The longer sentence traces the thought; the short one establishes what survived. Use a colon to name the revised distinction and a dash sparingly for an actual self-correction. A rhetorical question earns its place only if the next passage answers or revises it. Repeat a key word with changed meaning rather than adding unrelated metaphors. Keep parenthetical digressions subordinate and bounded.
\n\nOrdinary words can carry difficult ideas when the relation between them is precise. Use one analogy with an explicit limit; a map can illustrate access without proving that a route is open. Detail grounds the speculation: amounts, proposed dates, and observed or unobserved status should remain plain. Humor may appear as mild self-correction, not contempt. Emotional intensity grows through the stakes of the question. Avoid manufactured confession or a dramatic revelation unsupported by the material.
\n\nPrefer continuous prose with a title that names the inquiry. An italic phrase can mark a distinction once, but the sentence must work without it. Lists are useful only when the essay reaches a genuinely parallel set of conditions. In plain text, retain paragraph breaks and make the hinge explicit in words. Never let a typographic pause substitute for explaining whether a statement is an analogy, an inference, or a supplied fact.
\n\nProtected spans remain unchanged even if they interrupt a lyrical sentence. Keep proposed status and unknown results near the first factual anchor. V05’s counterhypothesis can sharpen the inquiry; V07’s single image can sustain it. Do not also require decision-first suspense-free compression unless the essay structure yields. If an existing paragraph already explores and returns cleanly, preserve its cadence. A “maybe” inserted in every clause is not extra intellectual honesty.
\n\nWrite the starting question and final decision separately. Identify the mistaken inference connecting them. Draft a plain factual anchor, then one detour that tests that inference. Return to the decision in a changed but specific form. Delete questions that neither advance nor receive an answer. Read only the factual statements to check their status, then read the argumentative transitions to see whether the conclusion exceeds them. Keep the strongest deliberate repetition.
\n\nFaulty prose: “Which label is better? Perhaps the large-print one, because more readable labels must teach more.” This confuses a delivery route with label content and turns a plausible idea into a result. Repair: “What would a visitor’s choice tell us? It could identify a preference. It would not, by itself, establish learning; Linden Museum’s proposed session has no results yet.” The revised question creates room for inquiry while leaving the evidence boundary intact.
\n\nRead the full seed demonstration, schedule update, and writing-session invitation as different task sizes. The new-topic application tests the mechanism on museum decision facts. All are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations; none establishes audience benefit or Kyle’s personal voice. The source card supplies the starting mechanism. The seed review records retained language and exact repairs. Compare rhetorical choices while holding facts fixed; a different topic is not evidence of a better voice.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "L07", "title": "A Piece of Chalk (in Tremendous Trifles)", "author": "G. K. Chesterton", "year": "1909", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8092", "relationship": "A material puzzle supports a reflective detour and return.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Personal comic essay", "publicationDate": "1909" }, { "id": "M05", "title": "Maker’s Schedule, Manager’s Schedule", "author": "Paul Graham", "year": "2009", "url": "https://paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html", "relationship": "An ordinary scheduling puzzle becomes a revised explanation.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Conversational explanatory essay", "publicationDate": "2009-07" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Exploratory essay · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V03.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Asking Analytical Questions", "url": "https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/asking-analytical-questions", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" }, { "title": "Counterargument", "url": "https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/counterargument", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" }, { "title": "Aporia", "url": "https://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/A/aporia.htm", "relationship": "University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference" } ], "formats": [], "html": "An inquiry whose reasoning visibly changes because a complication matters. The reader follows a developing interpretation rather than a preselected answer wearing question marks.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA bounded puzzle with available evidence or openly stated uncertainty; no obligation to conceal a known answer.
\n\nQuestion → provisional answer → consequential complication → reconsideration → refined question or position.
\n\nPose a question that the supplied material can meaningfully complicate. Check: Distinguish a genuine puzzle from a topic label followed by a question mark.
Let a later consideration modify the initial answer. Check: Name what the writer would think differently after the complication.
End with a refined position or a better bounded question. Check: The ending must be more specific than the opening uncertainty.
Use this voice when a reader needs to examine a framing assumption before reaching a practical judgment. It fits reflective essays, explanatory columns, and exploratory project notes that still owe the reader a destination. The purpose is to make a revision of thought visible. Avoid it for emergency instructions, a simple confirmation, or a service notice whose answer should be immediately available without following a detour.
\n\nThe stable voice remains curious while accepting responsibility for a conclusion. Its stance is provisional rather than indecisive; the writer can change the question without claiming to discover facts. Narrative distance is moderately close: the reader follows the thinking but does not inherit an invented inner life. Wonder, doubt, or restrained frustration can modify the tone. First person marks a present judgment, never an unsupplied memory, scholarly credential, or personal history.
\n\nBegin with a question or a concrete puzzle, offer an initial answer, and identify where that answer fails. One productive detour can examine an analogy or overlooked condition. Give the return a visible hinge such as “That changes the question” or “I return to the smaller decision.” Paragraphs should move the inquiry rather than merely vary its vocabulary. End with a refined question and an actionable response, not a cloud of further questions that evades the brief.
\n\nAllow an exploratory sentence to hold a qualification, contrast, or subordinate clause, then follow it with a short landing. The longer sentence traces the thought; the short one establishes what survived. Use a colon to name the revised distinction and a dash sparingly for an actual self-correction. A rhetorical question earns its place only if the next passage answers or revises it. Repeat a key word with changed meaning rather than adding unrelated metaphors. Keep parenthetical digressions subordinate and bounded.
\n\nOrdinary words can carry difficult ideas when the relation between them is precise. Use one analogy with an explicit limit; a map can illustrate access without proving that a route is open. Detail grounds the speculation: amounts, proposed dates, and observed or unobserved status should remain plain. Humor may appear as mild self-correction, not contempt. Emotional intensity grows through the stakes of the question. Avoid manufactured confession or a dramatic revelation unsupported by the material.
\n\nPrefer continuous prose with a title that names the inquiry. An italic phrase can mark a distinction once, but the sentence must work without it. Lists are useful only when the essay reaches a genuinely parallel set of conditions. In plain text, retain paragraph breaks and make the hinge explicit in words. Never let a typographic pause substitute for explaining whether a statement is an analogy, an inference, or a supplied fact.
\n\nProtected spans remain unchanged even if they interrupt a lyrical sentence. Keep proposed status and unknown results near the first factual anchor. V05’s counterhypothesis can sharpen the inquiry; V07’s single image can sustain it. Do not also require decision-first suspense-free compression unless the essay structure yields. If an existing paragraph already explores and returns cleanly, preserve its cadence. A “maybe” inserted in every clause is not extra intellectual honesty.
\n\nWrite the starting question and final decision separately. Identify the mistaken inference connecting them. Draft a plain factual anchor, then one detour that tests that inference. Return to the decision in a changed but specific form. Delete questions that neither advance nor receive an answer. Read only the factual statements to check their status, then read the argumentative transitions to see whether the conclusion exceeds them. Keep the strongest deliberate repetition.
\n\nFaulty prose: “Which label is better? Perhaps the large-print one, because more readable labels must teach more.” This confuses a delivery route with label content and turns a plausible idea into a result. Repair: “What would a visitor’s choice tell us? It could identify a preference. It would not, by itself, establish learning; Linden Museum’s proposed session has no results yet.” The revised question creates room for inquiry while leaving the evidence boundary intact.
\n\nA detour, first person, and an unresolved ending are optional. An ending may remain open if the uncertainty has become more precise.
\n\nA firm conclusion can pass if earned by the exploration; uncertainty at the end is not compulsory.
\n\nStage doubt while leaving every inference unchanged. Check: Delete the questions; if the same untouched assertion remains, the inquiry is decorative.
Treat endless hedging as exploration. Check: Check whether any distinction or next inquiry has been gained.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional proposal facts: a workshop is free, but travel is not provided; participation has not been studied. The question is whether “free” adequately describes accessibility.
\n\nIs a free workshop accessible? At first, removing the fee seems the important change. Yet travel is not provided, so a zero ticket price does not settle the cost of attending. No participation study is available. The better question is which costs the invitation leaves with the attendee.
\n\nIs a free workshop accessible? The workshop has no fee, travel is not provided, and participation has not been studied. Accessibility matters. We should keep asking whether the workshop is accessible.
\n\nWhy it differs: The near-miss preserves the facts but returns to the starting question without changing the inquiry.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nThe sources describe inquiry, objections, and rhetorical doubt. A consequential revision is this library’s membership requirement.
\n\nAsking Analytical Questions — University teaching guidance.
Counterargument — University teaching guidance.
Aporia — University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference.
Imagine a workspace editor looking at an earlier stored draft and considering whether to make it current. This is an illustration of a choice, not a report of someone using the feature.
\n\nDraftline’s Version history becomes available on 20 October 2026. It is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. The action is named Version history in the interface, and versions are retained for 30 days.
\n\nIn the imagined moment, “restore” could sound like removing the later record. The actual behavior is narrower: restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. The record stays; the current version changes.
\n\nOnly workspace editors can restore a version. That rule determines who can act, whatever the earlier draft contains.
\n\nThe choice has a further boundary: the feature cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled.
\n\nThe editor’s choice turns on three things: a retained version, an authorized role, and a restoration that creates a new present without deleting the stored history.
" }, { "key": "human-l11", "label": "Nellie Bly · Ten Days in a Mad-House", "path": "excerpts/L11.md", "source": { "title": "Ten Days in a Mad-House", "author": "Nellie Bly", "publicationDate": "1887", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/59899", "locator": "Chapter I, opening assignment account", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/59899", "relationship": "Scene and assignment lead into public significance; actual undercover reporting, not the guide’s labeled imagined fixture.", "edition": "New York: Norman L. Munro, 1887; Gutenberg transcription released 2019-07-10", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "On the 22d of September I was asked by the World if I could have myself committed to one of the asylums for the insane in New York, with a view to writing a plain and unvarnished narrative of the treatment of the patients therein and the methods of management, etc.\n\nDid I think I had the courage to go through such an ordeal as the mission would demand? Could I assume the characteristics of insanity to such a degree that I could pass the doctors, live for a week among the insane without the authorities there finding out that I was only a “chiel amang ’em takin’ notes?” I said I believed I could.\n", "id": "V04/human-l11", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "On the 22d of September I was asked by the World if I could have myself committed to one of the asylums for the insane in New York, with a view to writing a plain and unvarnished narrative of the treatment of the patients therein and the methods of management, etc.\n\nDid I think I had the courage to go through such an ordeal as the mission would demand? Could I assume the characteristics of insanity to such a degree that I could pass the doctors, live for a week among the insane without the authorities there finding out that I was only a “chiel amang ’em takin’ notes?” I said I believed I could.\n", "sha256": "cf227cd83fd6892c102f8f503a8966c186e315cd62028ecb2b441407126ce3a8", "html": "On the 22d of September I was asked by the World if I could have myself committed to one of the asylums for the insane in New York, with a view to writing a plain and unvarnished narrative of the treatment of the patients therein and the methods of management, etc.
\n\nDid I think I had the courage to go through such an ordeal as the mission would demand? Could I assume the characteristics of insanity to such a degree that I could pass the doctors, live for a week among the insane without the authorities there finding out that I was only a “chiel amang ’em takin’ notes?” I said I believed I could.
" }, { "key": "human-h06", "label": "18F; front-matter author handle aaron · 29 minutes", "path": "excerpts/H06.md", "source": { "title": "29 minutes", "author": "18F; front-matter author handle aaron", "publicationDate": "2014-03-21", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-03-21-29-minutes.md", "locator": "Opening through bounded interpretation; link destinations omitted", "rights": "CC0 · 18F staff prose", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/", "relationship": "A timed workplace episode opens the account; actual event rather than a synthetic scene.", "edition": "18F repository snapshot df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5 (2021-12-30)", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "I want to relate a great little thing that happened here at 18th and F yesterday.\n\nAt 11am yesterday morning, members of the GSA.gov team, Sarah Hyder and Patrick Son, met with Hillary Hartley, Alison Rowland, and me to talk about how to integrate FBOpen into GSA's mobile website, m.gsa.gov, on its How To Sell to the Government\" page.\n\nAt 11:29am, we had working code up and running on their staging server.\n\nWe get so used to things taking multiple meetings, multiple days/weeks/months, and lots of back and forth. A couple stars aligned to make this one easy, but bottom line: it took 29 minutes to go from “How could we do this?” to a working code integration that went live the same afternoon.\n", "id": "V04/human-h06", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "I want to relate a great little thing that happened here at 18th and F yesterday.\n\nAt 11am yesterday morning, members of the GSA.gov team, Sarah Hyder and Patrick Son, met with Hillary Hartley, Alison Rowland, and me to talk about how to integrate FBOpen into GSA's mobile website, m.gsa.gov, on its How To Sell to the Government\" page.\n\nAt 11:29am, we had working code up and running on their staging server.\n\nWe get so used to things taking multiple meetings, multiple days/weeks/months, and lots of back and forth. A couple stars aligned to make this one easy, but bottom line: it took 29 minutes to go from “How could we do this?” to a working code integration that went live the same afternoon.\n", "sha256": "086697678cb133b60fd8cc9bdb2e543fa4d347fce78b2b5822445848c66bd355", "html": "I want to relate a great little thing that happened here at 18th and F yesterday.
\n\nAt 11am yesterday morning, members of the GSA.gov team, Sarah Hyder and Patrick Son, met with Hillary Hartley, Alison Rowland, and me to talk about how to integrate FBOpen into GSA's mobile website, m.gsa.gov, on its How To Sell to the Government" page.
\n\nAt 11:29am, we had working code up and running on their staging server.
\n\nWe get so used to things taking multiple meetings, multiple days/weeks/months, and lots of back and forth. A couple stars aligned to make this one easy, but bottom line: it took 29 minutes to go from “How could we do this?” to a working code integration that went live the same afternoon.
" }, { "id": "V04/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# One paragraph, ready for revision\n\n*Picture a paragraph with a sentence you want to revisit.* The picture is an invitation to consider your own material, not an account of a past participant.\n\nFor the fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop, bring **one paragraph to revise**. The session takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**, is free, and has **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nThe scene can begin with your words; the practical arrangements still need checking. No location, time zone or access details have been supplied. Nor is a particular revision outcome promised. The concrete starting point is the paragraph you choose to bring.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V04\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# One paragraph, ready for revision\n\n*Picture a paragraph with a sentence you want to revisit.* The picture is an invitation to consider your own material, not an account of a past participant.\n\nFor the fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop, bring **one paragraph to revise**. The session takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**, is free, and has **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nThe scene can begin with your words; the practical arrangements still need checking. No location, time zone or access details have been supplied. Nor is a particular revision outcome promised. The concrete starting point is the paragraph you choose to bring.\n\n", "sha256": "506bd6218b6230dfa8439feef0c148e0fdb45ed9b6ab6dab01b822886ca69e1f", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 10.666666666666666, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.874042553191489, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 41.666666666666664, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 28, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 21.875, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 96, "prose_sentences": 9, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 4, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 21, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "506bd6218b6230dfa8439feef0c148e0fdb45ed9b6ab6dab01b822886ca69e1f", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Picture a paragraph with a sentence you want to revisit. The picture is an invitation to consider your own material, not an account of a past participant.
\n\nFor the fictional Clearer Notes workshop, bring one paragraph to revise. The session takes place on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m., is free, and has 12 places. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nThe scene can begin with your words; the practical arrangements still need checking. No location, time zone or access details have been supplied. Nor is a particular revision outcome promised. The concrete starting point is the paragraph you choose to bring.
" }, { "id": "V04/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# Draftline: uploads unavailable\n\n**New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.**\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\nNo repair time is promised in this update.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V04\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Draftline: uploads unavailable\n\n**New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.**\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\nNo repair time is promised in this update.\n\n", "sha256": "4daf985cafd3f5d4329738ed458a989feabd4192010e239424f78a856a6380a3", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 6.2, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 10, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 38.70967741935484, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 31, "prose_sentences": 5, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 12, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "4daf985cafd3f5d4329738ed458a989feabd4192010e239424f78a856a6380a3", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
\n\nNo repair time is promised in this update.
" }, { "id": "V04/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# The shelf is only the beginning\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\n*Imagine the opening scene; this is not an observed event.* A person reaches a library desk with a job in mind and no tool for it. There is a shelf nearby. The important question is not how good the shelf looks. It is what happens between asking and leaving with something useful.\n\nThe Marlow Library Tool Shelf proposal would give that interaction a bounded trial: six weeks, Saturdays from 10 a.m. to noon, 7 November–12 December 2026. The requested budget is $2,400 for 24 tool kits, with free borrowing. The pilot has not been approved.\n\nA reservation form appears in the plan, but it is not meant to become the doorway everyone must use. The web route would be optional. Telephone and walk-up access would remain available. The imagined visitor at the desk should not have to disappear from the story because the system expected an online booking.\n\nThe evaluation would follow the encounter past its most photogenic moment. It would count completed loans, record staff time, and note failed borrowing attempts. A full shelf or a busy desk would not tell that whole story. Public reports would exclude borrower names.\n\nNo one can yet report that the pilot saved money, reduced waste, or improved anything at all. Those would be claims about results; this is still a proposal. The kit contents and borrowing conditions also need explicit decisions.\n\nThe next scene is administrative, and real enough as a task: authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. What comes after that should be reported from evidence, not supplied by the writer’s imagination. The first imagined visitor can open the question. They cannot answer it for us.", "sourceMarkdown": "# The shelf is only the beginning\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\n*Imagine the opening scene; this is not an observed event.* A person reaches a library desk with a job in mind and no tool for it. There is a shelf nearby. The important question is not how good the shelf looks. It is what happens between asking and leaving with something useful.\n\nThe Marlow Library Tool Shelf proposal would give that interaction a bounded trial: six weeks, Saturdays from 10 a.m. to noon, 7 November–12 December 2026. The requested budget is $2,400 for 24 tool kits, with free borrowing. The pilot has not been approved.\n\nA reservation form appears in the plan, but it is not meant to become the doorway everyone must use. The web route would be optional. Telephone and walk-up access would remain available. The imagined visitor at the desk should not have to disappear from the story because the system expected an online booking.\n\nThe evaluation would follow the encounter past its most photogenic moment. It would count completed loans, record staff time, and note failed borrowing attempts. A full shelf or a busy desk would not tell that whole story. Public reports would exclude borrower names.\n\nNo one can yet report that the pilot saved money, reduced waste, or improved anything at all. Those would be claims about results; this is still a proposal. The kit contents and borrowing conditions also need explicit decisions.\n\nThe next scene is administrative, and real enough as a task: authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. What comes after that should be reported from evidence, not supplied by the writer’s imagination. The first imagined visitor can open the question. They cannot answer it for us.\n", "sha256": "35234e5a661360ee34000dae13a4b9059d56d4b6eaf37ebdd566967e5630e24c", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nImagine the opening scene; this is not an observed event. A person reaches a library desk with a job in mind and no tool for it. There is a shelf nearby. The important question is not how good the shelf looks. It is what happens between asking and leaving with something useful.
\n\nThe Marlow Library Tool Shelf proposal would give that interaction a bounded trial: six weeks, Saturdays from 10 a.m. to noon, 7 November–12 December 2026. The requested budget is $2,400 for 24 tool kits, with free borrowing. The pilot has not been approved.
\n\nA reservation form appears in the plan, but it is not meant to become the doorway everyone must use. The web route would be optional. Telephone and walk-up access would remain available. The imagined visitor at the desk should not have to disappear from the story because the system expected an online booking.
\n\nThe evaluation would follow the encounter past its most photogenic moment. It would count completed loans, record staff time, and note failed borrowing attempts. A full shelf or a busy desk would not tell that whole story. Public reports would exclude borrower names.
\n\nNo one can yet report that the pilot saved money, reduced waste, or improved anything at all. Those would be claims about results; this is still a proposal. The kit contents and borrowing conditions also need explicit decisions.
\n\nThe next scene is administrative, and real enough as a task: authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. What comes after that should be reported from evidence, not supplied by the writer’s imagination. The first imagined visitor can open the question. They cannot answer it for us.
" }, { "id": "V04/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "# V04 · Scene-led feature · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\n*Imagined scene:* the calendar notification arrives, and the review now sits on Thursday. The actual update is less dramatic: the scope has not changed, and no new delivery deadline has been approved. The team still needs to confirm the meeting time.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V04 · Scene-led feature · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\n*Imagined scene:* the calendar notification arrives, and the review now sits on Thursday. The actual update is less dramatic: the scope has not changed, and no new delivery deadline has been approved. The team still needs to confirm the meeting time.\n", "sha256": "929a873002bd58f1e8aec6601138028179c1a1c1a2a485c9a890c38bd4b18201", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nImagined scene: the calendar notification arrives, and the review now sits on Thursday. The actual update is less dramatic: the scope has not changed, and no new delivery deadline has been approved. The team still needs to confirm the meeting time.
" }, { "id": "V04/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "# V04 · Scene-led feature · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\n*Imagined scene:* a paragraph sits open, almost right and not quite working. The fictional writing session starts there. Bring one paragraph draft and a question; we will revise the paragraph to clarify its point, without inventing a success story about the result.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V04 · Scene-led feature · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\n*Imagined scene:* a paragraph sits open, almost right and not quite working. The fictional writing session starts there. Bring one paragraph draft and a question; we will revise the paragraph to clarify its point, without inventing a success story about the result.\n", "sha256": "526aa05aa0ad813cd1d9031ac55e81a1bb932cde3a1fc9ae849f4a130e2c4c51", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nImagined scene: a paragraph sits open, almost right and not quite working. The fictional writing session starts there. Bring one paragraph draft and a question; we will revise the paragraph to clarify its point, without inventing a success story about the result.
" }, { "id": "V04/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V04 · Scene-led feature\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\n*Imagined scene, not an observed event:* a volunteer reaches for a photograph and looks for the number on its sleeve. The number is missing. The next movement in this scene is a pause, because making a plausible guess would send the work in the wrong direction.\n\nThe Alder Photo Archive’s agreed workflow makes that pause explicit. Stop and ask the archive lead if a sleeve number is missing or if handling could damage a photograph. This is a fictional project with 48 donated photographs to catalog. No scanning has been reported complete.\n\nKeep the originals in their numbered sleeves and match each file to the sleeve number. For this project, scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. Those instructions specify the agreed workflow; they are not presented as a universal preservation standard. The scanner model is not supplied.\n\nThe description also needs a boundary. Put the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Record any corrections in a separate catalog note. The original words and the correction serve different purposes; writing a smoother combined account would erase that distinction.\n\nIf a date is missing, record it as “unknown.” Do not guess a year from clothing. Neither donor biographies nor the actual dates of these photographs have been supplied here.\n\nThe viewing copies remain internal until the rights review is complete. No completion date has been promised, and no preservation or speed benefit has been measured.\n\nReturn to the sleeve in the imagined opening. Its absent number is not a riddle the volunteer must solve alone. It is one of the stated reasons to stop and ask the archive lead before continuing.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V04 · Scene-led feature\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\n*Imagined scene, not an observed event:* a volunteer reaches for a photograph and looks for the number on its sleeve. The number is missing. The next movement in this scene is a pause, because making a plausible guess would send the work in the wrong direction.\n\nThe Alder Photo Archive’s agreed workflow makes that pause explicit. Stop and ask the archive lead if a sleeve number is missing or if handling could damage a photograph. This is a fictional project with 48 donated photographs to catalog. No scanning has been reported complete.\n\nKeep the originals in their numbered sleeves and match each file to the sleeve number. For this project, scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. Those instructions specify the agreed workflow; they are not presented as a universal preservation standard. The scanner model is not supplied.\n\nThe description also needs a boundary. Put the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Record any corrections in a separate catalog note. The original words and the correction serve different purposes; writing a smoother combined account would erase that distinction.\n\nIf a date is missing, record it as “unknown.” Do not guess a year from clothing. Neither donor biographies nor the actual dates of these photographs have been supplied here.\n\nThe viewing copies remain internal until the rights review is complete. No completion date has been promised, and no preservation or speed benefit has been measured.\n\nReturn to the sleeve in the imagined opening. Its absent number is not a riddle the volunteer must solve alone. It is one of the stated reasons to stop and ask the archive lead before continuing.\n", "sha256": "6f1f0a766321ee528a44e8f8fce9b0391b33305c2e2020e3b90f66f9766d4657", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.
\n\nImagined scene, not an observed event: a volunteer reaches for a photograph and looks for the number on its sleeve. The number is missing. The next movement in this scene is a pause, because making a plausible guess would send the work in the wrong direction.
\n\nThe Alder Photo Archive’s agreed workflow makes that pause explicit. Stop and ask the archive lead if a sleeve number is missing or if handling could damage a photograph. This is a fictional project with 48 donated photographs to catalog. No scanning has been reported complete.
\n\nKeep the originals in their numbered sleeves and match each file to the sleeve number. For this project, scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. Those instructions specify the agreed workflow; they are not presented as a universal preservation standard. The scanner model is not supplied.
\n\nThe description also needs a boundary. Put the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Record any corrections in a separate catalog note. The original words and the correction serve different purposes; writing a smoother combined account would erase that distinction.
\n\nIf a date is missing, record it as “unknown.” Do not guess a year from clothing. Neither donor biographies nor the actual dates of these photographs have been supplied here.
\n\nThe viewing copies remain internal until the rights review is complete. No completion date has been promised, and no preservation or speed benefit has been measured.
\n\nReturn to the sleeve in the imagined opening. Its absent number is not a riddle the volunteer must solve alone. It is one of the stated reasons to stop and ask the archive lead before continuing.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V04", "sample_id": "V04/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V04/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "72278f0e15bc687e47ff3c45640c66e4c3fcc44f0fb32eccc1120f92c4fb2261", "trimmed_body_sha256": "0dab719dfe7236f966fee44d43443674f49d45aa849ba239c2f345788d1970fc", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The record stays; the current version changes.", "start": 654, "end": 700, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public prose and ordinary headings fit neutral professional3, without ceremonial or strongly institutional conventions for5." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The record stays; the current version changes.", "start": 654, "end": 700, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "No intended comic device appears across the whole piece. The quote illustrates the prevailing serious stance; a quote alone cannot prove absence." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "*Imagine a workspace editor looking at an earlier stored draft and considering whether to make it current.*", "start": 37, "end": 144, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Matter-of-fact presentation remains restrained; positive capability statements do not themselves establish enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "*Imagine a workspace editor looking at an earlier stored draft and considering whether to make it current.*", "start": 37, "end": 144, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Practical decision support shows modest reader regard, between task-only1 and explicit acknowledgment3." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The editor’s choice turns on three things: a retained version, an authorized role, and a restoration that creates a new present without deleting the stored history.", "start": 924, "end": 1088, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace role, retention and restoration require a little product familiarity, but consequences are explained; below several unexplained domain concepts3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The editor’s choice turns on three things: a retained version, an authorized role, and a restoration that creates a new present without deleting the stored history.", "start": 924, "end": 1088, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Several connected distinctions explain operation, permissions and recovery boundaries; exceeds selected reasons3 without a fully worked example sequence for5." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://oralhistory.org/principles-and-best-practices-revised-2018/", "title": "OHA Principles and Best Practices", "id": "S49" }, { "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session", "title": "Analyse a research session", "id": "S46" } ], "researchLimits": "Oral-history and service-research guidance constrain provenance; neither evaluates scene-led literary form.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v04-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v04-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V04/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V04/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V04/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V04.svg", "bundleSha256": "a844a721a1867dc4f9b387121318e0cba74144d36baf1e0f5c360fb30367d0dc", "bundleBytes": 84209 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice when an abstract service or workflow becomes clearer through one focal object or encounter. It suits an explanatory feature, a project story, or a training introduction that can afford a short scene before instructions. The scene draws attention to the system the reader needs to understand. Do not use an imagined encounter as evidence of actual user behavior, and do not delay an urgent warning behind descriptive writing.
\n\nThe stable voice observes a particular and then asks what arrangement surrounds it. Its stance is attentive and accountable, with close distance during the scene and more distance during explanation. Tenderness, curiosity, or sobriety can modify tone. The feature-writer lens is a craft device, not a claim to have witnessed an event. Label reconstruction or invention before the first invented action, not in a later note after the reader has accepted it as reporting.
\n\nBegin with a bounded, explicitly imagined scene: one object, a simple action, and the question it raises. Move quickly to the actual supplied proposal or workflow. Subsequent paragraphs explain access, operational details, evidence, and limits. Return to the focal object at the end only if it now means something more precise. The scene opens the question; the factual account answers what can be answered. Transitions must signal when imagination ends and supplied facts begin.
\n\nA scene sentence can unfold through two or three concrete clauses. Follow it with a plain declaration that resets the reader’s attention. Use commas to pace observation and periods when changing from imagined action to instruction. A colon after “Imagined scene” is functional labeling. Avoid quotation marks for unsupplied speech unless the dialogue is unmistakably labeled invented. Repetition of the focal noun supplies continuity; do not repeat a sensory flourish merely to sound literary. Keep digressions out of safety steps.
\n\nSelect details that belong to the concept being explained: a sleeve number, a screen, a label, a desk. Invented sensory details may be used within a clearly fictional scene, but unnecessary weather, clothing, and emotional reactions can suggest reporting. One or two particulars are enough. Humor is optional and subordinate. Emotional force comes from an action’s consequence or uncertainty, not from assigning trauma, delight, or relief to people the brief never described.
\n\nUse a visible scene label followed by ordinary paragraphs. A short subheading may mark the transition to the factual account when confusion is possible. Do not style reconstructed material as a pull quote, testimonial, or interview excerpt. The plain-text version begins “Imagined scene; not an observed event:” and keeps that wording. Italics may support the label but cannot be its only signal. Required operating instructions remain readable outside the scene.
\n\nKeep source statements, quotations, and technical values protected. An imagined volunteer can hesitate over a missing number but cannot establish that an actual photograph lacks one. Combine with V09 or V10 after the opening for operational clarity; use V07’s object return sparingly. Avoid layering an omniscient personal history onto a nonfiction brief. If a supplied, properly attributed real scene already does the job, retain it. Never replace good reporting with an invented, smoother anecdote.
\n\nIdentify the system question first, then choose one object that makes it visible. Draft a two- or three-sentence invented scene with an explicit label. Write the factual account independently and check it against the brief before joining the two. Put the stopping rule before any risky action. Revisit the opening to remove details that falsely imply observation. End at the actual decision or action, allowing the object to recur only if it reinforces that destination.
\n\nFaulty prose: “A volunteer found an unnumbered sleeve yesterday and carefully guessed where it belonged.” It invents a reported event and models an action forbidden by the workflow. Repair: “Imagined scene: a volunteer sees a sleeve without a number and pauses. In the agreed Alder Photo Archive workflow, a missing sleeve number means stop and ask the archive lead.” The scene remains a hypothetical entry point, and the operational instruction carries the factual authority.
\n\nRead the full seed demonstration, schedule update, and writing-session invitation as different task sizes. The new-topic application tests the mechanism on archive instruction facts. All are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations; none establishes audience benefit or Kyle’s personal voice. The source card supplies the starting mechanism. The seed review records retained language and exact repairs. Compare rhetorical choices while holding facts fixed; a different topic is not evidence of a better voice.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "L11", "title": "Ten Days in a Mad-House", "author": "Nellie Bly", "year": "1887", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/59899", "relationship": "Scene and assignment lead into public significance; actual undercover reporting, not the guide’s labeled imagined fixture.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Undercover investigative reportage", "publicationDate": "1887" }, { "id": "H06", "title": "29 minutes", "author": "18F; front-matter author handle aaron", "year": "2014", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-03-21-29-minutes.md", "relationship": "A timed workplace episode opens the account; actual event rather than a synthetic scene.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Government digital-service blog", "publicationDate": "2014-03-21" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Scene-led feature · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V04.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Nailing the Nut Graf", "url": "https://www.theopennotebook.com/2014/04/29/nailing-the-nut-graf/", "relationship": "Practitioner craft reporting with examples" }, { "title": "Reuters Journalistic Standards", "url": "https://reutersagency.com/about/standards-values/", "relationship": "Organization-owned professional standards" }, { "title": "Enargia", "url": "https://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/E/enargia.htm", "relationship": "University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A feature-like account that moves from a grounded scene into an explicit explanation of why that scene matters to the topic. Scene is evidence or declared invention, not an ornamental anecdote.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nAuthorized observed details, a reliable source scene, or an explicitly fictional vignette; a factual topic to which the scene can legitimately connect.
\n\nScene → hinge → wider significance and evidence → precise return.
\n\nBegin with a supplied, attributed scene or an explicitly imagined scene rather than an abstract topic sentence. Check: Distinguish observed or supplied facts from invented illustration.
State the relationship between the scene and the wider subject. Check: Locate the hinge; a decorative scene with no explanatory role fails.
Return to a concrete implication rather than an unrelated moral. Check: Check that the ending grows from the same subject and evidence.
Use this voice when an abstract service or workflow becomes clearer through one focal object or encounter. It suits an explanatory feature, a project story, or a training introduction that can afford a short scene before instructions. The scene draws attention to the system the reader needs to understand. Do not use an imagined encounter as evidence of actual user behavior, and do not delay an urgent warning behind descriptive writing.
\n\nThe stable voice observes a particular and then asks what arrangement surrounds it. Its stance is attentive and accountable, with close distance during the scene and more distance during explanation. Tenderness, curiosity, or sobriety can modify tone. The feature-writer lens is a craft device, not a claim to have witnessed an event. Label reconstruction or invention before the first invented action, not in a later note after the reader has accepted it as reporting.
\n\nBegin with a bounded, explicitly imagined scene: one object, a simple action, and the question it raises. Move quickly to the actual supplied proposal or workflow. Subsequent paragraphs explain access, operational details, evidence, and limits. Return to the focal object at the end only if it now means something more precise. The scene opens the question; the factual account answers what can be answered. Transitions must signal when imagination ends and supplied facts begin.
\n\nA scene sentence can unfold through two or three concrete clauses. Follow it with a plain declaration that resets the reader’s attention. Use commas to pace observation and periods when changing from imagined action to instruction. A colon after “Imagined scene” is functional labeling. Avoid quotation marks for unsupplied speech unless the dialogue is unmistakably labeled invented. Repetition of the focal noun supplies continuity; do not repeat a sensory flourish merely to sound literary. Keep digressions out of safety steps.
\n\nSelect details that belong to the concept being explained: a sleeve number, a screen, a label, a desk. Invented sensory details may be used within a clearly fictional scene, but unnecessary weather, clothing, and emotional reactions can suggest reporting. One or two particulars are enough. Humor is optional and subordinate. Emotional force comes from an action’s consequence or uncertainty, not from assigning trauma, delight, or relief to people the brief never described.
\n\nUse a visible scene label followed by ordinary paragraphs. A short subheading may mark the transition to the factual account when confusion is possible. Do not style reconstructed material as a pull quote, testimonial, or interview excerpt. The plain-text version begins “Imagined scene; not an observed event:” and keeps that wording. Italics may support the label but cannot be its only signal. Required operating instructions remain readable outside the scene.
\n\nKeep source statements, quotations, and technical values protected. An imagined volunteer can hesitate over a missing number but cannot establish that an actual photograph lacks one. Combine with V09 or V10 after the opening for operational clarity; use V07’s object return sparingly. Avoid layering an omniscient personal history onto a nonfiction brief. If a supplied, properly attributed real scene already does the job, retain it. Never replace good reporting with an invented, smoother anecdote.
\n\nIdentify the system question first, then choose one object that makes it visible. Draft a two- or three-sentence invented scene with an explicit label. Write the factual account independently and check it against the brief before joining the two. Put the stopping rule before any risky action. Revisit the opening to remove details that falsely imply observation. End at the actual decision or action, allowing the object to recur only if it reinforces that destination.
\n\nFaulty prose: “A volunteer found an unnumbered sleeve yesterday and carefully guessed where it belonged.” It invents a reported event and models an action forbidden by the workflow. Repair: “Imagined scene: a volunteer sees a sleeve without a number and pauses. In the agreed Alder Photo Archive workflow, a missing sleeve number means stop and ask the archive lead.” The scene remains a hypothetical entry point, and the operational instruction carries the factual authority.
\n\nA nut graf need not be the second paragraph in real journalism. This local profile requires a clear hinge but no universal paragraph number.
\n\nNo authorized scene exists: use a literal introduction or clearly marked hypothetical. Do not count the literal fallback as full V04 conformance.
\n\nPresent a fabricated scene as witnessed reporting. Check: Check scene provenance; a vivid passage can still fail factual admissibility.
Leave the opening scene disconnected from the explanation. Check: Remove the scene: if nothing in the argument changes, inspect whether it is merely decoration.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional demonstration scene: Mara turns a chair toward the door at an empty workshop. The fictional event plan leaves arrivals unassigned. No real observation or outcome is claimed.
\n\nFictional vignette: Mara turns one chair toward the door. The workshop is empty. In this invented event plan, nobody is assigned to welcome arrivals; the chair makes that missing responsibility visible. The planning question is not where to place more chairs, but who will meet the person who enters.
\n\nFictional vignette: Mara turns one chair toward the door of an empty workshop. Separately, the fictional event plan leaves arrivals unassigned. Chairs have many uses, and workshops require planning.
\n\nWhy it differs: Both preserve the scene and planning facts; the second fails to develop the scene-to-significance connection.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nFeature reporting supplies relevant craft guidance but explicitly allows varied structures. The required hinge is a local narrowing, not a universal genre law.
\n\nNailing the Nut Graf — Practitioner craft reporting with examples.
Reuters Journalistic Standards — Organization-owned professional standards.
Enargia — University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference.
No. Draftline’s Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. “Nothing is ever lost” is more than this feature offers.
\n\nHere is what is supported. Version history becomes available on 20 October 2026 and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Versions are retained for 30 days. Only workspace editors can restore a version.
\n\nWhat does restoring actually do? It makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. That supports a claim about the restoration operation; it does not support a broader guarantee about backups, uptime or every possible missing file.
\n\nThe interface action is named Version history. If you are assessing whether it fits a particular recovery task, identify the thing you want to recover first. A stored document version and a file deleted before enablement are not interchangeable cases.
\n\nThen check the retention period and the permission requirement.
\n\nThe capability is useful without being absolute: workspace editors can restore retained versions through the named action, and restoration preserves stored history. The deletion boundary remains, even when it is the fact a hopeful reader least wants to hear.
" }, { "key": "human-l25", "label": "Ida B. Wells · Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases", "path": "excerpts/L25.md", "source": { "title": "Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases", "author": "Ida B. Wells", "publicationDate": "1892", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/14975/pg14975-images.html", "locator": "Self-Help, final paragraphs: sentence opening paragraphaboutVicksburg murderaccusations", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14975", "relationship": "Distinguishes strongbelief fromavailableproof.", "edition": "1892", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "Ida B. Wells, Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases, 1892, Self-Help; transcription via Project Gutenberg 14975, corroborated by Encyclopedia Virginia.", "note": "A bounded evidence admission from anti-lynching journalism; historical racial violence is the source context. This short passage is not the complete investigation movement." }, "markdown": "We strongly believe in the innocence of these murdered men, but we have no proof.\n", "id": "V05/human-l25", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "We strongly believe in the innocence of these murdered men, but we have no proof.\n", "sha256": "51038d249336ea77e1659cdf71cee4090f181967a015bbd927c5c6f5d4ccb4c1", "html": "We strongly believe in the innocence of these murdered men, but we have no proof.
" }, { "id": "V05/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# What does this workshop actually offer?\n\nThe fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop offers a defined task: bring **one paragraph to revise**. It does not supply evidence of guaranteed improvement or prior participant outcomes.\n\nThe confirmed terms are **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**, free attendance and **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nTwelve places describe capacity, not demand. An hour describes duration, not the amount of progress any person will make. Location, time zone and access arrangements are unspecified here.\n\nIf that revision task suits you, check the missing arrangements before registering. Judge the offer by what it states, rather than by a success story it has not provided.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V05\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# What does this workshop actually offer?\n\nThe fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop offers a defined task: bring **one paragraph to revise**. It does not supply evidence of guaranteed improvement or prior participant outcomes.\n\nThe confirmed terms are **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**, free attendance and **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nTwelve places describe capacity, not demand. An hour describes duration, not the amount of progress any person will make. Location, time zone and access arrangements are unspecified here.\n\nIf that revision task suits you, check the missing arrangements before registering. Judge the offer by what it states, rather than by a success story it has not provided.\n\n", "sha256": "aa705beea9e2c4256e2efb1986f46468428a95e1aa80d9d8992ab0bb28fd3193", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 10.88888888888889, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.88734693877551, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 10.204081632653061, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 27, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 11.224489795918368, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 98, "prose_sentences": 9, "prose_paragraphs": 4, "reader_address_events": 1, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 11, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "aa705beea9e2c4256e2efb1986f46468428a95e1aa80d9d8992ab0bb28fd3193", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "The fictional Clearer Notes workshop offers a defined task: bring one paragraph to revise. It does not supply evidence of guaranteed improvement or prior participant outcomes.
\n\nThe confirmed terms are 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m., free attendance and 12 places. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nTwelve places describe capacity, not demand. An hour describes duration, not the amount of progress any person will make. Location, time zone and access arrangements are unspecified here.
\n\nIf that revision task suits you, check the missing arrangements before registering. Judge the offer by what it states, rather than by a success story it has not provided.
" }, { "id": "V05/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# Draftline: confirmed status and open cause\n\n**Confirmed:** new uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read.\n\n**Not yet known:** the cause. A diagnosis would be speculation at this point.\n\n**Next update:** **3 p.m.** This is not evidence of a repair deadline, a workaround or a guarantee about every aspect of the service.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V05\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Draftline: confirmed status and open cause\n\n**Confirmed:** new uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read.\n\n**Not yet known:** the cause. A diagnosis would be speculation at this point.\n\n**Next update:** **3 p.m.** This is not evidence of a repair deadline, a workaround or a guarantee about every aspect of the service.\n\n", "sha256": "01e4971a2ddf9020e0c73827662b24c928674e1d14cc5428c02447bc7abfaaba", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 11.75, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 13, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 17.02127659574468, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 47, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 8, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "01e4971a2ddf9020e0c73827662b24c928674e1d14cc5428c02447bc7abfaaba", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Confirmed: new uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read.
\n\nNot yet known: the cause. A diagnosis would be speculation at this point.
\n\nNext update: 3 p.m. This is not evidence of a repair deadline, a workaround or a guarantee about every aspect of the service.
" }, { "id": "V05/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# A useful idea is not yet a useful service\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThe attractive claim is easy to imagine: a tool shelf would make practical resources more accessible. The Marlow Library proposal does not yet establish that claim. It describes a way to investigate it.\n\n**What is specified?** A proposed six-week pilot with 24 tool kits and a requested budget of $2,400. Borrowing would be free. The desk would open on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. Approval remains outstanding.\n\n**What could be missed?** A web reservation form might make transactions easier for some borrowers while preventing others from reaching the desk. The proposal therefore keeps the form optional and retains telephone and walk-up access. That arrangement is a design choice to test, not evidence that the access problem is already solved.\n\n**What would count as evidence?** Completed loans, the staff time required, and failed attempts to borrow. A high checkout count could coexist with substantial friction. A low count could reflect limited interest, inconvenient hours, unclear communication, or other causes the count alone would not distinguish.\n\nBorrower names should not appear in public reports. No measured outcomes or savings are available. The kit contents and loan conditions remain questions rather than facts a persuasive writer is entitled to supply.\n\nMy recommendation is to assess the bounded trial on those terms. Authorize it if the remaining operating questions can be resolved, or return the proposal for revision. Do not approve a permanent service by implication. Do not write a success story in advance.\n\nThe idea may deserve a test. That is a sufficiently strong claim to make without pretending it has already passed one.", "sourceMarkdown": "# A useful idea is not yet a useful service\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThe attractive claim is easy to imagine: a tool shelf would make practical resources more accessible. The Marlow Library proposal does not yet establish that claim. It describes a way to investigate it.\n\n**What is specified?** A proposed six-week pilot with 24 tool kits and a requested budget of $2,400. Borrowing would be free. The desk would open on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. Approval remains outstanding.\n\n**What could be missed?** A web reservation form might make transactions easier for some borrowers while preventing others from reaching the desk. The proposal therefore keeps the form optional and retains telephone and walk-up access. That arrangement is a design choice to test, not evidence that the access problem is already solved.\n\n**What would count as evidence?** Completed loans, the staff time required, and failed attempts to borrow. A high checkout count could coexist with substantial friction. A low count could reflect limited interest, inconvenient hours, unclear communication, or other causes the count alone would not distinguish.\n\nBorrower names should not appear in public reports. No measured outcomes or savings are available. The kit contents and loan conditions remain questions rather than facts a persuasive writer is entitled to supply.\n\nMy recommendation is to assess the bounded trial on those terms. Authorize it if the remaining operating questions can be resolved, or return the proposal for revision. Do not approve a permanent service by implication. Do not write a success story in advance.\n\nThe idea may deserve a test. That is a sufficiently strong claim to make without pretending it has already passed one.\n", "sha256": "de2a2a9c44d90bf3c6bf34e6f03c033e6b961d3794b3de1854688e255b8780ef", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nThe attractive claim is easy to imagine: a tool shelf would make practical resources more accessible. The Marlow Library proposal does not yet establish that claim. It describes a way to investigate it.
\n\nWhat is specified? A proposed six-week pilot with 24 tool kits and a requested budget of $2,400. Borrowing would be free. The desk would open on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. Approval remains outstanding.
\n\nWhat could be missed? A web reservation form might make transactions easier for some borrowers while preventing others from reaching the desk. The proposal therefore keeps the form optional and retains telephone and walk-up access. That arrangement is a design choice to test, not evidence that the access problem is already solved.
\n\nWhat would count as evidence? Completed loans, the staff time required, and failed attempts to borrow. A high checkout count could coexist with substantial friction. A low count could reflect limited interest, inconvenient hours, unclear communication, or other causes the count alone would not distinguish.
\n\nBorrower names should not appear in public reports. No measured outcomes or savings are available. The kit contents and loan conditions remain questions rather than facts a persuasive writer is entitled to supply.
\n\nMy recommendation is to assess the bounded trial on those terms. Authorize it if the remaining operating questions can be resolved, or return the proposal for revision. Do not approve a permanent service by implication. Do not write a success story in advance.
\n\nThe idea may deserve a test. That is a sufficiently strong claim to make without pretending it has already passed one.
" }, { "id": "V05/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "# V05 · Skeptical investigator · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nWhat changed? The review is now on Thursday. What did not? The scope. What remains unresolved? The delivery deadline: no replacement has been approved. Please confirm the meeting time without treating that reply as approval of a new schedule.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V05 · Skeptical investigator · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nWhat changed? The review is now on Thursday. What did not? The scope. What remains unresolved? The delivery deadline: no replacement has been approved. Please confirm the meeting time without treating that reply as approval of a new schedule.\n", "sha256": "b07c6149ef1e1644824757ad07a984bb4021d1b2f5497d8d00da5b6a1111bf4c", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nWhat changed? The review is now on Thursday. What did not? The scope. What remains unresolved? The delivery deadline: no replacement has been approved. Please confirm the meeting time without treating that reply as approval of a new schedule.
" }, { "id": "V05/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "# V05 · Skeptical investigator · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThe fictional writing session promises revision time, not better writing by magic. Bring one paragraph and a clear question about it. We can compare alternatives and explain the tradeoffs; we cannot honestly promise publication or praise.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V05 · Skeptical investigator · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThe fictional writing session promises revision time, not better writing by magic. Bring one paragraph and a clear question about it. We can compare alternatives and explain the tradeoffs; we cannot honestly promise publication or praise.\n", "sha256": "858ae45ee878b8e47a00988f58f4c6e542ce4a4f5ed9ab676c0e47b2f81c7252", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nThe fictional writing session promises revision time, not better writing by magic. Bring one paragraph and a clear question about it. We can compare alternatives and explain the tradeoffs; we cannot honestly promise publication or praise.
" }, { "id": "V05/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V05 · Skeptical investigator\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\nWould a preferred label necessarily be a better teaching label? That is the attractive inference to examine before Linden Museum’s proposed comparison becomes a success story. There are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit.\n\n**What is specified?** One session, proposed for 16 March 2027 from 2–4 p.m., with six replica objects and two draft labels for each object. The request is $900. Participation would be free. The session has not been approved.\n\n**What could visitors use?** Ordinary or large-print copies, plus an optional audio reading with the same transcript. These access routes belong in the proposal. Their inclusion does not demonstrate which route visitors would choose or whether either label communicates its content well.\n\n**What would the record show?** Which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Do not record visitor names. Preference, misunderstanding, and operating effort should remain distinguishable: a choice may favor a label without showing that its meaning was understood. Staff time answers a different question again.\n\nAttendance, staffing, which label is better, and how choices will be analyzed are unknown. The absence of results is not a negative result. It means the team has a proposal to judge and unresolved design choices to address, rather than evidence from a completed comparison.\n\nI recommend requesting revisions that specify staffing and explain how the choices and misunderstandings would be considered. Keep the date, duration, requested budget, access routes, and privacy boundary visible in that revision. The team must authorize the session or request revisions. The question I would carry into that decision is specific: how will the proposed record distinguish a preferred label from a better-understood one?", "sourceMarkdown": "# V05 · Skeptical investigator\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\nWould a preferred label necessarily be a better teaching label? That is the attractive inference to examine before Linden Museum’s proposed comparison becomes a success story. There are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit.\n\n**What is specified?** One session, proposed for 16 March 2027 from 2–4 p.m., with six replica objects and two draft labels for each object. The request is $900. Participation would be free. The session has not been approved.\n\n**What could visitors use?** Ordinary or large-print copies, plus an optional audio reading with the same transcript. These access routes belong in the proposal. Their inclusion does not demonstrate which route visitors would choose or whether either label communicates its content well.\n\n**What would the record show?** Which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Do not record visitor names. Preference, misunderstanding, and operating effort should remain distinguishable: a choice may favor a label without showing that its meaning was understood. Staff time answers a different question again.\n\nAttendance, staffing, which label is better, and how choices will be analyzed are unknown. The absence of results is not a negative result. It means the team has a proposal to judge and unresolved design choices to address, rather than evidence from a completed comparison.\n\nI recommend requesting revisions that specify staffing and explain how the choices and misunderstandings would be considered. Keep the date, duration, requested budget, access routes, and privacy boundary visible in that revision. The team must authorize the session or request revisions. The question I would carry into that decision is specific: how will the proposed record distinguish a preferred label from a better-understood one?\n", "sha256": "e00707205dde7935a6455f63e0c9423e297b569824e62bd2687e9816401cf52a", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.
\n\nWould a preferred label necessarily be a better teaching label? That is the attractive inference to examine before Linden Museum’s proposed comparison becomes a success story. There are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit.
\n\nWhat is specified? One session, proposed for 16 March 2027 from 2–4 p.m., with six replica objects and two draft labels for each object. The request is $900. Participation would be free. The session has not been approved.
\n\nWhat could visitors use? Ordinary or large-print copies, plus an optional audio reading with the same transcript. These access routes belong in the proposal. Their inclusion does not demonstrate which route visitors would choose or whether either label communicates its content well.
\n\nWhat would the record show? Which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Do not record visitor names. Preference, misunderstanding, and operating effort should remain distinguishable: a choice may favor a label without showing that its meaning was understood. Staff time answers a different question again.
\n\nAttendance, staffing, which label is better, and how choices will be analyzed are unknown. The absence of results is not a negative result. It means the team has a proposal to judge and unresolved design choices to address, rather than evidence from a completed comparison.
\n\nI recommend requesting revisions that specify staffing and explain how the choices and misunderstandings would be considered. Keep the date, duration, requested budget, access routes, and privacy boundary visible in that revision. The team must authorize the session or request revisions. The question I would carry into that decision is specific: how will the proposed record distinguish a preferred label from a better-understood one?
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V05", "sample_id": "V05/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V05/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "c22d8fccff48de61ad34b8f7c8539e983e6daa8eb81867336eda1900b2fe6dce", "trimmed_body_sha256": "a89c55949c926289197537bdeb3147d3b606024875c61cbc2a4d011b6ce5d7f1", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "No. Draftline’s **Version history** cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled.", "start": 56, "end": 152, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public prose and ordinary headings fit neutral professional3, without ceremonial or strongly institutional conventions for5." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "No. Draftline’s **Version history** cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled.", "start": 56, "end": 152, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "No intended comic device appears across the whole piece. The quote illustrates the prevailing serious stance; a quote alone cannot prove absence." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "If you are assessing whether it fits a particular recovery task, identify the thing you want to recover first.", "start": 754, "end": 864, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Matter-of-fact presentation remains restrained; positive capability statements do not themselves establish enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "If you are assessing whether it fits a particular recovery task, identify the thing you want to recover first.", "start": 754, "end": 864, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Practical decision support shows modest reader regard, between task-only1 and explicit acknowledgment3." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "A stored document version and a file deleted before enablement are not interchangeable cases.", "start": 865, "end": 958, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace role, retention and restoration require a little product familiarity, but consequences are explained; below several unexplained domain concepts3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "A stored document version and a file deleted before enablement are not interchangeable cases.", "start": 865, "end": 958, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Several connected distinctions explain operation, permissions and recovery boundaries; exceeds selected reasons3 without a fully worked example sequence for5." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session", "title": "Analyse a research session", "id": "S46" }, { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/explanation/", "title": "Explanation", "id": "S42" } ], "researchLimits": "Research-process guidance supports evidence handling; the skeptical stance remains a library design choice.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v05-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v05-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V05/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V05/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V05/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V05.svg", "bundleSha256": "a6d4a344a5b0baf1d5c667c41800340cc98163eb41e5c60dff30a9695cb019f5", "bundleBytes": 83447 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice when an attractive interpretation needs to be checked before a consequential decision. It fits evidence reviews, evaluation proposals, analytical commentaries, and careful responses to a claim. The reader should leave knowing what the evidence supports, what it cannot distinguish, and what to do next. Avoid it as the default tone for a condolence, a celebration, or a simple instruction; relentless interrogation can misread the social task.
\n\nThe stable voice tests inferences rather than distrusting people. Its stance is independent and fair, with moderate distance from both advocate and critic. Concern, curiosity, or dry understatement can adjust the tone. Skepticism is a method, not a personality of contempt. The analyst persona grants no credentials or access to undisclosed data. Distinguish the writer’s recommendation from established findings and from the authority to approve a proposed action.
\n\nBegin by naming the tempting claim accurately, including its strongest defensible form. State the available evidence, then show a specific alternative explanation or missing observation. Give each evidence question a paragraph that answers it. A short verdict such as “That does not establish learning” should immediately receive a reason. Close with a feasible test, a revision, or a bounded decision. Do not end with suspicion alone after promising an assessment.
\n\nUse precise interrogatives that narrow the problem: “What would that count exclude?” is more useful than “Can we really trust this?” Follow compact verdicts with longer causal or conditional sentences. Colons introduce evidence categories; semicolons can distinguish a measure from an inference. Parentheses may define a term but should not smuggle in the main objection. Repetition of “known,” “unknown,” or a measure’s name keeps status legible. Avoid a rhythmic barrage of questions that never yields analysis.
\n\nPrefer observe, record, compare, support, establish, and distinguish over prove or debunk unless the stronger term is justified. Numerical detail needs a role: an input, a count, a threshold, or an outcome. Imagery is sparse and must clarify the inference rather than ridicule the proposal. Humor should target overclaiming, never participants. Emotional intensity stays restrained; the tension comes from a plausible claim meeting an equally plausible alternative explanation.
\n\nEvidence labels and question headings help a reader locate the assessment. Use emphasis on a status distinction once, not on every negative. A table is suitable for genuinely parallel claims and evidence, but prose should explain the logical gap. In plain text, retain labels such as “Specified,” “Unknown,” and “Decision.” Do not format an unanswered question as a finding. A short response may need no headings at all.
\n\nPreserve source quotations, study details, exact quantities, and qualifiers. Absence of results is not evidence of failure, just as a proposal is not evidence of success. Pair V01’s explicit decision with this profile’s reasoning, or borrow V03’s question revision without its extended detour. Avoid forced both-sides symmetry when one claim has much stronger support. If supplied prose already makes the precise distinction and requests a useful next test, retain it rather than adding performative doubt.
\n\nWrite the claim under review and the decision it might influence. Inventory the supplied evidence and identify what each observation actually measures. Offer one relevant alternative explanation, not a catalog of remote possibilities. Draft the judgment with a stated limit, then specify what action follows. Check whether “no evidence” really means none supplied rather than none existing anywhere. Finish by removing accusations, speculative motives, and questions whose answer is already settled by the brief.
\n\nFaulty prose: “Visitors chose label A, so it teaches better; the budget is clearly worthwhile.” Even if preference data existed, that inference would require more support, and the supplied session has no results. Repair: “The proposed record would include label choices and misunderstandings. Those observations should be considered separately; no learning benefit has been demonstrated, and the $900 request is an input rather than a measured return.” The repair tests the claim without declaring the idea a failure.
\n\nRead the full seed demonstration, schedule update, and writing-session invitation as different task sizes. The new-topic application tests the mechanism on museum decision facts. All are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations; none establishes audience benefit or Kyle’s personal voice. The source card supplies the starting mechanism. The seed review records retained language and exact repairs. Compare rhetorical choices while holding facts fixed; a different topic is not evidence of a better voice.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "M02", "title": "Details of the Cloudflare outage on July 2, 2019", "author": "John Graham-Cumming", "year": "2019", "url": "https://blog.cloudflare.com/details-of-the-cloudflare-outage-on-july-2-2019/", "relationship": "Separates observed effects, cause investigation and fixes; first-party, not independent audit.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Technical incident analysis", "publicationDate": "2019-07-12" }, { "id": "L25", "title": "Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases", "author": "Ida B. Wells", "year": "1892", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/14975/pg14975-images.html", "relationship": "Distinguishes strongbelief fromavailableproof.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Investigative pamphlet / documentary polemic", "publicationDate": "1892" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Skeptical investigator · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V05.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Counterargument", "url": "https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/counterargument", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" }, { "title": "Reuters Journalistic Standards", "url": "https://reutersagency.com/about/standards-values/", "relationship": "Organization-owned professional standards" }, { "title": "Analyse a research session", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session", "relationship": "Government practitioner guidance" } ], "formats": [], "html": "An evidence-centered challenge that tests a strong version of a claim, considers alternatives, and reaches a bounded judgment instead of performing cynicism.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA claim, the support actually available, and any consequential missing observation or competing account.
\n\nPlausible claim → evidence audit → alternatives and gaps → proportionate verdict or discriminating test.
\n\nState the claim in a form its reasonable proponent could recognize. Check: Compare the tested claim with the original; no strawman substitution.
Separate evidence from what that evidence is asked to prove. Check: For each inference, identify the observation supporting it.
Make the verdict no broader than the tested evidence. Check: State what remains unknown and what finding could change the verdict.
Use this voice when an attractive interpretation needs to be checked before a consequential decision. It fits evidence reviews, evaluation proposals, analytical commentaries, and careful responses to a claim. The reader should leave knowing what the evidence supports, what it cannot distinguish, and what to do next. Avoid it as the default tone for a condolence, a celebration, or a simple instruction; relentless interrogation can misread the social task.
\n\nThe stable voice tests inferences rather than distrusting people. Its stance is independent and fair, with moderate distance from both advocate and critic. Concern, curiosity, or dry understatement can adjust the tone. Skepticism is a method, not a personality of contempt. The analyst persona grants no credentials or access to undisclosed data. Distinguish the writer’s recommendation from established findings and from the authority to approve a proposed action.
\n\nBegin by naming the tempting claim accurately, including its strongest defensible form. State the available evidence, then show a specific alternative explanation or missing observation. Give each evidence question a paragraph that answers it. A short verdict such as “That does not establish learning” should immediately receive a reason. Close with a feasible test, a revision, or a bounded decision. Do not end with suspicion alone after promising an assessment.
\n\nUse precise interrogatives that narrow the problem: “What would that count exclude?” is more useful than “Can we really trust this?” Follow compact verdicts with longer causal or conditional sentences. Colons introduce evidence categories; semicolons can distinguish a measure from an inference. Parentheses may define a term but should not smuggle in the main objection. Repetition of “known,” “unknown,” or a measure’s name keeps status legible. Avoid a rhythmic barrage of questions that never yields analysis.
\n\nPrefer observe, record, compare, support, establish, and distinguish over prove or debunk unless the stronger term is justified. Numerical detail needs a role: an input, a count, a threshold, or an outcome. Imagery is sparse and must clarify the inference rather than ridicule the proposal. Humor should target overclaiming, never participants. Emotional intensity stays restrained; the tension comes from a plausible claim meeting an equally plausible alternative explanation.
\n\nEvidence labels and question headings help a reader locate the assessment. Use emphasis on a status distinction once, not on every negative. A table is suitable for genuinely parallel claims and evidence, but prose should explain the logical gap. In plain text, retain labels such as “Specified,” “Unknown,” and “Decision.” Do not format an unanswered question as a finding. A short response may need no headings at all.
\n\nPreserve source quotations, study details, exact quantities, and qualifiers. Absence of results is not evidence of failure, just as a proposal is not evidence of success. Pair V01’s explicit decision with this profile’s reasoning, or borrow V03’s question revision without its extended detour. Avoid forced both-sides symmetry when one claim has much stronger support. If supplied prose already makes the precise distinction and requests a useful next test, retain it rather than adding performative doubt.
\n\nWrite the claim under review and the decision it might influence. Inventory the supplied evidence and identify what each observation actually measures. Offer one relevant alternative explanation, not a catalog of remote possibilities. Draft the judgment with a stated limit, then specify what action follows. Check whether “no evidence” really means none supplied rather than none existing anywhere. Finish by removing accusations, speculative motives, and questions whose answer is already settled by the brief.
\n\nFaulty prose: “Visitors chose label A, so it teaches better; the budget is clearly worthwhile.” Even if preference data existed, that inference would require more support, and the supplied session has no results. Repair: “The proposed record would include label choices and misunderstandings. Those observations should be considered separately; no learning benefit has been demonstrated, and the $900 request is an input rather than a measured return.” The repair tests the claim without declaring the idea a failure.
\n\nA strong conclusion is allowed. Skepticism does not require permanent indecision or hostile tone.
\n\nEvidence may decisively favor one explanation. Do not weaken a justified result merely to sound skeptical.
\n\nReplace inquiry with ridicule of the claimant. Check: Delete personal adjectives and inspect whether an evidential objection remains.
Give unsupported alternatives equal status solely for balance. Check: Compare support for alternatives instead of counting sides.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional evidence: 8 of 10 attendees completed a task after training. There is no baseline or comparison group. Claim: training caused the completion rate.
\n\nEight of ten attendees completed the task after training. That supports a description of this group’s performance, not the claim that training caused it: no baseline or comparison group is available. A comparison would help distinguish a training effect from what participants could already do.
\n\nEight of ten attendees completed the task. No baseline or comparison group is available. Training might have helped, or might not have helped. Both possibilities deserve exactly equal confidence.
\n\nWhy it differs: The facts are intact, but the second invents equal evidential weight rather than testing the causal inference.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nArgument and sourcing guidance support fair testing. The specific investigative sequence is a local rhetorical contract.
\n\nCounterargument — University teaching guidance.
Reuters Journalistic Standards — Organization-owned professional standards.
Analyse a research session — Government practitioner guidance.
Constructed explanatory dialogue; no real speakers or quotations.
\n\nReader: If I restore an earlier version in Draftline, am I deleting the later history?
\n\nGuide: No. Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. It changes which version is current without turning that operation into an erasure of the record.
\n\nReader: Then can anyone who reads the document do it?
\n\nGuide: Only workspace editors can restore a version. Reading access should not be mistaken for restoration permission.
\n\nReader: How far back can the history reach?
\n\nGuide: Versions are retained for 30 days. There is also a separate limit: the feature cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled. The retention rule and that deletion boundary answer different questions.
\n\nReader: When is this available, and is it a paid addition?
\n\nGuide: Version history becomes available on 20 October 2026. It is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.
\n\nReader: What should I look for in the interface?
\n\nGuide: The action is named Version history. Before using it for a particular task, identify the stored version you need and check the workspace-editor requirement. If the task concerns a file deleted before enablement, this feature cannot do that recovery.
\n\nReader: So the right question is not just “Can I go back?” but “Which retained version, through which permission?”
\n\nGuide: Exactly. That keeps the choice within the feature’s actual terms.
" }, { "key": "human-l14", "label": "David Hume · Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion", "path": "excerpts/L14.md", "source": { "title": "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion", "author": "David Hume", "publicationDate": "1779", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4583", "locator": "Part II, Philo’s house analogy and its limits", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4583", "relationship": "A reply tests the reach of the preceding analogy.", "edition": "1779 work; Gutenberg transcription, print impression not identified", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "If we see a house, CLEANTHES, we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder; because this is precisely that species of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm, that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house, that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect. The dissimilitude is so striking, that the utmost you can here pretend to is a guess, a conjecture, a presumption concerning a similar cause; and how that pretension will be received in the world, I leave you to consider.\n", "id": "V06/human-l14", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "If we see a house, CLEANTHES, we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder; because this is precisely that species of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm, that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house, that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect. The dissimilitude is so striking, that the utmost you can here pretend to is a guess, a conjecture, a presumption concerning a similar cause; and how that pretension will be received in the world, I leave you to consider.\n", "sha256": "32c9b57fd2ba52367f5a0d545ac99c4b94a9a1e23bad884c811af06b9bb9b036", "html": "If we see a house, CLEANTHES, we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder; because this is precisely that species of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm, that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house, that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect. The dissimilitude is so striking, that the utmost you can here pretend to is a guess, a conjecture, a presumption concerning a similar cause; and how that pretension will be received in the world, I leave you to consider.
" }, { "key": "human-l15", "label": "Plato; English translation Benjamin Jowett · Meno (Benjamin Jowett translation)", "path": "excerpts/L15.md", "source": { "title": "Meno (Benjamin Jowett translation)", "author": "Plato; English translation Benjamin Jowett", "publicationDate": "1999-02-01", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1643", "locator": "Dialogue: doubled-square demonstration, from “And is not that four times four?”", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1643", "relationship": "The learner’s answer determines the next counterexample.", "edition": "Benjamin Jowett translation; digital release 1999-02-01. Exact print impression unestablished.", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "SOCRATES: And is not that four times four?\n\nBOY: Certainly.\n\nSOCRATES: And four times is not double?\n\nBOY: No, indeed.\n\nSOCRATES: But how much?\n\nBOY: Four times as much.\n\nSOCRATES: Therefore the double line, boy, has given a space, not twice, but four times as much.\n\nBOY: True.\n", "id": "V06/human-l15", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "SOCRATES: And is not that four times four?\n\nBOY: Certainly.\n\nSOCRATES: And four times is not double?\n\nBOY: No, indeed.\n\nSOCRATES: But how much?\n\nBOY: Four times as much.\n\nSOCRATES: Therefore the double line, boy, has given a space, not twice, but four times as much.\n\nBOY: True.\n", "sha256": "7f76dd6cc69a86630410dcb56e54fd0450a744ac573a9beef1a29c09e604f2a2", "html": "SOCRATES: And is not that four times four?
\n\nBOY: Certainly.
\n\nSOCRATES: And four times is not double?
\n\nBOY: No, indeed.
\n\nSOCRATES: But how much?
\n\nBOY: Four times as much.
\n\nSOCRATES: Therefore the double line, boy, has given a space, not twice, but four times as much.
\n\nBOY: True.
" }, { "id": "V06/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# A few questions about Clearer Notes\n\n*Constructed dialogue for a fictional event.*\n\n**Reader:** What would I bring?\n\n**Host:** **One paragraph to revise** at **Clearer Notes**.\n\n**Reader:** When is it?\n\n**Host:** **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** The workshop is free and has **12 places**.\n\n**Reader:** How long do I have to register?\n\n**Host:** Registration closes on **5 November**. That deadline is stated; current demand is not.\n\n**Reader:** Where will we meet, and what is the time zone?\n\n**Host:** Those details have not been supplied here. Check them, along with access arrangements, before making plans.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V06\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# A few questions about Clearer Notes\n\n*Constructed dialogue for a fictional event.*\n\n**Reader:** What would I bring?\n\n**Host:** **One paragraph to revise** at **Clearer Notes**.\n\n**Reader:** When is it?\n\n**Host:** **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** The workshop is free and has **12 places**.\n\n**Reader:** How long do I have to register?\n\n**Host:** Registration closes on **5 November**. That deadline is stated; current demand is not.\n\n**Reader:** Where will we meet, and what is the time zone?\n\n**Host:** Those details have not been supplied here. Check them, along with access arrangements, before making plans.\n\n", "sha256": "ef07dd019993b41318d0b288b0d7490463757cf29e58193e5fabd8a707616152", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 7.545454545454546, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": 0.2956107023225373, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.8100000000000002, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 36.36363636363637, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 8, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 30.120481927710845, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 83, "prose_sentences": 11, "prose_paragraphs": 9, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 4, "emphasized_word_union": 25, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": true, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "ef07dd019993b41318d0b288b0d7490463757cf29e58193e5fabd8a707616152", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Constructed dialogue for a fictional event.
\n\nReader: What would I bring?
\n\nHost: One paragraph to revise at Clearer Notes.
\n\nReader: When is it?
\n\nHost: 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. The workshop is free and has 12 places.
\n\nReader: How long do I have to register?
\n\nHost: Registration closes on 5 November. That deadline is stated; current demand is not.
\n\nReader: Where will we meet, and what is the time zone?
\n\nHost: Those details have not been supplied here. Check them, along with access arrangements, before making plans.
" }, { "id": "V06/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# Draftline status: two questions\n\n**What works now?** Existing documents can still be read. **New uploads are unavailable.**\n\n**What is known about the cause and timing?** The cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.** That is an update time, not a promised repair time.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V06\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Draftline status: two questions\n\n**What works now?** Existing documents can still be read. **New uploads are unavailable.**\n\n**What is known about the cause and timing?** The cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.** That is an update time, not a promised repair time.\n\n", "sha256": "52dcb8cda53aa276ad0297b15b2823b18995aba287e0e4f0dc2a9518bfa4012f", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 7.333333333333333, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 33.333333333333336, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 38.63636363636363, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 44, "prose_sentences": 6, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 2, "emphasized_word_union": 17, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "52dcb8cda53aa276ad0297b15b2823b18995aba287e0e4f0dc2a9518bfa4012f", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "What works now? Existing documents can still be read. New uploads are unavailable.
\n\nWhat is known about the cause and timing? The cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m. That is an update time, not a promised repair time.
" }, { "id": "V06/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# When is a tool available?\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\n*Constructed dialogue about a fictional proposal. These are not interview quotations.*\n\n**Questioner:** If a library owns a tool, is the tool available?\n\n**Responder:** It is available to the library. A borrower might still need a route to it.\n\n**Questioner:** Is that the point of the Marlow Library Tool Shelf?\n\n**Responder:** That is a question the proposed six-week pilot could explore. It requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits, with free borrowing. The desk would operate on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November through 12 December 2026. It has not been approved.\n\n**Questioner:** Could a reservation form provide the route?\n\n**Responder:** One route. The web form would be optional, with telephone and walk-up access alongside it. Otherwise we could confuse the existence of a form with the ability to use the service.\n\n**Questioner:** Suppose many people borrow. Would that prove the arrangement worked?\n\n**Responder:** It would tell us about completed loans. We also need staff time and failed borrowing attempts. A count can describe what happened without explaining what prevented something else from happening.\n\n**Questioner:** Then should the public report identify the people who failed?\n\n**Responder:** No. Borrower names should not be published. We can examine problems without exposing people.\n\n**Questioner:** Can we at least promise savings?\n\n**Responder:** There are no measured outcomes or savings yet. Even the kit contents and loan conditions need decisions.\n\n**Questioner:** What, then, are we deciding now?\n\n**Responder:** Whether to authorize this bounded trial or request revisions. Not whether to congratulate ourselves on a result we do not have.", "sourceMarkdown": "# When is a tool available?\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\n*Constructed dialogue about a fictional proposal. These are not interview quotations.*\n\n**Questioner:** If a library owns a tool, is the tool available?\n\n**Responder:** It is available to the library. A borrower might still need a route to it.\n\n**Questioner:** Is that the point of the Marlow Library Tool Shelf?\n\n**Responder:** That is a question the proposed six-week pilot could explore. It requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits, with free borrowing. The desk would operate on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November through 12 December 2026. It has not been approved.\n\n**Questioner:** Could a reservation form provide the route?\n\n**Responder:** One route. The web form would be optional, with telephone and walk-up access alongside it. Otherwise we could confuse the existence of a form with the ability to use the service.\n\n**Questioner:** Suppose many people borrow. Would that prove the arrangement worked?\n\n**Responder:** It would tell us about completed loans. We also need staff time and failed borrowing attempts. A count can describe what happened without explaining what prevented something else from happening.\n\n**Questioner:** Then should the public report identify the people who failed?\n\n**Responder:** No. Borrower names should not be published. We can examine problems without exposing people.\n\n**Questioner:** Can we at least promise savings?\n\n**Responder:** There are no measured outcomes or savings yet. Even the kit contents and loan conditions need decisions.\n\n**Questioner:** What, then, are we deciding now?\n\n**Responder:** Whether to authorize this bounded trial or request revisions. Not whether to congratulate ourselves on a result we do not have.\n", "sha256": "5ba73d4b7eaee8e5449515930127620e2a42004dae7fdb71c6eb22249cb2444e", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nConstructed dialogue about a fictional proposal. These are not interview quotations.
\n\nQuestioner: If a library owns a tool, is the tool available?
\n\nResponder: It is available to the library. A borrower might still need a route to it.
\n\nQuestioner: Is that the point of the Marlow Library Tool Shelf?
\n\nResponder: That is a question the proposed six-week pilot could explore. It requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits, with free borrowing. The desk would operate on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November through 12 December 2026. It has not been approved.
\n\nQuestioner: Could a reservation form provide the route?
\n\nResponder: One route. The web form would be optional, with telephone and walk-up access alongside it. Otherwise we could confuse the existence of a form with the ability to use the service.
\n\nQuestioner: Suppose many people borrow. Would that prove the arrangement worked?
\n\nResponder: It would tell us about completed loans. We also need staff time and failed borrowing attempts. A count can describe what happened without explaining what prevented something else from happening.
\n\nQuestioner: Then should the public report identify the people who failed?
\n\nResponder: No. Borrower names should not be published. We can examine problems without exposing people.
\n\nQuestioner: Can we at least promise savings?
\n\nResponder: There are no measured outcomes or savings yet. Even the kit contents and loan conditions need decisions.
\n\nQuestioner: What, then, are we deciding now?
\n\nResponder: Whether to authorize this bounded trial or request revisions. Not whether to congratulate ourselves on a result we do not have.
" }, { "id": "V06/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "# V06 · Socratic exchange · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\n*Constructed dialogue; these are not interview quotations or participant testimony.*\n\n**A:** Did moving the review to Thursday change the deadline?\n\n**B:** Not by itself. The scope is unchanged, and no new delivery deadline has been approved.\n\n**A:** What response is needed?\n\n**B:** Confirmation that Thursday works. Any schedule decision remains separate.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V06 · Socratic exchange · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\n*Constructed dialogue; these are not interview quotations or participant testimony.*\n\n**A:** Did moving the review to Thursday change the deadline?\n\n**B:** Not by itself. The scope is unchanged, and no new delivery deadline has been approved.\n\n**A:** What response is needed?\n\n**B:** Confirmation that Thursday works. Any schedule decision remains separate.\n", "sha256": "ed2f5e4de0cc7ad23ccd04c255689ff0199479ee8f1a7e85b8f0495a474e3f46", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nConstructed dialogue; these are not interview quotations or participant testimony.
\n\nA: Did moving the review to Thursday change the deadline?
\n\nB: Not by itself. The scope is unchanged, and no new delivery deadline has been approved.
\n\nA: What response is needed?
\n\nB: Confirmation that Thursday works. Any schedule decision remains separate.
" }, { "id": "V06/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "# V06 · Socratic exchange · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\n*Constructed dialogue; these are not interview quotations or participant testimony.*\n\n**A:** Must I bring a polished paragraph?\n\n**B:** No. The fictional session is for revision.\n\n**A:** What makes a useful starting point?\n\n**B:** A draft and a question about what the reader should understand.\n\n**A:** And a guaranteed result?\n\n**B:** No guarantee. Something to test.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V06 · Socratic exchange · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\n*Constructed dialogue; these are not interview quotations or participant testimony.*\n\n**A:** Must I bring a polished paragraph?\n\n**B:** No. The fictional session is for revision.\n\n**A:** What makes a useful starting point?\n\n**B:** A draft and a question about what the reader should understand.\n\n**A:** And a guaranteed result?\n\n**B:** No guarantee. Something to test.\n", "sha256": "3467229e10d2b39e53b26a7af3624df9a85b4ed94cf0554f4ca4d19b838e1064", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nConstructed dialogue; these are not interview quotations or participant testimony.
\n\nA: Must I bring a polished paragraph?
\n\nB: No. The fictional session is for revision.
\n\nA: What makes a useful starting point?
\n\nB: A draft and a question about what the reader should understand.
\n\nA: And a guaranteed result?
\n\nB: No guarantee. Something to test.
" }, { "id": "V06/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V06 · Socratic exchange\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\n*Constructed training dialogue. These speakers and their exchange are invented.*\n\n**Volunteer:** If I can see an approximate year in the clothing, should I put that in the record?\n\n**Guide:** No. A missing date must be recorded as “unknown.” Do not guess a year from clothing. We have 48 donated photographs to catalog at the Alder Photo Archive, and a plausible story is not a supplied date.\n\n**Volunteer:** What if the donor’s description seems wrong?\n\n**Guide:** Keep the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Record corrections in a separate catalog note. We can preserve the supplied account without treating every part of it as a verified conclusion.\n\n**Volunteer:** So the source and the correction stay separate. What about the files?\n\n**Guide:** For this fictional project, the agreed workflow is to scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. Keep the originals in their numbered sleeves, and match each file to the sleeve number. This is the project’s agreement, not a universal preservation standard.\n\n**Volunteer:** Suppose the sleeve has no number, or handling the photograph could damage it. Should I solve that before asking?\n\n**Guide:** Stop and ask the archive lead. Either condition triggers that rule; finishing the next scan is not a prerequisite for stopping.\n\n**Volunteer:** Can we share a viewing copy when it is ready?\n\n**Guide:** Keep viewing copies internal until the rights review is complete. No completion date has been promised. No scanning has been reported complete, and no preservation or speed benefit has been measured.\n\n**Volunteer:** Then the job is to follow the agreed workflow and stop at its boundary, without inventing missing information or reporting progress we do not have.\n\n**Guide:** Yes. Start from those instructions, and bring either stopping condition to the archive lead.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V06 · Socratic exchange\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\n*Constructed training dialogue. These speakers and their exchange are invented.*\n\n**Volunteer:** If I can see an approximate year in the clothing, should I put that in the record?\n\n**Guide:** No. A missing date must be recorded as “unknown.” Do not guess a year from clothing. We have 48 donated photographs to catalog at the Alder Photo Archive, and a plausible story is not a supplied date.\n\n**Volunteer:** What if the donor’s description seems wrong?\n\n**Guide:** Keep the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Record corrections in a separate catalog note. We can preserve the supplied account without treating every part of it as a verified conclusion.\n\n**Volunteer:** So the source and the correction stay separate. What about the files?\n\n**Guide:** For this fictional project, the agreed workflow is to scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. Keep the originals in their numbered sleeves, and match each file to the sleeve number. This is the project’s agreement, not a universal preservation standard.\n\n**Volunteer:** Suppose the sleeve has no number, or handling the photograph could damage it. Should I solve that before asking?\n\n**Guide:** Stop and ask the archive lead. Either condition triggers that rule; finishing the next scan is not a prerequisite for stopping.\n\n**Volunteer:** Can we share a viewing copy when it is ready?\n\n**Guide:** Keep viewing copies internal until the rights review is complete. No completion date has been promised. No scanning has been reported complete, and no preservation or speed benefit has been measured.\n\n**Volunteer:** Then the job is to follow the agreed workflow and stop at its boundary, without inventing missing information or reporting progress we do not have.\n\n**Guide:** Yes. Start from those instructions, and bring either stopping condition to the archive lead.\n", "sha256": "b8532dfae566532bf5328e8b8c63e68c7fa436289873eea7197dfa0108df14f4", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.
\n\nConstructed training dialogue. These speakers and their exchange are invented.
\n\nVolunteer: If I can see an approximate year in the clothing, should I put that in the record?
\n\nGuide: No. A missing date must be recorded as “unknown.” Do not guess a year from clothing. We have 48 donated photographs to catalog at the Alder Photo Archive, and a plausible story is not a supplied date.
\n\nVolunteer: What if the donor’s description seems wrong?
\n\nGuide: Keep the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Record corrections in a separate catalog note. We can preserve the supplied account without treating every part of it as a verified conclusion.
\n\nVolunteer: So the source and the correction stay separate. What about the files?
\n\nGuide: For this fictional project, the agreed workflow is to scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. Keep the originals in their numbered sleeves, and match each file to the sleeve number. This is the project’s agreement, not a universal preservation standard.
\n\nVolunteer: Suppose the sleeve has no number, or handling the photograph could damage it. Should I solve that before asking?
\n\nGuide: Stop and ask the archive lead. Either condition triggers that rule; finishing the next scan is not a prerequisite for stopping.
\n\nVolunteer: Can we share a viewing copy when it is ready?
\n\nGuide: Keep viewing copies internal until the rights review is complete. No completion date has been promised. No scanning has been reported complete, and no preservation or speed benefit has been measured.
\n\nVolunteer: Then the job is to follow the agreed workflow and stop at its boundary, without inventing missing information or reporting progress we do not have.
\n\nGuide: Yes. Start from those instructions, and bring either stopping condition to the archive lead.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 4, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V06", "sample_id": "V06/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V06/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "528d8f32dc0e11428378415afe1fd3d69d938a31a40a119a3074fd7e756f538d", "trimmed_body_sha256": "78b9f15eb6fa8be5f23ff89f3ab5defc03fe81ba6943391fc9b82f048c470852", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**Guide:** Exactly. That keeps the choice within the feature’s actual terms.", "start": 1495, "end": 1571, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Everyday direct address, contractions or conversational/fictional phrasing sit between everyday1 and edited-neutral3." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**Guide:** Exactly. That keeps the choice within the feature’s actual terms.", "start": 1495, "end": 1571, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "No intended comic device was found across the full sample. The quoted passage illustrates the prevailing factual or reflective stance." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**Guide:** Exactly. That keeps the choice within the feature’s actual terms.", "start": 1495, "end": 1571, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Direct orientation, rhetorical movement or expressive interest adds some energy, below overt moderate encouragement3 or sustained excitement5." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**Guide:** Exactly. That keeps the choice within the feature’s actual terms.", "start": 1495, "end": 1571, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The passage explicitly supports a reader’s need or owns considerate relational intent without presuming intimacy; this fits respectful acknowledgment3." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**Guide:** Only **workspace editors** can restore a version.", "start": 456, "end": 516, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace-editor, retention and restore concepts require a little product-role familiarity, but the consequences are explained in ordinary language. This is below the few-unexplained-domain-concepts level3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "There is also a separate limit: the feature cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled.", "start": 683, "end": 778, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The full sample repeatedly explains distinctions among operation, permissions, retained versions and prior deletion; this exceeds selected reasons3 but lacks a fully worked concrete example/definition sequence sufficient for5." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/tutorials/", "title": "Tutorials", "id": "S43" }, { "url": "https://aclanthology.org/2021.acl-long.185/", "title": "Style is NOT a single variable: Case Studies for Cross-Stylistic Language Understanding", "id": "S12" } ], "researchLimits": "Tutorial guidance concerns learning experiences, not experimental proof that this dialogue teaches successfully.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v06-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v06-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V06/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V06/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V06/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V06.svg", "bundleSha256": "3a2aea11ef1e361fc8c341d86f5cd1f193a930a7943932bbe8d19e19e10a1265", "bundleBytes": 84155 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice to teach a distinction through two constructed interlocutors, especially when an intuitive answer needs a practical counterexample. It fits educational dialogues, explanatory articles, and rehearsal material. The exchange should help a reader revise a definition rather than merely read a list with speaker names attached. Avoid presenting it as an actual interview, meeting transcript, participant testimony, or evidence of what a real person believes.
\n\nThe stable voice investigates through responsive turns. Its stance is cooperative inquiry: neither speaker exists to be foolish or defeated. Narrative distance is external, because readers hear speech rather than a narrator’s private thoughts. Curiosity, concern, or mild playfulness can modify tone. Questioner and responder are roles, not biographies. State that the dialogue is constructed before it begins; names, qualifications, accents, and cultural identities are unnecessary unless the authorized fictional brief supplies them.
\n\nOpen with a plausible definition or shortcut, then let a practical question expose its limit. Move from that complication into the operational facts the reader needs. Each answer should change what the next question can reasonably ask. Keep the final exchange narrower and more usable than the opening: “What do I do when the number is missing?” needs an action, not an aphorism. Allow one speaker to summarize a corrected understanding, but avoid a ceremonial moral after the conversation ends.
\n\nVary turn length: a short question can receive a longer explanation, followed by a brief check. Avoid making every answer three balanced sentences. Use full questions when the distinction matters and occasional fragments when context is clear. A colon after a speaker label is enough; quotation marks around every turn add noise. Repeat the term under examination so its meaning can shift visibly. Parenthetical asides and narrator digressions usually interrupt the responsive rhythm and should be rare.
\n\nKeep the vocabulary close to the learner’s task. Let a counterexample do the work that a technical definition cannot yet do. Humor can come from a benign misunderstanding, but not from humiliating a learner. Emotional intensity stays low enough for correction to feel possible. Imagery should belong to a question being tested and disappear once it has served its purpose. Do not give one speaker improbable eloquence and the other a string of obvious errors.
\n\nPut the constructed-dialogue label before all speech and retain consistent speaker labels. Paragraph breaks separate turns; bold is optional. In plain text, “Volunteer:” and “Guide:” preserve the sequence without typographic support. Instructions that must be consulted during work may need a compact reference outside the dialogue, but do not append one by default when the dialogue itself provides a clear stopping rule. Never style an invented line as an attributable testimonial.
\n\nProtect quoted source text, technical tokens, quantities, and modality inside speech. A fictional guide cannot authorize an action the brief forbids. V11’s scaffolding combines well with this form; V05’s evidence distinctions can supply a genuine complication. Avoid combining a Socratic exchange with an unannounced omniscient narrator or a hostile straw-person debate. If a short direct answer already meets the reader’s need, retain it rather than forcing two voices into a trivial exchange.
\n\nChoose one misunderstanding with practical consequences. Draft the correct explanation, then design questions that expose why each part is needed. Give the questioner a reasonable motive and at least one intelligent follow-up. Make answers unequal in length and remove questions that simply repeat their answer’s keywords. Read the dialogue as a single explanation to check factual completeness. Then read each speaker separately for a coherent role, with no invented testimony or authority.
\n\nFaulty prose: “Volunteer: Shall I guess the photograph’s date? Expert: Yes, experienced archivists can tell from clothing.” It invents expertise and contradicts the agreed rule. Repair: “Constructed dialogue. Volunteer: Does the clothing let me supply a missing year? Guide: No. Record the date as unknown; this project’s workflow does not allow that guess.” The question remains useful because its answer changes the learner’s action, while the fictional frame remains explicit.
\n\nRead the full seed demonstration, schedule update, and writing-session invitation as different task sizes. The new-topic application tests the mechanism on archive instruction facts. All are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations; none establishes audience benefit or Kyle’s personal voice. The source card supplies the starting mechanism. The seed review records retained language and exact repairs. Compare rhetorical choices while holding facts fixed; a different topic is not evidence of a better voice.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "L14", "title": "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion", "author": "David Hume", "year": "1779", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4583", "relationship": "A reply tests the reach of the preceding analogy.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Authored philosophical dialogue", "publicationDate": "1779" }, { "id": "L15", "title": "Meno (Benjamin Jowett translation)", "author": "Plato; English translation Benjamin Jowett", "year": "1999", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1643", "relationship": "The learner’s answer determines the next counterexample.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Translated philosophical dialogue", "publicationDate": "1999-02-01" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Socratic exchange · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V06.md", "sources": [ { "title": "How to Use the Socratic Method in the Classroom", "url": "https://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/socratic/fourth.html", "relationship": "Primary pedagogical guidance" }, { "title": "Dialogismus", "url": "https://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/D/dialogismus.htm", "relationship": "University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference" }, { "title": "Asking Analytical Questions", "url": "https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/asking-analytical-questions", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A constructed exchange in which answers alter the next question and a tested definition or inference becomes more precise. Question-and-answer formatting alone is insufficient.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA real concept to examine; plausible positions; an explicit constructed-dialogue label unless an authorized transcript is actually supplied.
\n\nInitial definition → probing question → consequential answer → revised definition → remaining boundary.
\n\nBegin from a plausible definition, claim, or assumption. Check: A reviewer must be able to state what is being examined.
Make each substantive question respond to the preceding answer. Check: Reorder turns: the original order should have a reasoning dependency.
Show a revision or qualification caused by the exchange. Check: Compare the initial and final understanding.
Use this voice to teach a distinction through two constructed interlocutors, especially when an intuitive answer needs a practical counterexample. It fits educational dialogues, explanatory articles, and rehearsal material. The exchange should help a reader revise a definition rather than merely read a list with speaker names attached. Avoid presenting it as an actual interview, meeting transcript, participant testimony, or evidence of what a real person believes.
\n\nThe stable voice investigates through responsive turns. Its stance is cooperative inquiry: neither speaker exists to be foolish or defeated. Narrative distance is external, because readers hear speech rather than a narrator’s private thoughts. Curiosity, concern, or mild playfulness can modify tone. Questioner and responder are roles, not biographies. State that the dialogue is constructed before it begins; names, qualifications, accents, and cultural identities are unnecessary unless the authorized fictional brief supplies them.
\n\nOpen with a plausible definition or shortcut, then let a practical question expose its limit. Move from that complication into the operational facts the reader needs. Each answer should change what the next question can reasonably ask. Keep the final exchange narrower and more usable than the opening: “What do I do when the number is missing?” needs an action, not an aphorism. Allow one speaker to summarize a corrected understanding, but avoid a ceremonial moral after the conversation ends.
\n\nVary turn length: a short question can receive a longer explanation, followed by a brief check. Avoid making every answer three balanced sentences. Use full questions when the distinction matters and occasional fragments when context is clear. A colon after a speaker label is enough; quotation marks around every turn add noise. Repeat the term under examination so its meaning can shift visibly. Parenthetical asides and narrator digressions usually interrupt the responsive rhythm and should be rare.
\n\nKeep the vocabulary close to the learner’s task. Let a counterexample do the work that a technical definition cannot yet do. Humor can come from a benign misunderstanding, but not from humiliating a learner. Emotional intensity stays low enough for correction to feel possible. Imagery should belong to a question being tested and disappear once it has served its purpose. Do not give one speaker improbable eloquence and the other a string of obvious errors.
\n\nPut the constructed-dialogue label before all speech and retain consistent speaker labels. Paragraph breaks separate turns; bold is optional. In plain text, “Volunteer:” and “Guide:” preserve the sequence without typographic support. Instructions that must be consulted during work may need a compact reference outside the dialogue, but do not append one by default when the dialogue itself provides a clear stopping rule. Never style an invented line as an attributable testimonial.
\n\nProtect quoted source text, technical tokens, quantities, and modality inside speech. A fictional guide cannot authorize an action the brief forbids. V11’s scaffolding combines well with this form; V05’s evidence distinctions can supply a genuine complication. Avoid combining a Socratic exchange with an unannounced omniscient narrator or a hostile straw-person debate. If a short direct answer already meets the reader’s need, retain it rather than forcing two voices into a trivial exchange.
\n\nChoose one misunderstanding with practical consequences. Draft the correct explanation, then design questions that expose why each part is needed. Give the questioner a reasonable motive and at least one intelligent follow-up. Make answers unequal in length and remove questions that simply repeat their answer’s keywords. Read the dialogue as a single explanation to check factual completeness. Then read each speaker separately for a coherent role, with no invented testimony or authority.
\n\nFaulty prose: “Volunteer: Shall I guess the photograph’s date? Expert: Yes, experienced archivists can tell from clothing.” It invents expertise and contradicts the agreed rule. Repair: “Constructed dialogue. Volunteer: Does the clothing let me supply a missing year? Guide: No. Record the date as unknown; this project’s workflow does not allow that guess.” The question remains useful because its answer changes the learner’s action, while the fictional frame remains explicit.
\n\nThe dialogue may be short, friendly, or unresolved. Speaker labels help but are not the mechanism.
\n\nAn actual transcript must remain faithful even if it lacks a clean teaching arc; do not edit real people into ideal Socratic roles.
\n\nUse a compliant straw-person whose answers merely flatter the narrator. Check: Ask whether the other voice has a defensible contribution.
Present invented turns as real participant testimony. Check: Check transcript provenance and dialogue labeling.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Constructed dialogue about a free workshop for which attendees must arrange travel. No attendance evidence exists.
\n\nConstructed dialogue. A: “If the workshop is free, have we removed the cost of attending?” B: “Only the fee. Attendees still arrange travel.” A: “Then what can we claim?” B: “That the workshop has no fee—not that attendance has no cost.”
\n\nConstructed dialogue. Q: “Is the workshop free?” A: “Yes.” Q: “Who arranges travel?” A: “Attendees.” Q: “Is there attendance evidence?” A: “No.”
\n\nWhy it differs: The FAQ preserves the facts but never revises a definition through responsive reasoning.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nPedagogical guidance supports responsive questioning. Classroom procedures are not imported as mandatory prose rules.
\n\nHow to Use the Socratic Method in the Classroom — Primary pedagogical guidance.
Dialogismus — University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference.
Asking Analytical Questions — University teaching guidance.
A draft can be thought of as a line with earlier marks still visible. In Draftline, restoring an earlier version makes a new current version; it does not delete stored history.
\n\nVersion history becomes available on 20 October 2026, included on every existing plan at no additional charge. The interface action carries that same name: Version history.
\n\nThe record has a defined length. Versions are retained for 30 days. An earlier mark is not an endless page: the available record has a thirty-day limit.
\n\nOnly workspace editors can restore a version. That permission is as much a part of the feature as the movement between earlier and current text.
\n\nThere is one further edge: the feature cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled. Nothing in the image of a visible line changes that limit. It is a revision tool with stated terms, not an assurance that every absence can be filled.
\n\nEarlier content can become current, and the stored history is not deleted by restoration. A return to a previous version is still a new mark.
" }, { "key": "human-l06", "label": "W. E. B. Du Bois · The Souls of Black Folk", "path": "excerpts/L06.md", "source": { "title": "The Souls of Black Folk", "author": "W. E. B. Du Bois", "publicationDate": "1903", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/408", "locator": "Chapter XI “Of the Passing of the First-Born”; one paragraph", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/408", "relationship": "An intimate visual detail acquires social meaning through a recurring image.", "edition": "1903", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "How beautiful he was, with his olive-tinted flesh and dark gold ringlets, his eyes of mingled blue and brown, his perfect little limbs, and the soft voluptuous roll which the blood of Africa had moulded into his features! I held him in my arms, after we had sped far away from our Southern home,—held him, and glanced at the hot red soil of Georgia and the breathless city of a hundred hills, and felt a vague unrest. Why was his hair tinted with gold? An evil omen was golden hair in my life. Why had not the brown of his eyes crushed out and killed the blue?—for brown were his father’s eyes, and his father’s father’s. And thus in the Land of the Color-line I saw, as it fell across my baby, the shadow of the Veil.\n", "id": "V07/human-l06", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "How beautiful he was, with his olive-tinted flesh and dark gold ringlets, his eyes of mingled blue and brown, his perfect little limbs, and the soft voluptuous roll which the blood of Africa had moulded into his features! I held him in my arms, after we had sped far away from our Southern home,—held him, and glanced at the hot red soil of Georgia and the breathless city of a hundred hills, and felt a vague unrest. Why was his hair tinted with gold? An evil omen was golden hair in my life. Why had not the brown of his eyes crushed out and killed the blue?—for brown were his father’s eyes, and his father’s father’s. And thus in the Land of the Color-line I saw, as it fell across my baby, the shadow of the Veil.\n", "sha256": "346ae27827eb2df52f6bce2f4f6c60dc26cb3533a56eef5cebe514077653e60d", "html": "How beautiful he was, with his olive-tinted flesh and dark gold ringlets, his eyes of mingled blue and brown, his perfect little limbs, and the soft voluptuous roll which the blood of Africa had moulded into his features! I held him in my arms, after we had sped far away from our Southern home,—held him, and glanced at the hot red soil of Georgia and the breathless city of a hundred hills, and felt a vague unrest. Why was his hair tinted with gold? An evil omen was golden hair in my life. Why had not the brown of his eyes crushed out and killed the blue?—for brown were his father’s eyes, and his father’s father’s. And thus in the Land of the Color-line I saw, as it fell across my baby, the shadow of the Veil.
" }, { "key": "human-l07", "label": "G. K. Chesterton · A Piece of Chalk (in Tremendous Trifles)", "path": "excerpts/L07.md", "source": { "title": "A Piece of Chalk (in Tremendous Trifles)", "author": "G. K. Chesterton", "publicationDate": "1909", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8092", "locator": "Essay opening", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8092", "relationship": "A concrete material anchors reflection rather than decorating it.", "edition": "Tremendous Trifles collection 1909; essay first appeared earlier; retrieved PG version reports update 2022-04-27", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "I remember one splendid morning, all blue and silver, in the summer holidays when I reluctantly tore myself away from the task of doing nothing in particular, and put on a hat of some sort and picked up a walking-stick, and put six very bright-coloured chalks in my pocket. I then went into the kitchen (which, along with the rest of the house, belonged to a very square and sensible old woman in a Sussex village), and asked the owner and occupant of the kitchen if she had any brown paper. She had a great deal; in fact, she had too much; and she mistook the purpose and the rationale of the existence of brown paper.\n", "id": "V07/human-l07", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "I remember one splendid morning, all blue and silver, in the summer holidays when I reluctantly tore myself away from the task of doing nothing in particular, and put on a hat of some sort and picked up a walking-stick, and put six very bright-coloured chalks in my pocket. I then went into the kitchen (which, along with the rest of the house, belonged to a very square and sensible old woman in a Sussex village), and asked the owner and occupant of the kitchen if she had any brown paper. She had a great deal; in fact, she had too much; and she mistook the purpose and the rationale of the existence of brown paper.\n", "sha256": "1a1c70a3b60f0ec3f2dbf2e841789624ddcb827324aceb164d931e9b79065f33", "html": "I remember one splendid morning, all blue and silver, in the summer holidays when I reluctantly tore myself away from the task of doing nothing in particular, and put on a hat of some sort and picked up a walking-stick, and put six very bright-coloured chalks in my pocket. I then went into the kitchen (which, along with the rest of the house, belonged to a very square and sensible old woman in a Sussex village), and asked the owner and occupant of the kitchen if she had any brown paper. She had a great deal; in fact, she had too much; and she mistook the purpose and the rationale of the existence of brown paper.
" }, { "id": "V07/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# A paragraph with room to change\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise** to the fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop. A paragraph is a small patch of language to attend to; the invitation does not promise what it will become.\n\nThe session is **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It is free, with **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nNo location, time zone or access arrangements have been supplied, so check them before planning your attendance. The work begins with one paragraph, and the practical decision begins with whether the task and arrangements fit.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V07\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# A paragraph with room to change\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise** to the fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop. A paragraph is a small patch of language to attend to; the invitation does not promise what it will become.\n\nThe session is **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It is free, with **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nNo location, time zone or access arrangements have been supplied, so check them before planning your attendance. The work begins with one paragraph, and the practical decision begins with whether the task and arrangements fit.\n\n", "sha256": "7e777bf739ea0f4ef44191cba1d1732388d1a0a5bffbf9bf0c5e88958bd5a613", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 13.5, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.843125, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 12.345679012345679, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 31, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 13.580246913580247, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 81, "prose_sentences": 6, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 1, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 11, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "7e777bf739ea0f4ef44191cba1d1732388d1a0a5bffbf9bf0c5e88958bd5a613", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Bring one paragraph to revise to the fictional Clearer Notes workshop. A paragraph is a small patch of language to attend to; the invitation does not promise what it will become.
\n\nThe session is 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. It is free, with 12 places. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nNo location, time zone or access arrangements have been supplied, so check them before planning your attendance. The work begins with one paragraph, and the practical decision begins with whether the task and arrangements fit.
" }, { "id": "V07/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# Draftline upload notice\n\n**New uploads are unavailable.** Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\nNo repair time is promised in this update.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V07\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Draftline upload notice\n\n**New uploads are unavailable.** Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\nNo repair time is promised in this update.\n\n", "sha256": "e2068f14224df6b92128bc946ef60b4419e92ea899e5ea61033d58189d49ab31", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 6.2, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 10, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 19.35483870967742, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 31, "prose_sentences": 5, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 6, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "e2068f14224df6b92128bc946ef60b4419e92ea899e5ea61033d58189d49ab31", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
\n\nNo repair time is promised in this update.
" }, { "id": "V07/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# A shelf with room for a question\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nA tool on a shelf is a possibility waiting for a pair of hands. That is an image, not a result. It makes the Marlow Library Tool Shelf easy to picture; it does not tell us whether the proposed service will be easy to use.\n\nThe proposal gives the image a frame: 24 tool kits, a requested budget of $2,400, and free borrowing. For six weeks, from 7 November to 12 December 2026, the desk would open on Saturdays between 10 a.m. and noon. The trial is not approved. For now, the shelf exists in a plan.\n\nThere should be more than one way to reach it. An optional web reservation form, a telephone route, a walk-up conversation. The practical detail matters more than the elegance of the metaphor. An invitation is incomplete when the person it welcomes cannot get through the door.\n\nWe would count completed loans. We would also count the time required of staff and record attempts that ended without a loan. Those are the quieter parts of the picture: effort, delay, a missing step. Borrower names would stay out of public reporting.\n\nThere is no measured outcome to celebrate and no saving to announce. The kit contents and loan conditions still need to be settled. A writer can give the possibility a shape, but cannot turn that shape into evidence.\n\nAuthorize the bounded trial, or ask for the revisions that would make authorization sensible. That is the decision before us. Let the shelf carry tools first. Let any story about what it changed arrive later, with the record that makes the story true.", "sourceMarkdown": "# A shelf with room for a question\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nA tool on a shelf is a possibility waiting for a pair of hands. That is an image, not a result. It makes the Marlow Library Tool Shelf easy to picture; it does not tell us whether the proposed service will be easy to use.\n\nThe proposal gives the image a frame: 24 tool kits, a requested budget of $2,400, and free borrowing. For six weeks, from 7 November to 12 December 2026, the desk would open on Saturdays between 10 a.m. and noon. The trial is not approved. For now, the shelf exists in a plan.\n\nThere should be more than one way to reach it. An optional web reservation form, a telephone route, a walk-up conversation. The practical detail matters more than the elegance of the metaphor. An invitation is incomplete when the person it welcomes cannot get through the door.\n\nWe would count completed loans. We would also count the time required of staff and record attempts that ended without a loan. Those are the quieter parts of the picture: effort, delay, a missing step. Borrower names would stay out of public reporting.\n\nThere is no measured outcome to celebrate and no saving to announce. The kit contents and loan conditions still need to be settled. A writer can give the possibility a shape, but cannot turn that shape into evidence.\n\nAuthorize the bounded trial, or ask for the revisions that would make authorization sensible. That is the decision before us. Let the shelf carry tools first. Let any story about what it changed arrive later, with the record that makes the story true.\n", "sha256": "9f6c008b87358ba231e82f6a6c0f395b4b0bb229262ea96731612775805f996e", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nA tool on a shelf is a possibility waiting for a pair of hands. That is an image, not a result. It makes the Marlow Library Tool Shelf easy to picture; it does not tell us whether the proposed service will be easy to use.
\n\nThe proposal gives the image a frame: 24 tool kits, a requested budget of $2,400, and free borrowing. For six weeks, from 7 November to 12 December 2026, the desk would open on Saturdays between 10 a.m. and noon. The trial is not approved. For now, the shelf exists in a plan.
\n\nThere should be more than one way to reach it. An optional web reservation form, a telephone route, a walk-up conversation. The practical detail matters more than the elegance of the metaphor. An invitation is incomplete when the person it welcomes cannot get through the door.
\n\nWe would count completed loans. We would also count the time required of staff and record attempts that ended without a loan. Those are the quieter parts of the picture: effort, delay, a missing step. Borrower names would stay out of public reporting.
\n\nThere is no measured outcome to celebrate and no saving to announce. The kit contents and loan conditions still need to be settled. A writer can give the possibility a shape, but cannot turn that shape into evidence.
\n\nAuthorize the bounded trial, or ask for the revisions that would make authorization sensible. That is the decision before us. Let the shelf carry tools first. Let any story about what it changed arrive later, with the record that makes the story true.
" }, { "id": "V07/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "# V07 · Lyrical concrete · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThursday now holds the review. The work itself has not moved with it: the scope is unchanged, and no new delivery deadline is approved. Please confirm the meeting time. We should not let one shifted square on the calendar quietly redraw the whole project.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V07 · Lyrical concrete · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThursday now holds the review. The work itself has not moved with it: the scope is unchanged, and no new delivery deadline is approved. Please confirm the meeting time. We should not let one shifted square on the calendar quietly redraw the whole project.\n", "sha256": "d4b36c25a570bb9b8586bff2b12d37bda9529ed805422b8f53ca0fa25a8ba22b", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nThursday now holds the review. The work itself has not moved with it: the scope is unchanged, and no new delivery deadline is approved. Please confirm the meeting time. We should not let one shifted square on the calendar quietly redraw the whole project.
" }, { "id": "V07/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "# V07 · Lyrical concrete · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nBring a paragraph with one loose thread and a question about it to the fictional writing session. We will revise the paragraph: follow the thread, see what it holds, and decide what to keep. There is no promise of a perfect fabric; there is a draft we can give our attention to.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V07 · Lyrical concrete · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nBring a paragraph with one loose thread and a question about it to the fictional writing session. We will revise the paragraph: follow the thread, see what it holds, and decide what to keep. There is no promise of a perfect fabric; there is a draft we can give our attention to.\n", "sha256": "bf78642d953520836ef4ea3f6e6a3b3724c5c21477a1380748382a3be7cf1d20", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nBring a paragraph with one loose thread and a question about it to the fictional writing session. We will revise the paragraph: follow the thread, see what it holds, and decide what to keep. There is no promise of a perfect fabric; there is a draft we can give our attention to.
" }, { "id": "V07/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V07 · Lyrical concrete\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\nA label is a small piece of writing asked to stand beside an object. It can point, name, invite a second look. That is an image of what a label might do, not a report of what any visitor has learned.\n\nLinden Museum proposes placing two draft labels with each of six replica objects for a single comparison session. The proposed time is 16 March 2027, 2–4 p.m. The request is $900, participation would be free, and the session has not been approved. For now, the encounter exists in a plan.\n\nThere would be more than one way to reach the words. Visitors could read ordinary or large-print copies; an optional audio reading would have the same transcript. The text could be read from a page or heard aloud. The proposal keeps those routes visible without telling us, in advance, how people would use them.\n\nThe record would attend to three different things: which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Do not record visitor names. A mark beside a preferred label would answer one question. A misunderstanding could open another. Neither should quietly become a story about learning already achieved.\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. Attendance, staffing, which label is better, and how choices will be analyzed remain unknown. These blank spaces belong in the decision, as plainly as the date and the requested amount.\n\nThe team must authorize the session or request revisions. I would ask for revisions that settle staffing and analysis before authorization. Let the two labels remain two possibilities long enough to be compared.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V07 · Lyrical concrete\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\nA label is a small piece of writing asked to stand beside an object. It can point, name, invite a second look. That is an image of what a label might do, not a report of what any visitor has learned.\n\nLinden Museum proposes placing two draft labels with each of six replica objects for a single comparison session. The proposed time is 16 March 2027, 2–4 p.m. The request is $900, participation would be free, and the session has not been approved. For now, the encounter exists in a plan.\n\nThere would be more than one way to reach the words. Visitors could read ordinary or large-print copies; an optional audio reading would have the same transcript. The text could be read from a page or heard aloud. The proposal keeps those routes visible without telling us, in advance, how people would use them.\n\nThe record would attend to three different things: which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Do not record visitor names. A mark beside a preferred label would answer one question. A misunderstanding could open another. Neither should quietly become a story about learning already achieved.\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. Attendance, staffing, which label is better, and how choices will be analyzed remain unknown. These blank spaces belong in the decision, as plainly as the date and the requested amount.\n\nThe team must authorize the session or request revisions. I would ask for revisions that settle staffing and analysis before authorization. Let the two labels remain two possibilities long enough to be compared.\n", "sha256": "310c4a8b70518244edeb83c1cc3c5310b2c91d0d5cceab84455c90dc10865c24", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.
\n\nA label is a small piece of writing asked to stand beside an object. It can point, name, invite a second look. That is an image of what a label might do, not a report of what any visitor has learned.
\n\nLinden Museum proposes placing two draft labels with each of six replica objects for a single comparison session. The proposed time is 16 March 2027, 2–4 p.m. The request is $900, participation would be free, and the session has not been approved. For now, the encounter exists in a plan.
\n\nThere would be more than one way to reach the words. Visitors could read ordinary or large-print copies; an optional audio reading would have the same transcript. The text could be read from a page or heard aloud. The proposal keeps those routes visible without telling us, in advance, how people would use them.
\n\nThe record would attend to three different things: which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Do not record visitor names. A mark beside a preferred label would answer one question. A misunderstanding could open another. Neither should quietly become a story about learning already achieved.
\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. Attendance, staffing, which label is better, and how choices will be analyzed remain unknown. These blank spaces belong in the decision, as plainly as the date and the requested amount.
\n\nThe team must authorize the session or request revisions. I would ask for revisions that settle staffing and analysis before authorization. Let the two labels remain two possibilities long enough to be compared.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V07", "sample_id": "V07/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V07/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "9e3ac1841213788aa85afeb63f7b228e3c718c29b3df314d849f3dc83bcbcb36", "trimmed_body_sha256": "e409491a46b93cc80b85371301e905dfa01cb8f76507efc42ca33349ff018f3d", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "A return to a previous version is still a new mark.", "start": 1043, "end": 1094, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public prose and ordinary headings fit neutral professional3, without ceremonial or strongly institutional conventions for5." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "A return to a previous version is still a new mark.", "start": 1043, "end": 1094, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "No intended comic device appears across the whole piece. The quote illustrates the prevailing serious stance; a quote alone cannot prove absence." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "A draft can be thought of as a line with earlier marks still visible.", "start": 34, "end": 103, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Rhetorical movement or reader-directed engagement adds some energy, below overt encouragement3 or excitement5." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "A draft can be thought of as a line with earlier marks still visible.", "start": 34, "end": 103, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Practical decision support shows modest reader regard, between task-only1 and explicit acknowledgment3." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "An earlier mark is not an endless page: the available record has a thirty-day limit.", "start": 474, "end": 558, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace role, retention and restoration require a little product familiarity, but consequences are explained; below several unexplained domain concepts3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "An earlier mark is not an endless page: the available record has a thirty-day limit.", "start": 474, "end": 558, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Several connected distinctions explain operation, permissions and recovery boundaries; exceeds selected reasons3 without a fully worked example sequence for5." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://aclanthology.org/2021.acl-long.185/", "title": "Style is NOT a single variable: Case Studies for Cross-Stylistic Language Understanding", "id": "S12" }, { "url": "https://styleguide.mailchimp.com/voice-and-tone/", "title": "Voice and Tone", "id": "S18" } ], "researchLimits": "Figurative style and brand guidance provide constraints, not endorsement of this lyrical mechanism or emotional effect.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v07-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v07-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V07/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V07/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V07/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V07.svg", "bundleSha256": "f8c83b6b316892dc4e35ba3c7f1f04fcd19b0cc15779670b38aee8de1c0a9da7", "bundleBytes": 83745 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice when a concrete image can help a reader hold both an idea and its practical limits. It fits reflective introductions, museum or cultural prose, and a measured appeal that still needs exact facts. The image carries attention across the piece; it does not decorate every sentence. Avoid this as the sole voice for a safety procedure, a contractual commitment, or a notice whose details must be found immediately.
\n\nThe stable voice gives an object patient attention and then returns that attention to the reader’s task. Its stance is contemplative rather than mysterious, with close visual distance and restrained claims about people. Wonder, grief, hope, or quiet urgency can modify tone when warranted. The observer persona is a lens, not proof of having seen, touched, or heard something. Distinguish an image from an observed scene before sensory language could be mistaken for reporting.
\n\nOpen with one concrete image, then give a plain factual anchor before the image drifts into abstraction. Let a word or object recur at a changed point in the argument. Put practical constraints in their own sentences, without translating every number into metaphor. A transition can repeat the focal noun and change its relation: the label as an opening, then as a question. End by returning to that object with a more precise meaning, while still naming the required action.
\n\nMix flowing sentences with short, quiet stops. Use sound selectively: repeated consonants or parallel verbs can connect related actions, but should not make a factual paragraph sing at the expense of precision. A colon can reveal the literal terms behind an image. Keep dashes and ellipses rare; line breaks are not a substitute for syntax in prose. Refrains should change or accumulate meaning. A digression may follow the same object briefly, then return before introducing a second figurative world.
\n\nFavor concrete nouns and active verbs over piles of atmospheric adjectives. One image family—paper and reading, a shelf and access—usually supplies enough range. Do not mix doors, oceans, seeds, and stars to keep the language elevated. Humor is uncommon but possible as a small release. Emotional intensity rests in a specific tension such as possibility without proof. Avoid assigning feelings to an actual audience or claiming universal human experience from a metaphor.
\n\nUse prose paragraphs and, if useful, one italic motif. A short title can name the object without announcing an abstract theme. In plain text, repeat the meaningful words and retain sentence breaks so the cadence survives lost styling. If poetic lineation is essential, declare the genre change; this card otherwise governs lyrical prose. Keep dates, quantities, and instructions visibly literal. Required facts should not be hidden in a final footnote after the imagery.
\n\nProtect literal quotations, amounts, technical terms, and status statements even if their sounds interrupt the rhythm. An evocative sentence is not permission to invent testimony or measured benefit. V03’s bounded reflection and V04’s labeled scene can combine with this profile; choose one dominant structure. Avoid demanding both dense imagery and instant reference scanning from the same paragraph. Preserve existing concrete, effective language when it already carries the idea. Do not add ornament merely to prove the profile was applied.
\n\nSelect one supplied object and write the plain factual account first. Add an image that helps the reader understand a real distinction. Place the literal anchor early, then choose one return of the image near the end. Read aloud to hear excess repetition and monotonous sentence endings. Remove an image if its factual implication cannot be explained. Finally read only the practical sentences: together they must still form a complete, accurate account of the task.
\n\nFaulty prose: “Six objects opened six doors in every visitor’s mind, proving the labels had taught them.” The image invents a completed experience and a learning result. Repair: “Six replica objects would each carry two draft labels. The image of an open door may describe a hope for the session; it cannot tell us which label visitors will choose or what they will understand.” The object remains vivid, and the future result remains unknown.
\n\nRead the full seed demonstration, schedule update, and writing-session invitation as different task sizes. The new-topic application tests the mechanism on museum decision facts. All are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations; none establishes audience benefit or Kyle’s personal voice. The source card supplies the starting mechanism. The seed review records retained language and exact repairs. Compare rhetorical choices while holding facts fixed; a different topic is not evidence of a better voice.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "L06", "title": "The Souls of Black Folk", "author": "W. E. B. Du Bois", "year": "1903", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/408", "relationship": "An intimate visual detail acquires social meaning through a recurring image.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Autobiographical and sociological essay collection", "publicationDate": "1903" }, { "id": "L07", "title": "A Piece of Chalk (in Tremendous Trifles)", "author": "G. K. Chesterton", "year": "1909", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8092", "relationship": "A concrete material anchors reflection rather than decorating it.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Personal comic essay", "publicationDate": "1909" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Lyrical concrete · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V07.md", "sources": [ { "title": "The Lyric Essay", "url": "https://senecareview.hws.edu/the-lyric-essay", "relationship": "Primary literary editorial statement" }, { "title": "Enargia", "url": "https://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/E/enargia.htm", "relationship": "University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference" }, { "title": "Stylistic Editing", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/stylistic-editing/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" } ], "formats": [], "html": "Concrete imagery that performs part of the thinking, changes meaning when revisited, and remains connected to literal subject matter. It is not a quota of adjectives.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA legitimate object, image, or clearly fictional conceit; literal facts to anchor any practical implication.
\n\nConcrete image → literal anchor → changed recurrence → grounded implication.
\n\nUse at least one concrete image with a discernible conceptual role. Check: Explain what relation the image lets the reader understand.
Anchor the image to the literal subject rather than leaving a floating mood. Check: Locate the nonfigurative statement of what is at issue.
Change or deepen the image’s function on return. Check: Compare the first and final use; identical decorative repetition is insufficient.
Use this voice when a concrete image can help a reader hold both an idea and its practical limits. It fits reflective introductions, museum or cultural prose, and a measured appeal that still needs exact facts. The image carries attention across the piece; it does not decorate every sentence. Avoid this as the sole voice for a safety procedure, a contractual commitment, or a notice whose details must be found immediately.
\n\nThe stable voice gives an object patient attention and then returns that attention to the reader’s task. Its stance is contemplative rather than mysterious, with close visual distance and restrained claims about people. Wonder, grief, hope, or quiet urgency can modify tone when warranted. The observer persona is a lens, not proof of having seen, touched, or heard something. Distinguish an image from an observed scene before sensory language could be mistaken for reporting.
\n\nOpen with one concrete image, then give a plain factual anchor before the image drifts into abstraction. Let a word or object recur at a changed point in the argument. Put practical constraints in their own sentences, without translating every number into metaphor. A transition can repeat the focal noun and change its relation: the label as an opening, then as a question. End by returning to that object with a more precise meaning, while still naming the required action.
\n\nMix flowing sentences with short, quiet stops. Use sound selectively: repeated consonants or parallel verbs can connect related actions, but should not make a factual paragraph sing at the expense of precision. A colon can reveal the literal terms behind an image. Keep dashes and ellipses rare; line breaks are not a substitute for syntax in prose. Refrains should change or accumulate meaning. A digression may follow the same object briefly, then return before introducing a second figurative world.
\n\nFavor concrete nouns and active verbs over piles of atmospheric adjectives. One image family—paper and reading, a shelf and access—usually supplies enough range. Do not mix doors, oceans, seeds, and stars to keep the language elevated. Humor is uncommon but possible as a small release. Emotional intensity rests in a specific tension such as possibility without proof. Avoid assigning feelings to an actual audience or claiming universal human experience from a metaphor.
\n\nUse prose paragraphs and, if useful, one italic motif. A short title can name the object without announcing an abstract theme. In plain text, repeat the meaningful words and retain sentence breaks so the cadence survives lost styling. If poetic lineation is essential, declare the genre change; this card otherwise governs lyrical prose. Keep dates, quantities, and instructions visibly literal. Required facts should not be hidden in a final footnote after the imagery.
\n\nProtect literal quotations, amounts, technical terms, and status statements even if their sounds interrupt the rhythm. An evocative sentence is not permission to invent testimony or measured benefit. V03’s bounded reflection and V04’s labeled scene can combine with this profile; choose one dominant structure. Avoid demanding both dense imagery and instant reference scanning from the same paragraph. Preserve existing concrete, effective language when it already carries the idea. Do not add ornament merely to prove the profile was applied.
\n\nSelect one supplied object and write the plain factual account first. Add an image that helps the reader understand a real distinction. Place the literal anchor early, then choose one return of the image near the end. Read aloud to hear excess repetition and monotonous sentence endings. Remove an image if its factual implication cannot be explained. Finally read only the practical sentences: together they must still form a complete, accurate account of the task.
\n\nFaulty prose: “Six objects opened six doors in every visitor’s mind, proving the labels had taught them.” The image invents a completed experience and a learning result. Repair: “Six replica objects would each carry two draft labels. The image of an open door may describe a hope for the session; it cannot tell us which label visitors will choose or what they will understand.” The object remains vivid, and the future result remains unknown.
\n\nA spare image can pass; ornate prose is not required. The wider lyric-essay tradition may remain unresolved even where this local recipe requires a grounded return.
\n\nAn image may be removed when a strict service or technical context forbids ambiguity; the resulting literal fallback should not be labeled full V07.
\n\nTreat sensory richness as evidence of real observation. Check: Verify or label every claimed sensory experience.
Let imagery replace consequential conditions or facts. Check: Read a literal paraphrase and check what was lost.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional image exercise: an unassigned workshop welcome role; a chair facing the door is an invented image, not an observation.
\n\nImagine a chair facing the door. In the workshop plan, the welcome role is still unassigned. A chair can mark the place where a greeting should happen; it cannot offer the greeting. Before the plan is complete, someone must take that place.
\n\nImagine a beautiful, luminous chair facing a wonderful door. The workshop welcome role is unassigned. The chair is beautiful and luminous, and the door is wonderful.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second preserves the literal issue but the adjectives neither develop a relation nor change the meaning on return.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nLiterary sources support image-led and associative possibilities. The literal-anchor and practical-return requirements narrow this specific library profile.
\n\nThe Lyric Essay — Primary literary editorial statement.
Enargia — University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference.
Stylistic Editing — Professional association standards.
Draftline’s Version history offers a specific way to revisit a draft. The time machine remains outside the specification.
\n\nThe feature becomes available on 20 October 2026. It is included on every existing plan at no additional charge, and versions are retained for 30 days. The interface action is named Version history.
\n\nOnly workspace editors can restore a version. Restoration makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. So “go back” describes the content you choose, not a command to wipe away the record of everything that followed it.
\n\nKeep the two limits separate when deciding whether it helps. The thirty-day rule defines version retention. The feature also cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled. Neither boundary becomes smaller because the earlier draft is the one you now prefer.
\n\nStart with the actual task: returning to an available stored version under the workspace-editor permission. The feature offers no general guarantee about backups, uptime or every missing file.
\n\nThat leaves a perfectly serviceable feature with perfectly serviceable limits. Use the named action for a retained version, with the workspace-editor role. The larger repair of history remains beyond its remit. History has enough unpaid editors already.
" }, { "key": "human-l07", "label": "G. K. Chesterton · A Piece of Chalk (in Tremendous Trifles)", "path": "excerpts/L07.md", "source": { "title": "A Piece of Chalk (in Tremendous Trifles)", "author": "G. K. Chesterton", "publicationDate": "1909", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8092", "locator": "Essay opening", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8092", "relationship": "An everyday object supports a restrained comic reversal.", "edition": "Tremendous Trifles collection 1909; essay first appeared earlier; retrieved PG version reports update 2022-04-27", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "I remember one splendid morning, all blue and silver, in the summer holidays when I reluctantly tore myself away from the task of doing nothing in particular, and put on a hat of some sort and picked up a walking-stick, and put six very bright-coloured chalks in my pocket. I then went into the kitchen (which, along with the rest of the house, belonged to a very square and sensible old woman in a Sussex village), and asked the owner and occupant of the kitchen if she had any brown paper. She had a great deal; in fact, she had too much; and she mistook the purpose and the rationale of the existence of brown paper.\n", "id": "V08/human-l07", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "I remember one splendid morning, all blue and silver, in the summer holidays when I reluctantly tore myself away from the task of doing nothing in particular, and put on a hat of some sort and picked up a walking-stick, and put six very bright-coloured chalks in my pocket. I then went into the kitchen (which, along with the rest of the house, belonged to a very square and sensible old woman in a Sussex village), and asked the owner and occupant of the kitchen if she had any brown paper. She had a great deal; in fact, she had too much; and she mistook the purpose and the rationale of the existence of brown paper.\n", "sha256": "1a1c70a3b60f0ec3f2dbf2e841789624ddcb827324aceb164d931e9b79065f33", "html": "I remember one splendid morning, all blue and silver, in the summer holidays when I reluctantly tore myself away from the task of doing nothing in particular, and put on a hat of some sort and picked up a walking-stick, and put six very bright-coloured chalks in my pocket. I then went into the kitchen (which, along with the rest of the house, belonged to a very square and sensible old woman in a Sussex village), and asked the owner and occupant of the kitchen if she had any brown paper. She had a great deal; in fact, she had too much; and she mistook the purpose and the rationale of the existence of brown paper.
" }, { "key": "human-l03", "label": "Silvanus P. Thompson (published as F. R. S.) · Calculus Made Easy", "path": "excerpts/L03.md", "source": { "title": "Calculus Made Easy", "author": "Silvanus P. Thompson (published as F. R. S.)", "publicationDate": "1914", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33283", "locator": "Prologue", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33283", "relationship": "Self-including humor lowers distance, but repeated insult language is more overt than wry.", "edition": "Second edition, enlarged, Macmillan 1914; first edition 1910", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "CONSIDERING how many fools can calculate, it is surprising that it should be thought either a difficult or a tedious task for any other fool to learn how to master the same tricks.\n\nSome calculus-tricks are quite easy. Some are enormously difficult. The fools who write the textbooks of advanced mathematics—and they are mostly clever fools-seldom take the trouble to show you how easy the easy calculations are. On the contrary, they seem to desire to impress you with their tremendous cleverness by going about it in the most difficult way.\n\nBeing myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had to unteach myself the difficulties, and now beg to present to my fellow fools the parts that are not hard. Master these thoroughly, and the rest will follow. What one fool can do, another can.\n", "id": "V08/human-l03", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "CONSIDERING how many fools can calculate, it is surprising that it should be thought either a difficult or a tedious task for any other fool to learn how to master the same tricks.\n\nSome calculus-tricks are quite easy. Some are enormously difficult. The fools who write the textbooks of advanced mathematics—and they are mostly clever fools-seldom take the trouble to show you how easy the easy calculations are. On the contrary, they seem to desire to impress you with their tremendous cleverness by going about it in the most difficult way.\n\nBeing myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had to unteach myself the difficulties, and now beg to present to my fellow fools the parts that are not hard. Master these thoroughly, and the rest will follow. What one fool can do, another can.\n", "sha256": "2ae6251eef5d02e1e0a9f84325c5e8909c23f333423364389a14819afe6f7869", "html": "CONSIDERING how many fools can calculate, it is surprising that it should be thought either a difficult or a tedious task for any other fool to learn how to master the same tricks.
\n\nSome calculus-tricks are quite easy. Some are enormously difficult. The fools who write the textbooks of advanced mathematics—and they are mostly clever fools-seldom take the trouble to show you how easy the easy calculations are. On the contrary, they seem to desire to impress you with their tremendous cleverness by going about it in the most difficult way.
\n\nBeing myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had to unteach myself the difficulties, and now beg to present to my fellow fools the parts that are not hard. Master these thoroughly, and the rest will follow. What one fool can do, another can.
" }, { "id": "V08/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# One paragraph. A manageable amount of paper trouble.\n\nThe fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop asks you to bring **one paragraph to revise**. The whole manuscript can have the afternoon off.\n\nThe workshop takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It is free and has **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nLocation, time zone and access details have not been supplied here. Check those before making plans. The session offers a revision task, not a guaranteed transformation of your writing; the paragraph is enough to begin with.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V08\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# One paragraph. A manageable amount of paper trouble.\n\nThe fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop asks you to bring **one paragraph to revise**. The whole manuscript can have the afternoon off.\n\nThe workshop takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It is free and has **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nLocation, time zone and access details have not been supplied here. Check those before making plans. The session offers a revision task, not a guaranteed transformation of your writing; the paragraph is enough to begin with.\n\n", "sha256": "edf8c968374c649a854d157307ca4f23557a6995852507165a6cc37e0e69f688", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 10.714285714285714, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.8476923076923075, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 26.666666666666668, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 21, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 14.666666666666666, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 75, "prose_sentences": 7, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 2, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 11, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "edf8c968374c649a854d157307ca4f23557a6995852507165a6cc37e0e69f688", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "The fictional Clearer Notes workshop asks you to bring one paragraph to revise. The whole manuscript can have the afternoon off.
\n\nThe workshop takes place on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. It is free and has 12 places. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nLocation, time zone and access details have not been supplied here. Check those before making plans. The session offers a revision task, not a guaranteed transformation of your writing; the paragraph is enough to begin with.
" }, { "id": "V08/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# Draftline upload status\n\n**New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.**\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\nNo repair time is promised in this update.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V08\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Draftline upload status\n\n**New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.**\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\nNo repair time is promised in this update.\n\n", "sha256": "c995f22bc17ac363c15a3c8110ff9bb6085b6fde00a569203256bd51e0fb2f0c", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 6.2, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 10, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 38.70967741935484, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 31, "prose_sentences": 5, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 12, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "c995f22bc17ac363c15a3c8110ff9bb6085b6fde00a569203256bd51e0fb2f0c", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
\n\nNo repair time is promised in this update.
" }, { "id": "V08/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# First, let us avoid declaring the shelf a revolution\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThe Marlow Library Tool Shelf has not been approved, and no measured outcome or savings is reported. It is nevertheless a promising candidate for the phrase “worth trying,” which is less glamorous than “transformative” but currently more accurate.\n\nThe proposal requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits. Borrowing would be free. The six-week trial would run on Saturdays from 10 a.m. to noon, 7 November–12 December 2026. This is a proposed schedule, not an invitation to arrive next week with an empty toolbox.\n\nA web reservation form would be optional. Telephone and walk-up access would also be available. Requiring someone to master a booking system before borrowing a tool would give us a second thing to repair, and the proposal is already busy with the first.\n\nThe records should include completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. Counting only the successes would be convenient. It would also make the evaluation suspiciously easy to write. Borrower names should not appear in the public account.\n\nImportant operating details, including kit contents and loan conditions, remain to be decided. We should decide them before treating our confidence as a substitute. We should also leave claims about outcomes and savings unwritten until there is something to measure.\n\nThe requested decision is to authorize a bounded trial or ask for revisions. We do not need to predict a permanent service’s glorious future in order to permit a modest experiment. Six weeks may teach us something. It is helpful to leave space in the report for what that something turns out to be.", "sourceMarkdown": "# First, let us avoid declaring the shelf a revolution\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThe Marlow Library Tool Shelf has not been approved, and no measured outcome or savings is reported. It is nevertheless a promising candidate for the phrase “worth trying,” which is less glamorous than “transformative” but currently more accurate.\n\nThe proposal requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits. Borrowing would be free. The six-week trial would run on Saturdays from 10 a.m. to noon, 7 November–12 December 2026. This is a proposed schedule, not an invitation to arrive next week with an empty toolbox.\n\nA web reservation form would be optional. Telephone and walk-up access would also be available. Requiring someone to master a booking system before borrowing a tool would give us a second thing to repair, and the proposal is already busy with the first.\n\nThe records should include completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. Counting only the successes would be convenient. It would also make the evaluation suspiciously easy to write. Borrower names should not appear in the public account.\n\nImportant operating details, including kit contents and loan conditions, remain to be decided. We should decide them before treating our confidence as a substitute. We should also leave claims about outcomes and savings unwritten until there is something to measure.\n\nThe requested decision is to authorize a bounded trial or ask for revisions. We do not need to predict a permanent service’s glorious future in order to permit a modest experiment. Six weeks may teach us something. It is helpful to leave space in the report for what that something turns out to be.\n", "sha256": "74a161535614e977f535a9eff6f75a62040f47db0d3460af2a99da10f0e0f214", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nThe Marlow Library Tool Shelf has not been approved, and no measured outcome or savings is reported. It is nevertheless a promising candidate for the phrase “worth trying,” which is less glamorous than “transformative” but currently more accurate.
\n\nThe proposal requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits. Borrowing would be free. The six-week trial would run on Saturdays from 10 a.m. to noon, 7 November–12 December 2026. This is a proposed schedule, not an invitation to arrive next week with an empty toolbox.
\n\nA web reservation form would be optional. Telephone and walk-up access would also be available. Requiring someone to master a booking system before borrowing a tool would give us a second thing to repair, and the proposal is already busy with the first.
\n\nThe records should include completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. Counting only the successes would be convenient. It would also make the evaluation suspiciously easy to write. Borrower names should not appear in the public account.
\n\nImportant operating details, including kit contents and loan conditions, remain to be decided. We should decide them before treating our confidence as a substitute. We should also leave claims about outcomes and savings unwritten until there is something to measure.
\n\nThe requested decision is to authorize a bounded trial or ask for revisions. We do not need to predict a permanent service’s glorious future in order to permit a modest experiment. Six weeks may teach us something. It is helpful to leave space in the report for what that something turns out to be.
" }, { "id": "V08/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "# V08 · Wry observer · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThe review moved to Thursday. The scope did not move with it, and no new delivery deadline has been approved. Please confirm the meeting time; we will make any schedule decision explicitly rather than asking the calendar to negotiate for us.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V08 · Wry observer · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThe review moved to Thursday. The scope did not move with it, and no new delivery deadline has been approved. Please confirm the meeting time; we will make any schedule decision explicitly rather than asking the calendar to negotiate for us.\n", "sha256": "5c7819868b6eed89b64400d78042ddc9ae0217ce07feac58a19c5bd1448ee5fa", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nThe review moved to Thursday. The scope did not move with it, and no new delivery deadline has been approved. Please confirm the meeting time; we will make any schedule decision explicitly rather than asking the calendar to negotiate for us.
" }, { "id": "V08/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "# V08 · Wry observer · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThe fictional writing session welcomes imperfect paragraphs, which is fortunate because perfect ones rarely need the session. Bring one paragraph draft and a question. We will revise what is there, without guaranteeing a masterpiece by the time anyone wants lunch.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V08 · Wry observer · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThe fictional writing session welcomes imperfect paragraphs, which is fortunate because perfect ones rarely need the session. Bring one paragraph draft and a question. We will revise what is there, without guaranteeing a masterpiece by the time anyone wants lunch.\n", "sha256": "163d4e30a952e56c9c298f8c7c2e14a1a9ed4d0a163a0abaccaf569c05b1822f", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nThe fictional writing session welcomes imperfect paragraphs, which is fortunate because perfect ones rarely need the session. Bring one paragraph draft and a question. We will revise what is there, without guaranteeing a masterpiece by the time anyone wants lunch.
" }, { "id": "V08/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V08 · Wry observer\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\nThe Alder Photo Archive has 48 donated photographs to catalog. None has been reported scanned yet, which gives us a useful opportunity to describe the work before describing our triumphs.\n\nStart with the stopping rule. If a sleeve number is missing, or handling could damage a photograph, stop and ask the archive lead. Either condition calls for a pause; the photograph does not have to meet both before you ask.\n\nKeep the originals in their numbered sleeves, and match each file to the sleeve number. For this fictional project, the agreed workflow is to scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. These are the project’s agreed settings, not a universal preservation standard. The master and viewing copy have separate roles in this workflow.\n\nPut the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Corrections belong in a separate catalog note. Keep both fields distinct so that someone reading the record can tell which wording was supplied and which was added as a correction.\n\nWhen a date is missing, record “unknown.” Do not guess a year from clothing.\n\nThe viewing copies remain internal until the rights review is complete. No completion date has been promised. A JPEG may be ready to view without being cleared to share; the file extension does not conduct the review for us.\n\nNo preservation or speed benefit has been measured. Follow the agreed workflow, keep the source and correction distinct, and take either stopping condition to the archive lead.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V08 · Wry observer\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\nThe Alder Photo Archive has 48 donated photographs to catalog. None has been reported scanned yet, which gives us a useful opportunity to describe the work before describing our triumphs.\n\nStart with the stopping rule. If a sleeve number is missing, or handling could damage a photograph, stop and ask the archive lead. Either condition calls for a pause; the photograph does not have to meet both before you ask.\n\nKeep the originals in their numbered sleeves, and match each file to the sleeve number. For this fictional project, the agreed workflow is to scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. These are the project’s agreed settings, not a universal preservation standard. The master and viewing copy have separate roles in this workflow.\n\nPut the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Corrections belong in a separate catalog note. Keep both fields distinct so that someone reading the record can tell which wording was supplied and which was added as a correction.\n\nWhen a date is missing, record “unknown.” Do not guess a year from clothing.\n\nThe viewing copies remain internal until the rights review is complete. No completion date has been promised. A JPEG may be ready to view without being cleared to share; the file extension does not conduct the review for us.\n\nNo preservation or speed benefit has been measured. Follow the agreed workflow, keep the source and correction distinct, and take either stopping condition to the archive lead.\n", "sha256": "0a6a3c34cfcb7cf13792655d88840e7229d376cc71c9e58ea46769228678c8b6", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.
\n\nThe Alder Photo Archive has 48 donated photographs to catalog. None has been reported scanned yet, which gives us a useful opportunity to describe the work before describing our triumphs.
\n\nStart with the stopping rule. If a sleeve number is missing, or handling could damage a photograph, stop and ask the archive lead. Either condition calls for a pause; the photograph does not have to meet both before you ask.
\n\nKeep the originals in their numbered sleeves, and match each file to the sleeve number. For this fictional project, the agreed workflow is to scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. These are the project’s agreed settings, not a universal preservation standard. The master and viewing copy have separate roles in this workflow.
\n\nPut the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Corrections belong in a separate catalog note. Keep both fields distinct so that someone reading the record can tell which wording was supplied and which was added as a correction.
\n\nWhen a date is missing, record “unknown.” Do not guess a year from clothing.
\n\nThe viewing copies remain internal until the rights review is complete. No completion date has been promised. A JPEG may be ready to view without being cleared to share; the file extension does not conduct the review for us.
\n\nNo preservation or speed benefit has been measured. Follow the agreed workflow, keep the source and correction distinct, and take either stopping condition to the archive lead.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V08", "sample_id": "V08/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V08/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "1a8aabd4f75cd039697079b331fcb5306b012d09db743ff02ea6b725e588ad36", "trimmed_body_sha256": "c4115186995ff944d03dcd7f75e7fa3c05398dd7ac8a60c4fd51da863086311c", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The time machine remains outside the specification.", "start": 114, "end": 165, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Conversational phrasing, spoken turns or a personal note sit below neutral professional3; the text remains edited." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "History has enough unpaid editors already.", "start": 1296, "end": 1338, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Time-machine framing and the unpaid-editors joke provide occasional intended dry lightness, below sustained comic framing5." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "History has enough unpaid editors already.", "start": 1296, "end": 1338, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Rhetorical movement or reader-directed engagement adds some energy, below overt encouragement3 or excitement5." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Use the named action for a retained version, with the workspace-editor role.", "start": 1164, "end": 1240, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Practical decision support shows modest reader regard, between task-only1 and explicit acknowledgment3." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "So “go back” describes the content you choose, not a command to wipe away the record of everything that followed it.", "start": 509, "end": 625, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace role, retention and restoration require a little product familiarity, but consequences are explained; below several unexplained domain concepts3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "So “go back” describes the content you choose, not a command to wipe away the record of everything that followed it.", "start": 509, "end": 625, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Several connected distinctions explain operation, permissions and recovery boundaries; exceeds selected reasons3 without a fully worked example sequence for5." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://www.nngroup.com/articles/tone-of-voice-dimensions/", "title": "The Four Dimensions of Tone of Voice", "id": "S17" }, { "url": "https://styleguide.mailchimp.com/voice-and-tone/", "title": "Voice and Tone", "id": "S18" } ], "researchLimits": "Humor intent, appropriateness and effectiveness are different; source guidance does not prove the joke works.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v08-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v08-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V08/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V08/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V08/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V08.svg", "bundleSha256": "c0e506ab4c6e2efc5e9ef8c96610ac7c0d5136bfb7e1161d8f339720718797ed", "bundleBytes": 83919 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice when a familiar process deserves a light comic examination without losing its practical purpose. It fits a column, an internal note among receptive colleagues, or an explanatory brief where understatement can expose inflated claims. The reader should receive exact information and a small recognition of absurdity. Avoid it for distress, a sensitive correction, or an audience whose relationship with the writer makes irony likely to sound like contempt.
\n\nThe stable voice notices the distance between a grand declaration and a modest fact. Its stance is amused but responsible, with enough distance to see the process and enough regard to protect the people using it. Dry concern or mild exasperation can change the tone. The observer role supplies no actual anecdotes or insider status. Humor may question a claim, but it must not become a covert claim about motives, incompetence, or a participant’s character.
\n\nStart with a plain premise that exposes an overstatement, then give the concrete plan without joking through its details. Place a gently absurd comparison after the reader understands the fact it illuminates. Alternate factual paragraphs with at most a few comic beats; every paragraph should still advance the task. End on a sober action or decision. A final understated echo may follow, but it must not undo the clarity of the request.
\n\nThe characteristic move is a plain setup with a delayed, restrained turn near the sentence’s end. Keep most sentences syntactically ordinary so the occasional reversal has space. A semicolon or short final clause can provide the pause before a dry observation. Parentheses permit one aside, not a parallel comedy routine. Repetition can puncture a fashionable word by testing it against facts. Do not turn all sentences into setups; a sequence of punchlines exhausts the reader and conceals the operating terms.
\n\nUse ordinary vocabulary and precise nouns. Inflated diction can appear briefly as the object of the joke, clearly distinguished from the writer’s endorsed description. Aim humor at paperwork, overconfidence, or a faulty inference, never at a person’s access needs, identity, grief, or knowledge gap. Keep emotional intensity low. One comic personification of a calendar or file may work; do not give every object a personality or invent a real mishap to support the joke.
\n\nMostly plain prose supports the deadpan delivery. A title can carry one comic beat, but do not rely on italics, scare quotes, bold, and exclamation marks to tell the reader where to laugh. In plain text, syntax should preserve the turn. Instructions, status labels, and safety conditions remain literal. Avoid sarcastic headings for a procedure that volunteers need to consult quickly; the joke should never obstruct the stopping rule.
\n\nProtect facts, exact quoted text, technical values, and uncertainty. Exaggeration may target a plainly hypothetical claim, but not alter a quantity, observed event, or instruction. V01’s bounded decision and V09’s plain explanation can accommodate a small wry modifier. Avoid mixing this voice with intensive lyricism or a hostile prosecutor’s stance. If a piece is clear and appropriately sincere, leave it sincere. Humor is optional; using this profile does not require adding a joke to every task.
\n\nDraft the serious version first. Identify one overstatement or procedural incongruity that the supplied facts support. Add a dry observation whose target is unmistakable and whose removal would leave the facts intact. Read the exact instruction sentences separately to make sure irony cannot reverse them. Cut jokes that depend on an invented event or require explanation. Close with the reader’s action, then check that the tonal temperature suits the relationship.
\n\nFaulty prose: “Only a genius would publish the JPEGs before rights clearance, so please use your brain.” It insults volunteers and expresses a stopping condition through sarcasm. Repair: “The JPEG viewing copies stay internal until the rights review is complete. A finished file does not come with finished permissions tucked inside it.” The first sentence carries the rule literally; the second targets the mistaken inference without humiliating the reader.
\n\nRead the full seed demonstration, schedule update, and writing-session invitation as different task sizes. The new-topic application tests the mechanism on archive instruction facts. All are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations; none establishes audience benefit or Kyle’s personal voice. The source card supplies the starting mechanism. The seed review records retained language and exact repairs. Compare rhetorical choices while holding facts fixed; a different topic is not evidence of a better voice.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "L07", "title": "A Piece of Chalk (in Tremendous Trifles)", "author": "G. K. Chesterton", "year": "1909", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8092", "relationship": "An everyday object supports a restrained comic reversal.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Personal comic essay", "publicationDate": "1909" }, { "id": "L03", "title": "Calculus Made Easy", "author": "Silvanus P. Thompson (published as F. R. S.)", "year": "1914", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33283", "relationship": "Self-including humor lowers distance, but repeated insult language is more overt than wry.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Mathematics instruction", "publicationDate": "1914" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Wry observer · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V08.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Voice and Tone", "url": "https://styleguide.mailchimp.com/voice-and-tone/", "relationship": "Organization-owned house style" }, { "title": "Irony", "url": "https://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/I/irony.htm", "relationship": "University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference" }, { "title": "Voice and tone", "url": "https://developers.google.com/style/tone", "relationship": "Organization-owned house style" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A restrained observation that exposes a mismatch between a claim and the literal situation, then returns to useful seriousness. The joke must do explanatory work.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA supported mismatch or inflated assumption; an audience and context in which humor will not obscure harm or exclude the reader.
\n\nLiteral premise → dry incongruity → clarifying facts → sober implication.
\n\nMake the humorous mismatch intelligible from the supplied facts. Check: Identify the literal premise and the evaluation implied by its treatment.
Use restraint so that the reader need not decode a prolonged performance. Check: The serious point must remain readily recoverable.
Return from the joke to a concrete implication. Check: Underline the useful conclusion after the ironic turn.
Use this voice when a familiar process deserves a light comic examination without losing its practical purpose. It fits a column, an internal note among receptive colleagues, or an explanatory brief where understatement can expose inflated claims. The reader should receive exact information and a small recognition of absurdity. Avoid it for distress, a sensitive correction, or an audience whose relationship with the writer makes irony likely to sound like contempt.
\n\nThe stable voice notices the distance between a grand declaration and a modest fact. Its stance is amused but responsible, with enough distance to see the process and enough regard to protect the people using it. Dry concern or mild exasperation can change the tone. The observer role supplies no actual anecdotes or insider status. Humor may question a claim, but it must not become a covert claim about motives, incompetence, or a participant’s character.
\n\nStart with a plain premise that exposes an overstatement, then give the concrete plan without joking through its details. Place a gently absurd comparison after the reader understands the fact it illuminates. Alternate factual paragraphs with at most a few comic beats; every paragraph should still advance the task. End on a sober action or decision. A final understated echo may follow, but it must not undo the clarity of the request.
\n\nThe characteristic move is a plain setup with a delayed, restrained turn near the sentence’s end. Keep most sentences syntactically ordinary so the occasional reversal has space. A semicolon or short final clause can provide the pause before a dry observation. Parentheses permit one aside, not a parallel comedy routine. Repetition can puncture a fashionable word by testing it against facts. Do not turn all sentences into setups; a sequence of punchlines exhausts the reader and conceals the operating terms.
\n\nUse ordinary vocabulary and precise nouns. Inflated diction can appear briefly as the object of the joke, clearly distinguished from the writer’s endorsed description. Aim humor at paperwork, overconfidence, or a faulty inference, never at a person’s access needs, identity, grief, or knowledge gap. Keep emotional intensity low. One comic personification of a calendar or file may work; do not give every object a personality or invent a real mishap to support the joke.
\n\nMostly plain prose supports the deadpan delivery. A title can carry one comic beat, but do not rely on italics, scare quotes, bold, and exclamation marks to tell the reader where to laugh. In plain text, syntax should preserve the turn. Instructions, status labels, and safety conditions remain literal. Avoid sarcastic headings for a procedure that volunteers need to consult quickly; the joke should never obstruct the stopping rule.
\n\nProtect facts, exact quoted text, technical values, and uncertainty. Exaggeration may target a plainly hypothetical claim, but not alter a quantity, observed event, or instruction. V01’s bounded decision and V09’s plain explanation can accommodate a small wry modifier. Avoid mixing this voice with intensive lyricism or a hostile prosecutor’s stance. If a piece is clear and appropriately sincere, leave it sincere. Humor is optional; using this profile does not require adding a joke to every task.
\n\nDraft the serious version first. Identify one overstatement or procedural incongruity that the supplied facts support. Add a dry observation whose target is unmistakable and whose removal would leave the facts intact. Read the exact instruction sentences separately to make sure irony cannot reverse them. Cut jokes that depend on an invented event or require explanation. Close with the reader’s action, then check that the tonal temperature suits the relationship.
\n\nFaulty prose: “Only a genius would publish the JPEGs before rights clearance, so please use your brain.” It insults volunteers and expresses a stopping condition through sarcasm. Repair: “The JPEG viewing copies stay internal until the rights review is complete. A finished file does not come with finished permissions tucked inside it.” The first sentence carries the rule literally; the second targets the mistaken inference without humiliating the reader.
\n\nNo joke count or slang quota applies. A single quiet clause can carry the entire mechanism.
\n\nA clear warning can remain wry; the moment a joke obscures the warning, fidelity or usability fails even if humor is recognizable.
\n\nAim the joke at a vulnerable person instead of the relevant assumption. Check: Identify the target and the cost imposed on it.
Invent a factual discrepancy to make the joke work. Check: Cross-check both sides of the mismatch against the brief.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional product facts: accepting an export job places it in a queue; acceptance does not mean the file is ready.
\n\nThe queue has accepted the job; it has not performed a small miracle. Acceptance means the export is waiting to be processed, not that a file is ready. Check completion before offering the download.
\n\nThe queue has accepted the job. Queues are hilarious. Acceptance means the export is waiting to be processed, not that a file is ready. Check completion before offering the download.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second announces amusement but contains no meaningful ironic mismatch.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nBrand and rhetorical sources explain humor choices and irony; the useful return and context veto are local safeguards.
\n\nVoice and Tone — Organization-owned house style.
Irony — University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference.
Voice and tone — Organization-owned house style.
Version history becomes available in Draftline on 20 October 2026. It is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.
\n\nUse it to work with stored versions of a document. Only workspace editors can restore a version. If you can read a document but do not have that role, reading access alone does not give you restoration permission.
\n\nRestoring makes a new current version. It does not delete stored history. This means the restoration changes the current version without using that action to erase the stored record.
\n\nVersions are retained for 30 days.
The feature cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled.
The retention period and the deleted-file limit are separate rules. Do not assume that a file deleted before enablement can be recovered because a different document has retained versions.
\n\nThe interface action is named Version history. Look for that name in the interface.
\n\nBefore relying on a restoration, check the document version you need, the available retention period and the workspace-editor requirement. Version history is a bounded restoration tool, without a general backup guarantee or recovery for every missing file.
" }, { "key": "human-m01", "label": "GitLab institutional byline; CEO apology within text · Postmortem of database outage of January 31", "path": "excerpts/M01.md", "source": { "title": "Postmortem of database outage of January 31", "author": "GitLab institutional byline; CEO apology within text", "publicationDate": "2017-02-10", "url": "https://about.gitlab.com/blog/postmortem-of-database-outage-of-january-31/", "locator": "Opening: paragraph2 firstsentence; paragraph3 firstsentence. Timeline is a separate source section, not included in this short extract.", "rights": "Short attributed quotation · copyright retained", "rightsUrl": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/marketing/digital-experience/gitlab-blog/-/issues/159", "relationship": "Recovery FAQ groups consequential user cases.", "edition": "Dated publisher/author webpage; no immutable pre-2022 snapshot acquired", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "GitLab, Postmortem of database outage of January 31, 10 February 2017. Copyright retained; selected short quotation.", "note": "Only a short incident-impact/acknowledgment aspect. P45 chronology is in the linkedTimeline; this extract does not itself demonstrate the whole timeline module." }, "markdown": "This incident caused the GitLab.com service to be unavailable for many hours.\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]\n\nLosing production data is unacceptable.\n", "id": "V09/human-m01", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "This incident caused the GitLab.com service to be unavailable for many hours.\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]\n\nLosing production data is unacceptable.\n", "sha256": "ee84ba2b31db9f8407ce90ae66b4b122a3e05471b5010ac9089d365acb6b9070", "html": "This incident caused the GitLab.com service to be unavailable for many hours.
\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]
\n\nLosing production data is unacceptable.
" }, { "key": "human-g01", "label": "Government Digital Service (institutional authorship) · Getting informed consent for user research", "path": "excerpts/G01.md", "source": { "title": "Getting informed consent for user research", "author": "Government Digital Service (institutional authorship)", "publicationDate": "2016-05-24", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/getting-users-consent-for-research", "locator": "Collecting and keeping evidence of consent, opening paragraph", "rights": "Crown copyright · OGL v3.0", "rightsUrl": "https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/", "relationship": "Makes the reader’s language and usable format explicit before procedural detail.", "edition": "2018-11-05", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "GOV.UK, User research community, Getting informed consent for user research, Crown copyright, licensed under OGL v3.0.", "note": "Short service instruction illustrates plain-language guidance and policy action; it is not a complete consent invitation or a full-template benchmark." }, "markdown": "Write your consent form in language your participants can understand, and provide it in a format they can use.\n", "id": "V09/human-g01", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "Write your consent form in language your participants can understand, and provide it in a format they can use.\n", "sha256": "fa156c27ead55372b51e1fa4fcb365a1a2956a30883fe4ba2f89d084a8a3a341", "html": "Write your consent form in language your participants can understand, and provide it in a format they can use.
" }, { "id": "V09/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# Join Clearer Notes\n\nThe fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop is a chance to work on one paragraph.\n\n- **When:** 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.\n- **Cost:** Free.\n- **Capacity:** 12 places.\n- **Register by:** 5 November.\n- **Bring:** One paragraph to revise.\n\nLocation, time zone and access details are not supplied here. Check them before arranging your attendance. The workshop description does not guarantee a particular result from revision.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V09\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Join Clearer Notes\n\nThe fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop is a chance to work on one paragraph.\n\n- **When:** 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.\n- **Cost:** Free.\n- **Capacity:** 12 places.\n- **Register by:** 5 November.\n- **Bring:** One paragraph to revise.\n\nLocation, time zone and access details are not supplied here. Check them before arranging your attendance. The workshop description does not guarantee a particular result from revision.\n\n", "sha256": "02855ef89b818908450285eb8a9723b111dcd07da0d5861ec4250af4fdf99aea", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 10, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 25, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 5, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 40, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 1, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 2, "headings": 1, "list_items": 5, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "02855ef89b818908450285eb8a9723b111dcd07da0d5861ec4250af4fdf99aea", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "The fictional Clearer Notes workshop is a chance to work on one paragraph.
\n\nWhen: 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.
Cost: Free.
Capacity: 12 places.
Register by: 5 November.
Bring: One paragraph to revise.
Location, time zone and access details are not supplied here. Check them before arranging your attendance. The workshop description does not guarantee a particular result from revision.
" }, { "id": "V09/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# Draftline: new uploads unavailable\n\n**You cannot upload new files right now.** Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.** That is an update time, not a promised repair time.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V09\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Draftline: new uploads unavailable\n\n**You cannot upload new files right now.** Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.** That is an update time, not a promised repair time.\n\n", "sha256": "a00c8c014f3cab99e5d5cd117a0ebcaad71fb9547d78ada95a806f44320a71e0", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 9, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 27.77777777777778, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 25, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 36, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 1, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "a00c8c014f3cab99e5d5cd117a0ebcaad71fb9547d78ada95a806f44320a71e0", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "You cannot upload new files right now. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m. That is an update time, not a promised repair time.
" }, { "id": "V09/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# Proposed tool-borrowing trial\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nMarlow Library is considering a Tool Shelf. It would let people borrow tools for free. The proposal is for a six-week trial, not a permanent service. It has not been approved.\n\n## What the trial would include\n\nThe plan requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits. The contents of the kits and the loan conditions still need to be decided.\n\nThe proposed opening times are Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. These dates describe the plan. They do not mean the service is available now.\n\n## How people could borrow\n\nPeople could use an optional web reservation form. There would also be telephone and walk-up routes. Using the website would not be a requirement for using the service.\n\n## What the library would record\n\nThe trial would record completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. All three are needed to understand the work involved and the problems people meet. A failed attempt might point to a problem that a count of successful loans would miss.\n\nBorrower names would not be published. Reports should explain the findings without identifying the people who used, or tried to use, the service.\n\nThere are no measured results yet. The proposal does not establish that the service would save money or produce other benefits.\n\n## What needs a decision\n\nThe decision is whether to authorize this bounded trial or request revisions. Any questions about how the service would work should be made explicit before authorization. A later decision about continuing it would need evidence from the trial, rather than assumptions made now.", "sourceMarkdown": "# Proposed tool-borrowing trial\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nMarlow Library is considering a Tool Shelf. It would let people borrow tools for free. The proposal is for a six-week trial, not a permanent service. It has not been approved.\n\n## What the trial would include\n\nThe plan requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits. The contents of the kits and the loan conditions still need to be decided.\n\nThe proposed opening times are Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. These dates describe the plan. They do not mean the service is available now.\n\n## How people could borrow\n\nPeople could use an optional web reservation form. There would also be telephone and walk-up routes. Using the website would not be a requirement for using the service.\n\n## What the library would record\n\nThe trial would record completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. All three are needed to understand the work involved and the problems people meet. A failed attempt might point to a problem that a count of successful loans would miss.\n\nBorrower names would not be published. Reports should explain the findings without identifying the people who used, or tried to use, the service.\n\nThere are no measured results yet. The proposal does not establish that the service would save money or produce other benefits.\n\n## What needs a decision\n\nThe decision is whether to authorize this bounded trial or request revisions. Any questions about how the service would work should be made explicit before authorization. A later decision about continuing it would need evidence from the trial, rather than assumptions made now.\n", "sha256": "68f5c8feaff9c17487070e653d1381cd686c8b6c6b9dc5114d83483154a2e45b", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nMarlow Library is considering a Tool Shelf. It would let people borrow tools for free. The proposal is for a six-week trial, not a permanent service. It has not been approved.
\n\nThe plan requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits. The contents of the kits and the loan conditions still need to be decided.
\n\nThe proposed opening times are Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. These dates describe the plan. They do not mean the service is available now.
\n\nPeople could use an optional web reservation form. There would also be telephone and walk-up routes. Using the website would not be a requirement for using the service.
\n\nThe trial would record completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. All three are needed to understand the work involved and the problems people meet. A failed attempt might point to a problem that a count of successful loans would miss.
\n\nBorrower names would not be published. Reports should explain the findings without identifying the people who used, or tried to use, the service.
\n\nThere are no measured results yet. The proposal does not establish that the service would save money or produce other benefits.
\n\nThe decision is whether to authorize this bounded trial or request revisions. Any questions about how the service would work should be made explicit before authorization. A later decision about continuing it would need evidence from the trial, rather than assumptions made now.
" }, { "id": "V09/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "# V09 · Plain-language service · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThe review meeting is now on Thursday. The scope has not changed. No new delivery deadline has been approved. Please confirm whether you can attend the new meeting time. We will handle any change to the delivery date separately.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V09 · Plain-language service · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThe review meeting is now on Thursday. The scope has not changed. No new delivery deadline has been approved. Please confirm whether you can attend the new meeting time. We will handle any change to the delivery date separately.\n", "sha256": "f91a5fce412283aeb83e344fc9194420f2292f516a1036f8a1940ab749321f6c", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nThe review meeting is now on Thursday. The scope has not changed. No new delivery deadline has been approved. Please confirm whether you can attend the new meeting time. We will handle any change to the delivery date separately.
" }, { "id": "V09/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "# V09 · Plain-language service · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThis fictional writing session is for revising a paragraph. Bring a draft and a question about what you want the reader to understand. The draft does not need to be finished. The session offers time to revise; it does not guarantee a particular result.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V09 · Plain-language service · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThis fictional writing session is for revising a paragraph. Bring a draft and a question about what you want the reader to understand. The draft does not need to be finished. The session offers time to revise; it does not guarantee a particular result.\n", "sha256": "d988036f1486a0d4587de40e87b90e3f87e8734305fbbdc2378afe540dd00620", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nThis fictional writing session is for revising a paragraph. Bring a draft and a question about what you want the reader to understand. The draft does not need to be finished. The session offers time to revise; it does not guarantee a particular result.
" }, { "id": "V09/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V09 · Plain-language service\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\nLinden Museum is considering one session to compare draft labels. It has not been approved. The team needs to authorize the session or ask for revisions.\n\n## What is proposed\n\nThe proposed session is on 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. Six replica objects would each have two draft labels. The museum requests $900 for the session. Participation would be free.\n\nThese are proposed terms. They do not mean the session is available to attend now. Attendance is unknown, and staffing has not been settled.\n\n## How visitors could read the labels\n\nVisitors could use ordinary or large-print copies. They could also choose an optional audio reading. The audio would use the same transcript, so this route would not introduce a different text.\n\nKeep all three routes in the proposal. Their inclusion does not show that a particular label works better or that visitors have learned from it.\n\n## What to record\n\nRecord which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Do not record visitor names.\n\nThe records describe different parts of the session. A label choice shows a preference. A misunderstanding may show a problem with meaning. Staff time describes the work involved. The plan does not yet explain how choices will be analyzed.\n\n## What needs a decision\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. Which label is better is still unknown.\n\nThe team can authorize the proposed session or request revisions. Before making that decision, review the unresolved staffing and analysis questions alongside the date, cost, access routes, and privacy rule.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V09 · Plain-language service\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\nLinden Museum is considering one session to compare draft labels. It has not been approved. The team needs to authorize the session or ask for revisions.\n\n## What is proposed\n\nThe proposed session is on 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. Six replica objects would each have two draft labels. The museum requests $900 for the session. Participation would be free.\n\nThese are proposed terms. They do not mean the session is available to attend now. Attendance is unknown, and staffing has not been settled.\n\n## How visitors could read the labels\n\nVisitors could use ordinary or large-print copies. They could also choose an optional audio reading. The audio would use the same transcript, so this route would not introduce a different text.\n\nKeep all three routes in the proposal. Their inclusion does not show that a particular label works better or that visitors have learned from it.\n\n## What to record\n\nRecord which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Do not record visitor names.\n\nThe records describe different parts of the session. A label choice shows a preference. A misunderstanding may show a problem with meaning. Staff time describes the work involved. The plan does not yet explain how choices will be analyzed.\n\n## What needs a decision\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. Which label is better is still unknown.\n\nThe team can authorize the proposed session or request revisions. Before making that decision, review the unresolved staffing and analysis questions alongside the date, cost, access routes, and privacy rule.\n", "sha256": "8d2e8c5f89c45842eabc0f1aaed5e3fd29a824384ad175485b521673c8a2751f", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.
\n\nLinden Museum is considering one session to compare draft labels. It has not been approved. The team needs to authorize the session or ask for revisions.
\n\nThe proposed session is on 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. Six replica objects would each have two draft labels. The museum requests $900 for the session. Participation would be free.
\n\nThese are proposed terms. They do not mean the session is available to attend now. Attendance is unknown, and staffing has not been settled.
\n\nVisitors could use ordinary or large-print copies. They could also choose an optional audio reading. The audio would use the same transcript, so this route would not introduce a different text.
\n\nKeep all three routes in the proposal. Their inclusion does not show that a particular label works better or that visitors have learned from it.
\n\nRecord which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Do not record visitor names.
\n\nThe records describe different parts of the session. A label choice shows a preference. A misunderstanding may show a problem with meaning. Staff time describes the work involved. The plan does not yet explain how choices will be analyzed.
\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. Which label is better is still unknown.
\n\nThe team can authorize the proposed session or request revisions. Before making that decision, review the unresolved staffing and analysis questions alongside the date, cost, access routes, and privacy rule.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V09", "sample_id": "V09/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V09/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "fb2e57ea21d90b505051e41051fd45ca6107d409a05f43ae7cfa83302e7e1ed7", "trimmed_body_sha256": "3b99867f1c68660176fd5dd2d7a2ac735b20e5e678ab5fd5fc7b3a49158c7f17", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "## What happens when you restore", "start": 398, "end": 430, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public prose and ordinary headings fit neutral professional3, without ceremonial or strongly institutional conventions for5." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "## What happens when you restore", "start": 398, "end": 430, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "No intended comic device appears across the whole piece. The quote illustrates the prevailing serious stance; a quote alone cannot prove absence." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Before relying on a restoration, check the document version you need, the available retention period and the workspace-editor requirement.", "start": 1056, "end": 1194, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Matter-of-fact presentation remains restrained; positive capability statements do not themselves establish enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Before relying on a restoration, check the document version you need, the available retention period and the workspace-editor requirement.", "start": 1056, "end": 1194, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Practical decision support shows modest reader regard, between task-only1 and explicit acknowledgment3." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The retention period and the deleted-file limit are separate rules.", "start": 757, "end": 824, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace role, retention and restoration require a little product familiarity, but consequences are explained; below several unexplained domain concepts3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The retention period and the deleted-file limit are separate rules.", "start": 757, "end": 824, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Several connected distinctions explain operation, permissions and recovery boundaries; exceeds selected reasons3 without a fully worked example sequence for5." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://digital.gov/guides/plain-language", "title": "Plain language guide series", "id": "S48" }, { "url": "https://developers.google.com/style/tone", "title": "Tone", "id": "S20" } ], "researchLimits": "Plain-language landing and developer guidance are practical references, not comprehension results for this library.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v09-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v09-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V09/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V09/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V09/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V09.svg", "bundleSha256": "f7dd43910e5d30a6bc76ab696cad3254e4846c1f101b735db18ac6e925eba8c7", "bundleBytes": 83848 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice when a reader needs to find an answer, understand a condition, or take the correct next action with little unnecessary effort. It fits service notices, public explanations, practical emails, and short program descriptions. Treat the reader as capable without assuming specialist knowledge. It is not a promise of universal accessibility or a substitute for audience testing. A literary reflection may need a different structure even when its language remains clear.
\n\nThe stable voice respects the reader’s time and preserves distinctions that affect action. Its stance is direct and helpful, with professional rather than intimate distance. Calm, welcoming, or firm tones can all fit. Plain language is a way of presenting meaning, not a personality, intelligence level, or ban on technical vocabulary. The service-writer lens chooses useful information; it does not establish that a particular audience has understood or benefited from the text.
\n\nOpen with what is happening and whether it is proposed or available now. Group related facts under descriptive headings, then explain access routes, conditions, and the response needed. Put a condition before the action it governs. Paragraphs should answer one reader question, while adjacent paragraphs form a usable path through the task. Transitions can simply name the next subject. End with the decision or action and make any unresolved question explicit rather than hiding it in a general invitation.
\n\nPrefer familiar subject–verb order and clauses with a named actor. Combine related short sentences when their relationship is otherwise lost; clarity is not a contest for the lowest word count. Use if and until carefully because they govern action. A colon can introduce a list, while semicolons are optional where two sentences would be easier to parse. Repeat a necessary noun instead of cycling synonyms. Keep parentheses for genuinely secondary material and omit rhetorical questions that slow information finding.
\n\nChoose concrete verbs and familiar words without replacing exact terms with inaccurate approximations. Explain a necessary technical term where the reader first needs it. Metaphor, humor, and emotional intensity stay low because literal meaning has priority. Warmth can come from offering a workable route or stating what the reader does not need to do. Avoid “simply,” “obviously,” and childish language. Brevity should remove clutter, not conditions, uncertainty, or information required by a different access route.
\n\nUse meaningful headings that match the content, short paragraphs, and bullets for parallel facts. Number steps only when order matters. Do not use bold or capitals as the sole way to distinguish a requirement from a suggestion. In plain text, headings and blank lines retain the reading path. Links should name their destination or action. Tables are optional and should not force horizontal comparison where a short list would be easier to read aloud.
\n\nProtect dates, amounts, labels, negations, exact quotations, and technical terms. “Free” does not mean approved, and “available in large print” does not establish accessibility for every reader. V10 can provide precise terms, while V02 can add a brief welcoming tone. Do not combine this primary structure with a hidden answer or dense figurative opening. Retain existing plain prose when it is already accurate and usable; unnecessary synonym changes can make consistent instructions harder to follow.
\n\nList the reader’s questions in the order they need answers. Draft the status and main point first. Put each required action beside its condition, then move explanation after the action where appropriate. Replace vague actors such as “it is recommended” with a named role only if the source supplies one. Test the draft by locating the date, cost, access routes, limits, and next step. Read it aloud, then compare every modal verb and number with the brief.
\n\nFaulty prose: “The accessible museum session launches on 16 March; come along and learn more.” It announces an unapproved event, claims access success, and promises a learning result. Repair: “Linden Museum proposes a label-comparison session on 16 March 2027, 2–4 p.m. It has not been approved. Visitors could use ordinary or large-print copies, or an optional audio reading with the same transcript. No learning benefit has been demonstrated.” Concrete routes replace an unsupported adjective without losing useful detail.
\n\nRead the full seed demonstration, schedule update, and writing-session invitation as different task sizes. The new-topic application tests the mechanism on museum decision facts. All are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations; none establishes audience benefit or Kyle’s personal voice. The source card supplies the starting mechanism. The seed review records retained language and exact repairs. Compare rhetorical choices while holding facts fixed; a different topic is not evidence of a better voice.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "M01", "title": "Postmortem of database outage of January 31", "author": "GitLab institutional byline; CEO apology within text", "year": "2017", "url": "https://about.gitlab.com/blog/postmortem-of-database-outage-of-january-31/", "relationship": "Recovery FAQ groups consequential user cases.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Incident postmortem and recovery FAQ", "publicationDate": "2017-02-10" }, { "id": "G01", "title": "Getting informed consent for user research", "author": "Government Digital Service (institutional authorship)", "year": "2016", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/getting-users-consent-for-research", "relationship": "Makes the reader’s language and usable format explicit before procedural detail.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Plain-language government practice guide", "publicationDate": "2016-05-24" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Plain-language service · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V09.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Plain Language Guide Series", "url": "https://digital.gov/guides/plain-language", "relationship": "Government guidance" }, { "title": "ISO 24495-1:2023 — Plain language, Part 1: Governing principles and guidelines", "url": "https://www.iso.org/standard/78907.html", "relationship": "Formal standards organization" }, { "title": "Fundamentals of Editing", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/fundamentals-editing/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A reader-task-centered service message that puts current status, applicable conditions, and an achievable next step within easy reach without flattening the underlying meaning.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nWho the message serves, what they need to do or understand, current status, eligibility, and an actual action route.
\n\nStatus → task-relevant information → governing conditions → next action or explicit stop.
\n\nOrganize around the reader’s task rather than the organization’s internal departments. Check: Map headings or sentences to the reader’s questions.
Expose conditions before the reader might take an inapplicable action. Check: Check eligibility, limits, and stops at their decision point.
Provide a feasible next step or clearly state that no action is currently available. Check: Walk the action route using only the message.
Use this voice when a reader needs to find an answer, understand a condition, or take the correct next action with little unnecessary effort. It fits service notices, public explanations, practical emails, and short program descriptions. Treat the reader as capable without assuming specialist knowledge. It is not a promise of universal accessibility or a substitute for audience testing. A literary reflection may need a different structure even when its language remains clear.
\n\nThe stable voice respects the reader’s time and preserves distinctions that affect action. Its stance is direct and helpful, with professional rather than intimate distance. Calm, welcoming, or firm tones can all fit. Plain language is a way of presenting meaning, not a personality, intelligence level, or ban on technical vocabulary. The service-writer lens chooses useful information; it does not establish that a particular audience has understood or benefited from the text.
\n\nOpen with what is happening and whether it is proposed or available now. Group related facts under descriptive headings, then explain access routes, conditions, and the response needed. Put a condition before the action it governs. Paragraphs should answer one reader question, while adjacent paragraphs form a usable path through the task. Transitions can simply name the next subject. End with the decision or action and make any unresolved question explicit rather than hiding it in a general invitation.
\n\nPrefer familiar subject–verb order and clauses with a named actor. Combine related short sentences when their relationship is otherwise lost; clarity is not a contest for the lowest word count. Use if and until carefully because they govern action. A colon can introduce a list, while semicolons are optional where two sentences would be easier to parse. Repeat a necessary noun instead of cycling synonyms. Keep parentheses for genuinely secondary material and omit rhetorical questions that slow information finding.
\n\nChoose concrete verbs and familiar words without replacing exact terms with inaccurate approximations. Explain a necessary technical term where the reader first needs it. Metaphor, humor, and emotional intensity stay low because literal meaning has priority. Warmth can come from offering a workable route or stating what the reader does not need to do. Avoid “simply,” “obviously,” and childish language. Brevity should remove clutter, not conditions, uncertainty, or information required by a different access route.
\n\nUse meaningful headings that match the content, short paragraphs, and bullets for parallel facts. Number steps only when order matters. Do not use bold or capitals as the sole way to distinguish a requirement from a suggestion. In plain text, headings and blank lines retain the reading path. Links should name their destination or action. Tables are optional and should not force horizontal comparison where a short list would be easier to read aloud.
\n\nProtect dates, amounts, labels, negations, exact quotations, and technical terms. “Free” does not mean approved, and “available in large print” does not establish accessibility for every reader. V10 can provide precise terms, while V02 can add a brief welcoming tone. Do not combine this primary structure with a hidden answer or dense figurative opening. Retain existing plain prose when it is already accurate and usable; unnecessary synonym changes can make consistent instructions harder to follow.
\n\nList the reader’s questions in the order they need answers. Draft the status and main point first. Put each required action beside its condition, then move explanation after the action where appropriate. Replace vague actors such as “it is recommended” with a named role only if the source supplies one. Test the draft by locating the date, cost, access routes, limits, and next step. Read it aloud, then compare every modal verb and number with the brief.
\n\nFaulty prose: “The accessible museum session launches on 16 March; come along and learn more.” It announces an unapproved event, claims access success, and promises a learning result. Repair: “Linden Museum proposes a label-comparison session on 16 March 2027, 2–4 p.m. It has not been approved. Visitors could use ordinary or large-print copies, or an optional audio reading with the same transcript. No learning benefit has been demonstrated.” Concrete routes replace an unsupported adjective without losing useful detail.
\n\nShort paragraphs and familiar words are preferred, but no single reading-grade score certifies comprehension.
\n\nAn expert audience may require technical vocabulary. Unfamiliar words alone do not disqualify a task-centered, intelligible message.
\n\nReplace necessary precision with a vaguely reassuring simplification. Check: Compare terms, amounts, negations, and eligibility to the source.
Use institutional ceremony as a substitute for status. Check: The reader should not need to translate “we are pleased to advise” into an actual state.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional service facts: only editors can request an export; accepting a request queues the job; download becomes available after completion.
\n\nYou need editor access to request an export. An accepted request goes into a queue; it is not yet a downloadable file. Wait for completion before downloading.
\n\nExport administration encompasses permission management, queue management, and file delivery. Editor permission is required; accepted requests enter the queue; completed jobs provide downloads.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second preserves facts but organizes them as internal categories rather than guiding the reader’s task.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nGovernment guidance supports the approach; ISO is an authority pointer only because the full standard was not reviewed.
\n\nPlain Language Guide Series — Government guidance.
ISO 24495-1:2023 — Plain language, Part 1: Governing principles and guidelines — Formal standards organization.
Fundamentals of Editing — Professional association standards.
| Field | Stated value |
|---|---|
| Available from | 20 October 2026 |
| Plans | Every existing plan |
| Additional charge | None |
| Interface action | Version history |
| Retention | 30 days |
| Restore permission | Workspace editors only |
Restoring a version creates a new current version. The operation does not delete stored history. “Restore” therefore identifies a change of current version, not deletion of the subsequent stored record.
\n\nThe permission rule applies to restoration. It must not be inferred from a person's ability to read a document. The only role stated as able to restore is workspace editor.
\n\nThe feature cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled. This boundary is distinct from the thirty-day retention period for versions. A general claim that all missing material is recoverable is outside the specification.
\n\nCheck the availability date, role and retention field against the intended task. Refer to the action by its exact interface name, Version history. Describe restoration with both parts of its behavior: a new current version is created, and stored history is not deleted.
\n\nThis reference covers the stated feature terms only. It supplies no backup guarantee, uptime commitment, implementation detail or measured performance claim.
" }, { "key": "human-l01", "label": "William Strunk Jr. · The Elements of Style", "path": "excerpts/L01.md", "source": { "title": "The Elements of Style", "author": "William Strunk Jr.", "publicationDate": "1920", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37134", "locator": "Rule 10, “Use the active voice,” opening examples and exception", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37134", "relationship": "Rules, examples and exceptions form a reference; not a complete procedural system specification.", "edition": "Harcourt, Brace text bearing 1918, 1919 and 1920 copyright notices; not Strunk & White 1959", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "The active voice is usually more direct and vigorous than the passive:\n\nI shall always remember my first visit to Boston.\n\nThis is much better than\n\nMy first visit to Boston will always be remembered by me.\n\nThe latter sentence is less direct, less bold, and less concise. If the writer tries to make it more concise by omitting “by me,”\n\nMy first visit to Boston will always be remembered,\n\nit becomes indefinite: is it the writer, or some person undisclosed, or the world at large, that will always remember this visit?\n\nThis rule does not, of course, mean that the writer should entirely discard the passive voice, which is frequently convenient and sometimes necessary.\n", "id": "V10/human-l01", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "The active voice is usually more direct and vigorous than the passive:\n\nI shall always remember my first visit to Boston.\n\nThis is much better than\n\nMy first visit to Boston will always be remembered by me.\n\nThe latter sentence is less direct, less bold, and less concise. If the writer tries to make it more concise by omitting “by me,”\n\nMy first visit to Boston will always be remembered,\n\nit becomes indefinite: is it the writer, or some person undisclosed, or the world at large, that will always remember this visit?\n\nThis rule does not, of course, mean that the writer should entirely discard the passive voice, which is frequently convenient and sometimes necessary.\n", "sha256": "53ced572c961142140af843d9e88108641a1d739b97210de94d35e31d2d1e34a", "html": "The active voice is usually more direct and vigorous than the passive:
\n\nI shall always remember my first visit to Boston.
\n\nThis is much better than
\n\nMy first visit to Boston will always be remembered by me.
\n\nThe latter sentence is less direct, less bold, and less concise. If the writer tries to make it more concise by omitting “by me,”
\n\nMy first visit to Boston will always be remembered,
\n\nit becomes indefinite: is it the writer, or some person undisclosed, or the world at large, that will always remember this visit?
\n\nThis rule does not, of course, mean that the writer should entirely discard the passive voice, which is frequently convenient and sometimes necessary.
" }, { "key": "human-t01", "label": "Scott Bradner · RFC 2119: Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", "path": "excerpts/T01.md", "source": { "title": "RFC 2119: Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", "author": "Scott Bradner", "publicationDate": "1997-03", "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.html", "locator": "Section 2, MUST NOT definition", "rights": "Short attributed quotation", "rightsUrl": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt", "relationship": "Defines an obligation level precisely in one compact entry.", "edition": "Dated publisher/author webpage; no immutable pre-2022 snapshot acquired", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "Scott Bradner, RFC 2119, IETF, March 1997, section 2.", "note": "Demonstrates technical reference and concise annotation; the definition does not make IETF the writing library’s rule owner." }, "markdown": "MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase \"SHALL NOT\", mean that the definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.\n", "id": "V10/human-t01", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase \"SHALL NOT\", mean that the definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.\n", "sha256": "64d010bdd99d712a1da3f202dceec9ddcc091fc019e87f3239cd941c28220c6d", "html": "MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.
" }, { "id": "V10/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# Clearer Notes · event reference\n\n| Field | Value |\n|---|---|\n| Event | Clearer Notes, fictional workshop |\n| Date | 7 November 2026 |\n| Time | 2–3 p.m. |\n| Price | Free |\n| Capacity | 12 places |\n| Registration closes | 5 November |\n| Attendee material | One paragraph to revise |\n\n**Unspecified:** location, time zone, trainer credentials and access arrangements. Check relevant logistics before attendance. No revision outcome is guaranteed by this event description.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V10\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Clearer Notes · event reference\n\n| Field | Value |\n|---|---|\n| Event | Clearer Notes, fictional workshop |\n| Date | 7 November 2026 |\n| Time | 2–3 p.m. |\n| Price | Free |\n| Capacity | 12 places |\n| Registration closes | 5 November |\n| Attendee material | One paragraph to revise |\n\n**Unspecified:** location, time zone, trainer credentials and access arrangements. Check relevant logistics before attendance. No revision outcome is guaranteed by this event description.\n\n", "sha256": "d065ab0211b01dc5701dd464ff4d43e1c077b63095b05ba7cfbd763396086932", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 7.666666666666667, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 4.3478260869565215, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 23, "prose_sentences": 3, "prose_paragraphs": 1, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 1, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 1 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "d065ab0211b01dc5701dd464ff4d43e1c077b63095b05ba7cfbd763396086932", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Event | Clearer Notes, fictional workshop |
| Date | 7 November 2026 |
| Time | 2–3 p.m. |
| Price | Free |
| Capacity | 12 places |
| Registration closes | 5 November |
| Attendee material | One paragraph to revise |
Unspecified: location, time zone, trainer credentials and access arrangements. Check relevant logistics before attendance. No revision outcome is guaranteed by this event description.
" }, { "id": "V10/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# Draftline · incident reference\n\n| Field | Current statement |\n|---|---|\n| New uploads | Unavailable |\n| Existing documents | Can still be read |\n| Cause | Not yet known |\n| Next update | **3 p.m.** |\n\nThe next-update field is not a restoration deadline. No verified workaround is specified.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V10\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Draftline · incident reference\n\n| Field | Current statement |\n|---|---|\n| New uploads | Unavailable |\n| Existing documents | Can still be read |\n| Cause | Not yet known |\n| Next update | **3 p.m.** |\n\nThe next-update field is not a restoration deadline. No verified workaround is specified.\n\n", "sha256": "ecf48115820c54bbf801ae95db029678add694a668efca3c766a42d49e777bac", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 7, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 14, "prose_sentences": 2, "prose_paragraphs": 1, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 0, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 1 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "ecf48115820c54bbf801ae95db029678add694a668efca3c766a42d49e777bac", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "| Field | Current statement |
|---|---|
| New uploads | Unavailable |
| Existing documents | Can still be read |
| Cause | Not yet known |
| Next update | 3 p.m. |
The next-update field is not a restoration deadline. No verified workaround is specified.
" }, { "id": "V10/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# Marlow Library Tool Shelf: pilot specification\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\n**Status:** proposed; not approved. The specification describes a bounded six-week lending trial. It does not authorize a permanent service or announce availability.\n\n## Proposed parameters\n\n```text\nperiod: 7 November–12 December 2026\nservice_window: Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon\ninventory: 24 tool kits\nrequested_budget: $2,400\nborrowing_fee: none\n```\n\nKit contents and loan conditions are unresolved. Implementations should retain these as open fields rather than populate them from assumptions. The proposed parameters must remain distinguishable from approved operating values.\n\n## Access channels\n\nThe web reservation form is optional. Telephone and walk-up access are also required parts of the proposal. Reporting should not equate successful web submissions with all demand or all service use.\n\n## Observation record\n\nRecord completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. These categories answer different questions: whether a loan completed, what operational effort was involved, and where a person could not borrow. Do not collapse them into a single unqualified success count.\n\nDo not publish borrower names. The public summary should use information that explains the trial without identifying individual borrowers. No measured outcome or savings claim exists at this stage.\n\n## Decision boundary\n\nThe next action is authorization of the bounded trial or a request for revisions. Authorization must be recorded explicitly. A writer, interface, or exported document must not convert `proposed` into `approved` merely because the schedule and budget have been formatted.\n\nContinuation beyond the trial is a separate question. This specification provides a way to collect evidence for that question; it does not answer it in advance.", "sourceMarkdown": "# Marlow Library Tool Shelf: pilot specification\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\n**Status:** proposed; not approved. The specification describes a bounded six-week lending trial. It does not authorize a permanent service or announce availability.\n\n## Proposed parameters\n\n```text\nperiod: 7 November–12 December 2026\nservice_window: Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon\ninventory: 24 tool kits\nrequested_budget: $2,400\nborrowing_fee: none\n```\n\nKit contents and loan conditions are unresolved. Implementations should retain these as open fields rather than populate them from assumptions. The proposed parameters must remain distinguishable from approved operating values.\n\n## Access channels\n\nThe web reservation form is optional. Telephone and walk-up access are also required parts of the proposal. Reporting should not equate successful web submissions with all demand or all service use.\n\n## Observation record\n\nRecord completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. These categories answer different questions: whether a loan completed, what operational effort was involved, and where a person could not borrow. Do not collapse them into a single unqualified success count.\n\nDo not publish borrower names. The public summary should use information that explains the trial without identifying individual borrowers. No measured outcome or savings claim exists at this stage.\n\n## Decision boundary\n\nThe next action is authorization of the bounded trial or a request for revisions. Authorization must be recorded explicitly. A writer, interface, or exported document must not convert `proposed` into `approved` merely because the schedule and budget have been formatted.\n\nContinuation beyond the trial is a separate question. This specification provides a way to collect evidence for that question; it does not answer it in advance.\n", "sha256": "99abe6ca797b733d569cca60e4db59c4c1617e9ce4b8f810530929afbf25f676", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nStatus: proposed; not approved. The specification describes a bounded six-week lending trial. It does not authorize a permanent service or announce availability.
\n\nperiod: 7 November–12 December 2026\nservice_window: Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon\ninventory: 24 tool kits\nrequested_budget: $2,400\nborrowing_fee: noneKit contents and loan conditions are unresolved. Implementations should retain these as open fields rather than populate them from assumptions. The proposed parameters must remain distinguishable from approved operating values.
\n\nThe web reservation form is optional. Telephone and walk-up access are also required parts of the proposal. Reporting should not equate successful web submissions with all demand or all service use.
\n\nRecord completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. These categories answer different questions: whether a loan completed, what operational effort was involved, and where a person could not borrow. Do not collapse them into a single unqualified success count.
\n\nDo not publish borrower names. The public summary should use information that explains the trial without identifying individual borrowers. No measured outcome or savings claim exists at this stage.
\n\nThe next action is authorization of the bounded trial or a request for revisions. Authorization must be recorded explicitly. A writer, interface, or exported document must not convert proposed into approved merely because the schedule and budget have been formatted.
Continuation beyond the trial is a separate question. This specification provides a way to collect evidence for that question; it does not answer it in advance.
" }, { "id": "V10/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "# V10 · Technical reference · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nStatus update: review meeting moved to Thursday; scope unchanged; no new delivery deadline approved. Confirm attendance at the revised review time. Do not propagate the meeting change into delivery-date fields without a separate approved schedule decision.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V10 · Technical reference · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nStatus update: review meeting moved to Thursday; scope unchanged; no new delivery deadline approved. Confirm attendance at the revised review time. Do not propagate the meeting change into delivery-date fields without a separate approved schedule decision.\n", "sha256": "31f03e87a09301f132b4c4781ca4dcda71ec911b03474c53ae83d68963a592c4", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nStatus update: review meeting moved to Thursday; scope unchanged; no new delivery deadline approved. Confirm attendance at the revised review time. Do not propagate the meeting change into delivery-date fields without a separate approved schedule decision.
" }, { "id": "V10/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "# V10 · Technical reference · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nFictional writing session input: bring one paragraph draft and a question about its intended reader takeaway. Process: compare the draft with revisions. Output: a revised candidate and an explanation of choices. Publication quality, approval and reader response are not guaranteed outputs.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V10 · Technical reference · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nFictional writing session input: bring one paragraph draft and a question about its intended reader takeaway. Process: compare the draft with revisions. Output: a revised candidate and an explanation of choices. Publication quality, approval and reader response are not guaranteed outputs.\n", "sha256": "73c003f8782d75e9f7507e7370990037fecc34b80537184cf59e8300d0bc220a", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nFictional writing session input: bring one paragraph draft and a question about its intended reader takeaway. Process: compare the draft with revisions. Output: a revised candidate and an explanation of choices. Publication quality, approval and reader response are not guaranteed outputs.
" }, { "id": "V10/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V10 · Technical reference\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\n## Scope and status\n\nThe Alder Photo Archive has 48 donated photographs to catalog. This reference describes the agreed workflow for the fictional project. It is not a universal preservation standard. No scanning has been reported complete; no preservation or speed benefit has been measured.\n\n## Stop conditions\n\nBefore proceeding, check the sleeve number and the handling risk. Stop and ask the archive lead if a sleeve number is missing or if handling could damage a photograph. Either condition is sufficient. Do not infer a replacement sleeve number from other information.\n\n## Originals and files\n\nKeep originals in their numbered sleeves. Match each file to the corresponding sleeve number.\n\nFor this project, scan at **600 dpi**. Save both outputs:\n\n- An unchanged **TIFF** master.\n- A **JPEG** viewing copy.\n\nThe brief does not specify the scanner model. These instructions do not supply one or claim that a particular machine has been tested.\n\n## Description and date fields\n\nUse the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Record corrections in a separate catalog note. Keep the source description and the correction distinct; do not replace the donor’s text with the corrected account.\n\nRecord a missing date as **unknown**. Do not guess a year from clothing. Actual dates and donor biographies have not been supplied, so this reference does not populate those gaps with illustrative facts.\n\n## Distribution boundary\n\nViewing copies remain internal until the rights review is complete. No completion date has been promised. File creation and rights clearance are separate states: the existence of a JPEG does not authorize sharing it.\n\nApply the stopping rule whenever either specified condition occurs. The archive lead is the named contact for those conditions; this reference does not authorize a volunteer to resolve them by assumption.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V10 · Technical reference\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\n## Scope and status\n\nThe Alder Photo Archive has 48 donated photographs to catalog. This reference describes the agreed workflow for the fictional project. It is not a universal preservation standard. No scanning has been reported complete; no preservation or speed benefit has been measured.\n\n## Stop conditions\n\nBefore proceeding, check the sleeve number and the handling risk. Stop and ask the archive lead if a sleeve number is missing or if handling could damage a photograph. Either condition is sufficient. Do not infer a replacement sleeve number from other information.\n\n## Originals and files\n\nKeep originals in their numbered sleeves. Match each file to the corresponding sleeve number.\n\nFor this project, scan at **600 dpi**. Save both outputs:\n\n- An unchanged **TIFF** master.\n- A **JPEG** viewing copy.\n\nThe brief does not specify the scanner model. These instructions do not supply one or claim that a particular machine has been tested.\n\n## Description and date fields\n\nUse the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Record corrections in a separate catalog note. Keep the source description and the correction distinct; do not replace the donor’s text with the corrected account.\n\nRecord a missing date as **unknown**. Do not guess a year from clothing. Actual dates and donor biographies have not been supplied, so this reference does not populate those gaps with illustrative facts.\n\n## Distribution boundary\n\nViewing copies remain internal until the rights review is complete. No completion date has been promised. File creation and rights clearance are separate states: the existence of a JPEG does not authorize sharing it.\n\nApply the stopping rule whenever either specified condition occurs. The archive lead is the named contact for those conditions; this reference does not authorize a volunteer to resolve them by assumption.\n", "sha256": "afd2aa3e2553a2eb5f35a8a67852760692904609eaaf2463f29ee8ea542fd35a", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.
\n\nThe Alder Photo Archive has 48 donated photographs to catalog. This reference describes the agreed workflow for the fictional project. It is not a universal preservation standard. No scanning has been reported complete; no preservation or speed benefit has been measured.
\n\nBefore proceeding, check the sleeve number and the handling risk. Stop and ask the archive lead if a sleeve number is missing or if handling could damage a photograph. Either condition is sufficient. Do not infer a replacement sleeve number from other information.
\n\nKeep originals in their numbered sleeves. Match each file to the corresponding sleeve number.
\n\nFor this project, scan at 600 dpi. Save both outputs:
\n\nAn unchanged TIFF master.
A JPEG viewing copy.
The brief does not specify the scanner model. These instructions do not supply one or claim that a particular machine has been tested.
\n\nUse the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Record corrections in a separate catalog note. Keep the source description and the correction distinct; do not replace the donor’s text with the corrected account.
\n\nRecord a missing date as unknown. Do not guess a year from clothing. Actual dates and donor biographies have not been supplied, so this reference does not populate those gaps with illustrative facts.
\n\nViewing copies remain internal until the rights review is complete. No completion date has been promised. File creation and rights clearance are separate states: the existence of a JPEG does not authorize sharing it.
\n\nApply the stopping rule whenever either specified condition occurs. The archive lead is the named contact for those conditions; this reference does not authorize a volunteer to resolve them by assumption.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V10", "sample_id": "V10/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V10/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "62ae989e30ce45eb46e14c8f37d06ec67a5feae53e09c61b2499a5de2b328ea5", "trimmed_body_sha256": "acd1c069ae591b08eb9e53b494c9fd33db2fd9f5b9ef811aa3a174cd890503b0", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "## Availability and inclusion", "start": 31, "end": 60, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Institutional/reference conventions and labeled scope support level4; the language is not ceremonial enough for5." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "| Restore permission | Workspace editors only |", "start": 266, "end": 313, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "No intended comic device was found across the full sample. The quoted passage illustrates the prevailing factual or reflective stance." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "| Restore permission | Workspace editors only |", "start": 266, "end": 313, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Delivery is matter-of-fact and restrained across the sample; positive subject matter alone does not raise the rating." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "| Restore permission | Workspace editors only |", "start": 266, "end": 313, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The relationship remains impersonal and task-only; no direct personal or emotional acknowledgment appears." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "| Restore permission | Workspace editors only |", "start": 266, "end": 313, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace-editor, retention and restore concepts require a little product-role familiarity, but the consequences are explained in ordinary language. This is below the few-unexplained-domain-concepts level3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "| Restore permission | Workspace editors only |", "start": 266, "end": 313, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The full sample repeatedly explains distinctions among operation, permissions, retained versions and prior deletion; this exceeds selected reasons3 but lacks a fully worked concrete example/definition sequence sufficient for5." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/reference/", "title": "Reference", "id": "S44" }, { "url": "https://developers.google.com/style/tone", "title": "Tone", "id": "S20" } ], "researchLimits": "Reference guidance applies to known system behavior; a proposal remains conditional.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v10-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v10-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V10/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V10/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V10/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V10.svg", "bundleSha256": "533b6164adadbe0963b3caf79f7625abbef6e70b87c0f77d7a86a1a95eb16ec8", "bundleBytes": 84345 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice when a reader must retrieve exact parameters, distinguish states, or carry out a specified operation. It fits reference pages, workflow specifications, release notes, and concise status records. The document should make the system’s terms inspectable without requiring a narrative reading. It is less suitable for a personal appeal or an introduction whose central task is to build a relationship, though a short orientation can precede the reference.
\n\nThe stable voice values consistency, explicit conditions, and traceable status. Its stance is that of a maintainer documenting supplied behavior, with relatively distant but usable language. Urgency or reassurance may modify tone through order and explanation, not promotional adjectives. The maintainer persona does not imply that the writer tested the system or owns approval authority. A formal-looking field is still a claim whose source and status must be known.
\n\nLead with scope and current status, then place the stopping conditions or prerequisites before the affected operations. Group parameters, file handling, metadata, and release constraints under semantic headings. Within a group, keep instructions in use order and explanations subordinate. State each rule once in its authoritative location; repeat a critical stop condition only when retrieval warrants it. End with unresolved inputs or the decision boundary. Do not append a motivational conclusion that blurs what the specification actually guarantees.
\n\nUse declarative sentences and imperative actions with an explicit object. Put if, before, and until clauses where the reader can evaluate them before acting. Short field/value entries work for static parameters, while sentences explain dependencies. Colons separate labels from values; semicolons should not fuse unrelated actions. Preserve literal casing and tokens. Repetition of a precise term is preferable to synonym variation. Avoid digressions, rhetorical questions, and ornamental fragments that make a requirement look optional.
\n\nUse technical language when it identifies a real entity or action. Explain an unfamiliar term briefly without replacing it. Modality is part of the specification: must, may, should, and proposed are not interchangeable. Emotional intensity, humor, and imagery are normally minimal. A worked example can clarify an operation if it is labeled and does not invent a new rule. Do not pad prose with jargon to signal expertise or introduce unprovided implementation details such as a scanner model.
\n\nChoose semantic headings and compact lists. A code block is appropriate for actual structured data or literal configuration, not as decoration around ordinary prose. Use inline code for exact identifiers when it helps distinguish them; ordinary terms can remain ordinary text. In plain text, retain labels, units, conditions, and step order. Avoid tables whose missing column borders would combine a proposed value with an approved value. Formatting must never be the only carrier of status.
\n\nProtect executable spans, identifiers, file formats, field names, numbers, and quoted errors. Flag a suspected source defect rather than silently repairing a value. Pair with V09 for explanatory access or V11 for a separate learning path; preserve one authoritative definition of each rule. Avoid mixing fictional commentary into live instructions. If the existing reference is accurate, consistent, and locatable, use a no-change outcome. A rewritten specification is not evidence of execution, compliance, rights clearance, or measured benefit.
\n\nInventory the actor, prerequisite, action, output, and stopping condition supplied by the brief. Mark unknown values instead of filling them. Put parameters into stable groups and write one action per sentence where dependency matters. Read the document as a new operator, checking whether every conditional rule appears before the relevant action. Then perform a literal comparison of numbers and protected tokens. Remove any result, approval, or default that formatting introduced without source support.
\n\nFaulty prose: “Scan at high quality, save the pictures, and release them when finished.” It drops the specified resolution and file roles, then replaces rights review with completion. Repair: “Scan at 600 dpi. Save an unchanged TIFF master and a JPEG viewing copy. Keep viewing copies internal until the rights review is complete.” These sentences restore literal settings and the release condition. Separate instructions must also preserve numbered sleeves, metadata rules, and the two stopping conditions.
\n\nRead the full seed demonstration, schedule update, and writing-session invitation as different task sizes. The new-topic application tests the mechanism on archive instruction facts. All are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations; none establishes audience benefit or Kyle’s personal voice. The source card supplies the starting mechanism. The seed review records retained language and exact repairs. Compare rhetorical choices while holding facts fixed; a different topic is not evidence of a better voice.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "L01", "title": "The Elements of Style", "author": "William Strunk Jr.", "year": "1920", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37134", "relationship": "Rules, examples and exceptions form a reference; not a complete procedural system specification.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Instructional reference with human-authored constructed examples", "publicationDate": "1920" }, { "id": "T01", "title": "RFC 2119: Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", "author": "Scott Bradner", "year": "1997", "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.html", "relationship": "Defines an obligation level precisely in one compact entry.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Standards reference", "publicationDate": "1997-03" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Technical reference · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V10.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Reference", "url": "https://diataxis.fr/reference/", "relationship": "Originator/practitioner framework" }, { "title": "Voice and tone", "url": "https://developers.google.com/style/tone", "relationship": "Organization-owned house style" }, { "title": "Stylistic Editing", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/stylistic-editing/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A stable, information-oriented account designed for exact consultation. Readers retrieve the property or constraint they need without following a teaching story.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA specified object or interface, exact identifiers, supported behaviors, preconditions, and known gaps.
\n\nScope/status → prerequisites → consistently grouped parameters or behaviors → unresolved information.
\n\nIdentify the interface or version when supplied; mark the boundary unknown otherwise. Check: Never invent a version or behavior to make the entry look complete.
Preserve exact tokens and distinguish names from explanatory prose. Check: Compare identifiers character for character.
Group equivalent properties consistently for lookup. Check: Ask whether a reader can locate the same property across adjacent entries.
Use this voice when a reader must retrieve exact parameters, distinguish states, or carry out a specified operation. It fits reference pages, workflow specifications, release notes, and concise status records. The document should make the system’s terms inspectable without requiring a narrative reading. It is less suitable for a personal appeal or an introduction whose central task is to build a relationship, though a short orientation can precede the reference.
\n\nThe stable voice values consistency, explicit conditions, and traceable status. Its stance is that of a maintainer documenting supplied behavior, with relatively distant but usable language. Urgency or reassurance may modify tone through order and explanation, not promotional adjectives. The maintainer persona does not imply that the writer tested the system or owns approval authority. A formal-looking field is still a claim whose source and status must be known.
\n\nLead with scope and current status, then place the stopping conditions or prerequisites before the affected operations. Group parameters, file handling, metadata, and release constraints under semantic headings. Within a group, keep instructions in use order and explanations subordinate. State each rule once in its authoritative location; repeat a critical stop condition only when retrieval warrants it. End with unresolved inputs or the decision boundary. Do not append a motivational conclusion that blurs what the specification actually guarantees.
\n\nUse declarative sentences and imperative actions with an explicit object. Put if, before, and until clauses where the reader can evaluate them before acting. Short field/value entries work for static parameters, while sentences explain dependencies. Colons separate labels from values; semicolons should not fuse unrelated actions. Preserve literal casing and tokens. Repetition of a precise term is preferable to synonym variation. Avoid digressions, rhetorical questions, and ornamental fragments that make a requirement look optional.
\n\nUse technical language when it identifies a real entity or action. Explain an unfamiliar term briefly without replacing it. Modality is part of the specification: must, may, should, and proposed are not interchangeable. Emotional intensity, humor, and imagery are normally minimal. A worked example can clarify an operation if it is labeled and does not invent a new rule. Do not pad prose with jargon to signal expertise or introduce unprovided implementation details such as a scanner model.
\n\nChoose semantic headings and compact lists. A code block is appropriate for actual structured data or literal configuration, not as decoration around ordinary prose. Use inline code for exact identifiers when it helps distinguish them; ordinary terms can remain ordinary text. In plain text, retain labels, units, conditions, and step order. Avoid tables whose missing column borders would combine a proposed value with an approved value. Formatting must never be the only carrier of status.
\n\nProtect executable spans, identifiers, file formats, field names, numbers, and quoted errors. Flag a suspected source defect rather than silently repairing a value. Pair with V09 for explanatory access or V11 for a separate learning path; preserve one authoritative definition of each rule. Avoid mixing fictional commentary into live instructions. If the existing reference is accurate, consistent, and locatable, use a no-change outcome. A rewritten specification is not evidence of execution, compliance, rights clearance, or measured benefit.
\n\nInventory the actor, prerequisite, action, output, and stopping condition supplied by the brief. Mark unknown values instead of filling them. Put parameters into stable groups and write one action per sentence where dependency matters. Read the document as a new operator, checking whether every conditional rule appears before the relevant action. Then perform a literal comparison of numbers and protected tokens. Remove any result, approval, or default that formatting introduced without source support.
\n\nFaulty prose: “Scan at high quality, save the pictures, and release them when finished.” It drops the specified resolution and file roles, then replaces rights review with completion. Repair: “Scan at 600 dpi. Save an unchanged TIFF master and a JPEG viewing copy. Keep viewing copies internal until the rights review is complete.” These sentences restore literal settings and the release condition. Separate instructions must also preserve numbered sleeves, metadata rules, and the two stopping conditions.
\n\nExamples may clarify a property without converting the entry into a tutorial. Tables are optional, not inherent to reference.
\n\nAn intentionally unknown retention policy must remain unknown; format completeness is not permission to invent a value.
\n\nTurn the reference entry into a required narrative journey. Check: Move background and lessons away from lookup-critical facts.
Fill an undocumented behavior with a plausible implementation guess. Check: Unknown fields must remain explicitly unknown or omitted according to schema.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional interface: POST /exports requires editor access. A 202 response means queued, not completed. The completed file expires 24 hours after creation.
\n\nPOST /exports\nPermission: editor.\n202: request queued; export not yet completed.\nCompleted-file retention: 24 hours after file creation.
\n\nLet us discover exports together. First, imagine asking for a file. Our fictional interface uses POST /exports, requires editor access, and returns 202 when queued rather than completed. Eventually the completed file expires 24 hours after creation. That is the story of an export.
\n\nWhy it differs: All interface facts survive, but the teaching narrative is inefficient for direct lookup and defeats the local reference organization.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nDiátaxis is a directly relevant prewritten framework, while exact field grouping remains local and interface-specific.
\n\nReference — Originator/practitioner framework.
Voice and tone — Organization-owned house style.
Stylistic Editing — Professional association standards.
When you want to revisit a Draftline draft, first separate two tasks: restoring an earlier stored version and recovering a file that was deleted. Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled, so that second task may fall outside what it can do.
\n\nThe feature becomes available on 20 October 2026, included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Its interface action is named Version history.
\n\nOnly workspace editors can restore a version. Check that requirement before treating restoration as an available action. Being able to read the document is not the same permission.
\n\nVersions are retained for 30 days. Keep that period in mind when identifying the stored version you want. It defines retention; it does not remove the separate boundary for files deleted before enablement.
\n\nRestoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. In other words, earlier content becomes current through a new version; the restoration operation does not wipe away the stored record.
\n\nTry explaining the result in one sentence before acting: “This creates a new current version and keeps stored history.” If that is the result you want, and the role and retention conditions fit, you have identified the task the feature supports.
" }, { "key": "human-l03", "label": "Silvanus P. Thompson (published as F. R. S.) · Calculus Made Easy", "path": "excerpts/L03.md", "source": { "title": "Calculus Made Easy", "author": "Silvanus P. Thompson (published as F. R. S.)", "publicationDate": "1914", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33283", "locator": "Prologue", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33283", "relationship": "Prologue and Chapter I reduce the first conceptual step.", "edition": "Second edition, enlarged, Macmillan 1914; first edition 1910", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "CONSIDERING how many fools can calculate, it is surprising that it should be thought either a difficult or a tedious task for any other fool to learn how to master the same tricks.\n\nSome calculus-tricks are quite easy. Some are enormously difficult. The fools who write the textbooks of advanced mathematics—and they are mostly clever fools-seldom take the trouble to show you how easy the easy calculations are. On the contrary, they seem to desire to impress you with their tremendous cleverness by going about it in the most difficult way.\n\nBeing myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had to unteach myself the difficulties, and now beg to present to my fellow fools the parts that are not hard. Master these thoroughly, and the rest will follow. What one fool can do, another can.\n", "id": "V11/human-l03", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "CONSIDERING how many fools can calculate, it is surprising that it should be thought either a difficult or a tedious task for any other fool to learn how to master the same tricks.\n\nSome calculus-tricks are quite easy. Some are enormously difficult. The fools who write the textbooks of advanced mathematics—and they are mostly clever fools-seldom take the trouble to show you how easy the easy calculations are. On the contrary, they seem to desire to impress you with their tremendous cleverness by going about it in the most difficult way.\n\nBeing myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had to unteach myself the difficulties, and now beg to present to my fellow fools the parts that are not hard. Master these thoroughly, and the rest will follow. What one fool can do, another can.\n", "sha256": "2ae6251eef5d02e1e0a9f84325c5e8909c23f333423364389a14819afe6f7869", "html": "CONSIDERING how many fools can calculate, it is surprising that it should be thought either a difficult or a tedious task for any other fool to learn how to master the same tricks.
\n\nSome calculus-tricks are quite easy. Some are enormously difficult. The fools who write the textbooks of advanced mathematics—and they are mostly clever fools-seldom take the trouble to show you how easy the easy calculations are. On the contrary, they seem to desire to impress you with their tremendous cleverness by going about it in the most difficult way.
\n\nBeing myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had to unteach myself the difficulties, and now beg to present to my fellow fools the parts that are not hard. Master these thoroughly, and the rest will follow. What one fool can do, another can.
" }, { "key": "human-l02", "label": "Michael Faraday; edited by William Crookes · The Chemical History of a Candle", "path": "excerpts/L02.md", "source": { "title": "The Chemical History of a Candle", "author": "Michael Faraday; edited by William Crookes", "publicationDate": "1861", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14474", "locator": "Lecture I, opening address", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14474", "relationship": "Lecture I moves from a familiar object into demonstration.", "edition": "1908 New Impression, edited by William Crookes; Project Gutenberg digital release 2004-12-26", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "I purpose, in return for the honour you do us by coming to see what are our proceedings here, to bring before you, in the course of these lectures, the Chemical History of a Candle. I have taken this subject on a former occasion; and were it left to my own will, I should prefer to repeat it almost every year—so abundant is the interest that attaches itself to the subject, so wonderful are the varieties of outlet which it offers into the various departments of philosophy.\n\nThere is not a law under which any part of this universe is governed which does not come into play, and is touched upon in these phenomena. There is no better, there is no more open door by which you can enter into the study of natural philosophy, than by considering the physical phenomena of a candle.\n", "id": "V11/human-l02", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "I purpose, in return for the honour you do us by coming to see what are our proceedings here, to bring before you, in the course of these lectures, the Chemical History of a Candle. I have taken this subject on a former occasion; and were it left to my own will, I should prefer to repeat it almost every year—so abundant is the interest that attaches itself to the subject, so wonderful are the varieties of outlet which it offers into the various departments of philosophy.\n\nThere is not a law under which any part of this universe is governed which does not come into play, and is touched upon in these phenomena. There is no better, there is no more open door by which you can enter into the study of natural philosophy, than by considering the physical phenomena of a candle.\n", "sha256": "608c3a587457b26d2a6ac2802aec1cff839dba741faf44cfcfb3472ad42a0865", "html": "I purpose, in return for the honour you do us by coming to see what are our proceedings here, to bring before you, in the course of these lectures, the Chemical History of a Candle. I have taken this subject on a former occasion; and were it left to my own will, I should prefer to repeat it almost every year—so abundant is the interest that attaches itself to the subject, so wonderful are the varieties of outlet which it offers into the various departments of philosophy.
\n\nThere is not a law under which any part of this universe is governed which does not come into play, and is touched upon in these phenomena. There is no better, there is no more open door by which you can enter into the study of natural philosophy, than by considering the physical phenomena of a candle.
" }, { "id": "V11/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# Choose one paragraph to bring\n\nFor the fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop, begin by choosing **one paragraph to revise**. You do not need to turn that task into preparation for an entire manuscript.\n\nNext, check the session details: **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It is free and has **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nThen check the arrangements not supplied here, including location, time zone and any access needs. Bringing a paragraph gives the workshop a concrete task; it does not guarantee a particular result. Prepare that small piece and decide whether the session fits your plans.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V11\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Choose one paragraph to bring\n\nFor the fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop, begin by choosing **one paragraph to revise**. You do not need to turn that task into preparation for an entire manuscript.\n\nNext, check the session details: **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It is free and has **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nThen check the arrangements not supplied here, including location, time zone and any access needs. Bringing a paragraph gives the workshop a concrete task; it does not guarantee a particular result. Prepare that small piece and decide whether the session fits your plans.\n\n", "sha256": "cf90ab3fe4a5d6d635231110ae8f85c225f74510d7829c21d1a615d3d8bf8156", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 12.571428571428571, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.8646153846153848, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 22.727272727272727, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 27, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 12.5, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 88, "prose_sentences": 7, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 2, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 11, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "cf90ab3fe4a5d6d635231110ae8f85c225f74510d7829c21d1a615d3d8bf8156", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "For the fictional Clearer Notes workshop, begin by choosing one paragraph to revise. You do not need to turn that task into preparation for an entire manuscript.
\n\nNext, check the session details: 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. It is free and has 12 places. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nThen check the arrangements not supplied here, including location, time zone and any access needs. Bringing a paragraph gives the workshop a concrete task; it does not guarantee a particular result. Prepare that small piece and decide whether the session fits your plans.
" }, { "id": "V11/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# Check the current Draftline limits\n\n**New uploads are unavailable.** If your task is to read an existing document, existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. Look for the next update at **3 p.m.** This is an update time, not a promised repair time or an instruction to discard your work.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V11\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Check the current Draftline limits\n\n**New uploads are unavailable.** If your task is to read an existing document, existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. Look for the next update at **3 p.m.** This is an update time, not a promised repair time or an instruction to discard your work.\n\n", "sha256": "a16d4330d777c4ab358e536610508e2a67841717f0542f06021acc14b65d9c83", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 12.5, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.76, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 40, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 12, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 50, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 2, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 6, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "a16d4330d777c4ab358e536610508e2a67841717f0542f06021acc14b65d9c83", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. If your task is to read an existing document, existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. Look for the next update at 3 p.m. This is an update time, not a promised repair time or an instruction to discard your work.
" }, { "id": "V11/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# Read the proposal in three passes\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nStart with the decision, not the design of the shelf. The Marlow Library Tool Shelf is a proposed six-week pilot. It has not been approved. Your task is to decide whether to authorize that bounded trial or ask for changes.\n\n## 1. Check the practical frame\n\nThe proposal requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits, with free borrowing. It would operate on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November through 12 December 2026. Read those together: an inventory, a budget, and a limited service window. Do not assume the kit contents or loan conditions are already settled.\n\n## 2. Follow more than one borrower route\n\nConsider the optional web reservation form. Then consider someone who uses the telephone or walks up to the desk. Those routes must also remain available. This is not a request to invent a borrower’s life story. It is a practical check that the service does not depend on one channel.\n\n## 3. Ask what the records will tell you\n\nThe trial would record completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. A completed loan tells you something useful, but not everything. Staff effort and unsuccessful attempts may reveal work or obstacles that the headline count conceals.\n\nKeep borrower names out of public reports. Keep claims about results separate from the plan: there are no measured outcomes or savings yet.\n\nNow return to the decision. Can you authorize the trial on these terms, after the unresolved operating details are addressed? Or can you name the revisions required? Either response is more useful than treating a hopeful proposal as proof that the service will work. The trial exists to help you learn that next part.", "sourceMarkdown": "# Read the proposal in three passes\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nStart with the decision, not the design of the shelf. The Marlow Library Tool Shelf is a proposed six-week pilot. It has not been approved. Your task is to decide whether to authorize that bounded trial or ask for changes.\n\n## 1. Check the practical frame\n\nThe proposal requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits, with free borrowing. It would operate on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November through 12 December 2026. Read those together: an inventory, a budget, and a limited service window. Do not assume the kit contents or loan conditions are already settled.\n\n## 2. Follow more than one borrower route\n\nConsider the optional web reservation form. Then consider someone who uses the telephone or walks up to the desk. Those routes must also remain available. This is not a request to invent a borrower’s life story. It is a practical check that the service does not depend on one channel.\n\n## 3. Ask what the records will tell you\n\nThe trial would record completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. A completed loan tells you something useful, but not everything. Staff effort and unsuccessful attempts may reveal work or obstacles that the headline count conceals.\n\nKeep borrower names out of public reports. Keep claims about results separate from the plan: there are no measured outcomes or savings yet.\n\nNow return to the decision. Can you authorize the trial on these terms, after the unresolved operating details are addressed? Or can you name the revisions required? Either response is more useful than treating a hopeful proposal as proof that the service will work. The trial exists to help you learn that next part.\n", "sha256": "4819f8507f19ccaaffcce5093cfebad2bc55c6e63a72764cf35446f811bd03c9", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nStart with the decision, not the design of the shelf. The Marlow Library Tool Shelf is a proposed six-week pilot. It has not been approved. Your task is to decide whether to authorize that bounded trial or ask for changes.
\n\nThe proposal requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits, with free borrowing. It would operate on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November through 12 December 2026. Read those together: an inventory, a budget, and a limited service window. Do not assume the kit contents or loan conditions are already settled.
\n\nConsider the optional web reservation form. Then consider someone who uses the telephone or walks up to the desk. Those routes must also remain available. This is not a request to invent a borrower’s life story. It is a practical check that the service does not depend on one channel.
\n\nThe trial would record completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. A completed loan tells you something useful, but not everything. Staff effort and unsuccessful attempts may reveal work or obstacles that the headline count conceals.
\n\nKeep borrower names out of public reports. Keep claims about results separate from the plan: there are no measured outcomes or savings yet.
\n\nNow return to the decision. Can you authorize the trial on these terms, after the unresolved operating details are addressed? Or can you name the revisions required? Either response is more useful than treating a hopeful proposal as proof that the service will work. The trial exists to help you learn that next part.
" }, { "id": "V11/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "# V11 · Patient coach · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThe review moved to Thursday. First, check whether the new meeting time works for you. Then keep the other decisions separate: the scope is unchanged, and no new delivery deadline is approved. Reply about the meeting time without accidentally agreeing to a different delivery commitment.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V11 · Patient coach · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThe review moved to Thursday. First, check whether the new meeting time works for you. Then keep the other decisions separate: the scope is unchanged, and no new delivery deadline is approved. Reply about the meeting time without accidentally agreeing to a different delivery commitment.\n", "sha256": "b67c4907537545d3aa81326cf7dc8d517fa5ae307f5827ba929a93f77402fbba", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nThe review moved to Thursday. First, check whether the new meeting time works for you. Then keep the other decisions separate: the scope is unchanged, and no new delivery deadline is approved. Reply about the meeting time without accidentally agreeing to a different delivery commitment.
" }, { "id": "V11/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "# V11 · Patient coach · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nFor the fictional writing session, choose one paragraph rather than the whole document. Write down a question about what the reader should understand. Bring both. We will compare a few revisions and discuss why they work differently; you do not need to arrive with an answer.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V11 · Patient coach · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nFor the fictional writing session, choose one paragraph rather than the whole document. Write down a question about what the reader should understand. Bring both. We will compare a few revisions and discuss why they work differently; you do not need to arrive with an answer.\n", "sha256": "d643cfa15d2295db4f0c2197dc8b744914e11f5ea9196bc69f5ad56f9716f231", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nFor the fictional writing session, choose one paragraph rather than the whole document. Write down a question about what the reader should understand. Bring both. We will compare a few revisions and discuss why they work differently; you do not need to arrive with an answer.
" }, { "id": "V11/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V11 · Patient coach\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\nStart with the decision you need to make. Linden Museum proposes a single label-comparison session. It has not been approved. Your task is to decide whether to authorize it or request revisions, using the proposed terms and the questions that remain open.\n\n## 1. Check the practical frame\n\nThe proposed session is on 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. Six replica objects would each have two draft labels. The request is $900, and participation would be free. Read these details together: they define the particular session under consideration. Attendance and staffing are still unknown.\n\n## 2. Follow the reading routes\n\nVisitors could read ordinary or large-print copies. They could also choose an optional audio reading with the same transcript. Check that all these routes remain in the proposal. Their presence describes the plan; it does not establish which label is better or how visitors will respond.\n\n## 3. Separate the observations\n\nThe proposed record would cover which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Do not record visitor names.\n\nConsider what each observation could tell you. A preference identifies a choice. A misunderstanding points to something the visitor did not understand. Staff time describes the work involved. A preferred label should not be treated automatically as proof of learning; these observations need separate interpretation. How choices will be analyzed is still unresolved.\n\n## 4. Return to the decision\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. Do not fill that gap with a prediction.\n\nReview the open staffing and analysis questions alongside the stated terms. Can you authorize the session, or should you request revisions first? Name the questions your decision depends on. That gives the team a concrete response without making claims the proposed comparison has not yet earned.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V11 · Patient coach\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\nStart with the decision you need to make. Linden Museum proposes a single label-comparison session. It has not been approved. Your task is to decide whether to authorize it or request revisions, using the proposed terms and the questions that remain open.\n\n## 1. Check the practical frame\n\nThe proposed session is on 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. Six replica objects would each have two draft labels. The request is $900, and participation would be free. Read these details together: they define the particular session under consideration. Attendance and staffing are still unknown.\n\n## 2. Follow the reading routes\n\nVisitors could read ordinary or large-print copies. They could also choose an optional audio reading with the same transcript. Check that all these routes remain in the proposal. Their presence describes the plan; it does not establish which label is better or how visitors will respond.\n\n## 3. Separate the observations\n\nThe proposed record would cover which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Do not record visitor names.\n\nConsider what each observation could tell you. A preference identifies a choice. A misunderstanding points to something the visitor did not understand. Staff time describes the work involved. A preferred label should not be treated automatically as proof of learning; these observations need separate interpretation. How choices will be analyzed is still unresolved.\n\n## 4. Return to the decision\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. Do not fill that gap with a prediction.\n\nReview the open staffing and analysis questions alongside the stated terms. Can you authorize the session, or should you request revisions first? Name the questions your decision depends on. That gives the team a concrete response without making claims the proposed comparison has not yet earned.\n", "sha256": "7341f82046cbde21ffb7864591107ccacc4980583507b1eedf4af44fe1e405a6", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.
\n\nStart with the decision you need to make. Linden Museum proposes a single label-comparison session. It has not been approved. Your task is to decide whether to authorize it or request revisions, using the proposed terms and the questions that remain open.
\n\nThe proposed session is on 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. Six replica objects would each have two draft labels. The request is $900, and participation would be free. Read these details together: they define the particular session under consideration. Attendance and staffing are still unknown.
\n\nVisitors could read ordinary or large-print copies. They could also choose an optional audio reading with the same transcript. Check that all these routes remain in the proposal. Their presence describes the plan; it does not establish which label is better or how visitors will respond.
\n\nThe proposed record would cover which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Do not record visitor names.
\n\nConsider what each observation could tell you. A preference identifies a choice. A misunderstanding points to something the visitor did not understand. Staff time describes the work involved. A preferred label should not be treated automatically as proof of learning; these observations need separate interpretation. How choices will be analyzed is still unresolved.
\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. Do not fill that gap with a prediction.
\n\nReview the open staffing and analysis questions alongside the stated terms. Can you authorize the session, or should you request revisions first? Name the questions your decision depends on. That gives the team a concrete response without making claims the proposed comparison has not yet earned.
" }, { "id": "V11/probe-H02", "key": "probe-H02", "briefId": "H02", "label": "Separate mechanism probe", "markdown": "## Keep the two Counterwheel actions separate\n\nCounterwheel is an invented tabletop toy with a wheel showing **0, 1 or 2**. Its starting display is **0**.\n\nFirst, follow the blue-button rule: each press advances one place, **0 to 1, 1 to 2, and 2 to 0**. Keep that complete cycle in view rather than treating 2 as an ending.\n\nNow compare the white button. Each press returns the display to **0**. It does not take one step along the cycle; it sets the same value every time.\n\nFinally, check what the rules do not provide. Counterwheel **keeps no record of earlier displays**, so the white button does not recover an earlier value. It always sets 0. A press changes **only the display; no objects move**.\n\nUse those distinctions to explain the toy: blue advances around the cycle, white sets 0, and neither action retrieves a stored past display.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V11\nbrief_id: H02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\ncohort: separate-heldout-mechanism-probe\n---\n\n\n## Keep the two Counterwheel actions separate\n\nCounterwheel is an invented tabletop toy with a wheel showing **0, 1 or 2**. Its starting display is **0**.\n\nFirst, follow the blue-button rule: each press advances one place, **0 to 1, 1 to 2, and 2 to 0**. Keep that complete cycle in view rather than treating 2 as an ending.\n\nNow compare the white button. Each press returns the display to **0**. It does not take one step along the cycle; it sets the same value every time.\n\nFinally, check what the rules do not provide. Counterwheel **keeps no record of earlier displays**, so the white button does not recover an earlier value. It always sets 0. A press changes **only the display; no objects move**.\n\nUse those distinctions to explain the toy: blue advances around the cycle, white sets 0, and neither action retrieves a stored past display.\n\n", "sha256": "679fd7a5c568627565074c455f5c1a81a47ff6e950b88bf1f422b3e985df8afe", "measurement": null, "html": "Counterwheel is an invented tabletop toy with a wheel showing 0, 1 or 2. Its starting display is 0.
\n\nFirst, follow the blue-button rule: each press advances one place, 0 to 1, 1 to 2, and 2 to 0. Keep that complete cycle in view rather than treating 2 as an ending.
\n\nNow compare the white button. Each press returns the display to 0. It does not take one step along the cycle; it sets the same value every time.
\n\nFinally, check what the rules do not provide. Counterwheel keeps no record of earlier displays, so the white button does not recover an earlier value. It always sets 0. A press changes only the display; no objects move.
\n\nUse those distinctions to explain the toy: blue advances around the cycle, white sets 0, and neither action retrieves a stored past display.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 4, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V11", "sample_id": "V11/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V11/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "8ed7ef69520ba7ae61bcac08545d9bbdaea4271d0e7948404ec177d427f387cc", "trimmed_body_sha256": "fc43429aee15bf7ae775a30685dc3a329cf9de96c29dc65dcd89e1837a44c7be", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Try explaining the result in one sentence before acting:", "start": 1161, "end": 1217, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited neutral professional sentences and controlled structure fit3; no strongly ceremonial conventions justify5." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Try explaining the result in one sentence before acting:", "start": 1161, "end": 1217, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "No intended comic device was found across the full sample. The quoted passage illustrates the prevailing factual or reflective stance." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Try explaining the result in one sentence before acting:", "start": 1161, "end": 1217, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Direct orientation, rhetorical movement or expressive interest adds some energy, below overt moderate encouragement3 or sustained excitement5." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Try explaining the result in one sentence before acting:", "start": 1161, "end": 1217, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The passage explicitly supports a reader’s need or owns considerate relational intent without presuming intimacy; this fits respectful acknowledgment3." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Only **workspace editors** can restore a version.", "start": 499, "end": 548, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace-editor, retention and restore concepts require a little product-role familiarity, but the consequences are explained in ordinary language. This is below the few-unexplained-domain-concepts level3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "When you want to revisit a Draftline draft, first separate two tasks: restoring an earlier stored version and recovering a file that was deleted.", "start": 35, "end": 180, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The full sample repeatedly explains distinctions among operation, permissions, retained versions and prior deletion; this exceeds selected reasons3 but lacks a fully worked concrete example/definition sequence sufficient for5." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/tutorials/", "title": "Tutorials", "id": "S43" }, { "url": "https://developers.google.com/style/tone", "title": "Tone", "id": "S20" } ], "researchLimits": "Pedagogical guidance supplies authoring checks; effectiveness still needs task-specific evidence.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v11-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v11-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V11/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V11/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V11/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V11.svg", "bundleSha256": "49e343bc25f3852c314e94501c09eb0cd9f48227d80d98c884f3758a78ee2779", "bundleBytes": 84062 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice when a reader can complete a task with a manageable sequence and an explanation of why each step matters. It fits tutorials, guided reviews, workshop instructions, and decision support for someone new to a process. The aim is informed action, not dependence on the writer’s reassurance. It is less useful for an expert who only needs a parameter lookup or for a task whose missing information cannot be supplied through better explanation.
\n\nThe stable voice treats uncertainty as workable and the reader as capable of judgment. Its stance is supportive and specific, with moderate closeness. Reassuring, firm, or quietly encouraging tones can vary with the stakes. A coach persona organizes learning; it does not invent qualifications, knowledge of the reader’s emotions, or a past teaching relationship. Do not call the work easy, assume failure, or congratulate the reader on a result that has not happened.
\n\nOrient the reader to the actual decision or output. Break the task into a few meaningful passes, each beginning with an action and followed by its reason. Show how the small checks connect, rather than presenting isolated tips. Transitions such as “Now compare” or “With those terms clear” signal a real dependency. End by returning the decision to the reader, with criteria they can use. Do not conclude with generic cheerleading or an unnecessary recap of every step.
\n\nUse supportive imperatives: check, compare, write, keep, ask. Follow the action with a sentence that explains its consequence. Vary sentence length so the sequence does not sound like a command drill. A conditional clause can support a genuine branch; place it before the action. Colons introduce a worked interpretation, and commas supply ordinary pauses. Repeat an important distinction at the point of transfer, not after every step. Keep asides out of the numbered action line.
\n\nUse the reader’s task vocabulary and make abstractions concrete through a worked interpretation. A small example can show why a completed count is different from an outcome, without inventing findings. Warmth lives in a usable next step and permission to name an unresolved issue. Humor is optional and gentle. Emotional intensity remains contained. Avoid diminutives, presumed frustration, and exaggerated praise; they can make respectful scaffolding sound patronizing.
\n\nUse numbers when the passes have a useful order, with short headings that name the action. Follow each action with a compact explanation. For a simple two-step message, prose may be enough. Plain text preserves the numerals and headings; emphasis should not carry the order. Do not label every sentence “Step” or construct a checklist so long that it becomes harder than the task. A required condition must remain inside the relevant step, not in a distant note.
\n\nProtect facts and literal spans before simplifying an explanation. A coach can help the reader interpret the brief but cannot supply approval or guarantee learning. Combine with V09 for accessible wording or V06 for a worked question; keep the primary sequence clear. Avoid a commanding expert voice that closes off legitimate questions. If the source already offers the right sequence and reasons, retain it. More scaffolding is not automatically better, especially for an experienced reader.
\n\nWrite the task the reader must finish. Identify the smallest meaningful checks that lead to it. Draft each action, then add only the explanation needed to understand why it matters. Include one interpretation that the reader can transfer, such as separating preference from learning. Check whether the reader has enough information to perform every step. Replace invented answers with named open questions. Read the sequence without its explanations to verify that the actions still form a coherent path.
\n\nFaulty prose: “This is easy: approve the session and watch visitors learn.” It trivializes the judgment, supplies unauthorized approval, and predicts a result. Repair: “First, check the proposed session’s terms. Then separate what the record would show from what remains unknown. There are no results or demonstrated learning benefits. Use those limits to decide whether to authorize the session or request revisions.” The repair provides a sequence while leaving the decision and evidence honest.
\n\nRead the full seed demonstration, schedule update, and writing-session invitation as different task sizes. The new-topic application tests the mechanism on museum decision facts. All are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations; none establishes audience benefit or Kyle’s personal voice. The source card supplies the starting mechanism. The seed review records retained language and exact repairs. Compare rhetorical choices while holding facts fixed; a different topic is not evidence of a better voice.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "L03", "title": "Calculus Made Easy", "author": "Silvanus P. Thompson (published as F. R. S.)", "year": "1914", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33283", "relationship": "Prologue and Chapter I reduce the first conceptual step.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Mathematics instruction", "publicationDate": "1914" }, { "id": "L02", "title": "The Chemical History of a Candle", "author": "Michael Faraday; edited by William Crookes", "year": "1861", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14474", "relationship": "Lecture I moves from a familiar object into demonstration.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Edited public science lectures", "publicationDate": "1861" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Patient coach · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V11.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Tutorials", "url": "https://diataxis.fr/tutorials/", "relationship": "Originator/practitioner framework" }, { "title": "Speeches", "url": "https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/speeches/", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" }, { "title": "Fundamentals of Editing", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/fundamentals-editing/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A teaching-oriented passage that helps a capable learner perform and understand a task through manageable actions, reasons, and a check they can transfer to another case.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA real learning goal, executable or hypothetical steps, prerequisites, and a way to recognize a correct result.
\n\nOutcome → sequenced action plus reason → worked interpretation → learner check → transfer.
\n\nState what the learner is learning to produce or distinguish. Check: Name the observable learning outcome.
Order meaningful actions and explain why consequential steps matter. Check: Identify prerequisites and the rationale for the sequence.
Include a check that the learner can apply independently. Check: The learner must be able to recognize or test the result.
Use this voice when a reader can complete a task with a manageable sequence and an explanation of why each step matters. It fits tutorials, guided reviews, workshop instructions, and decision support for someone new to a process. The aim is informed action, not dependence on the writer’s reassurance. It is less useful for an expert who only needs a parameter lookup or for a task whose missing information cannot be supplied through better explanation.
\n\nThe stable voice treats uncertainty as workable and the reader as capable of judgment. Its stance is supportive and specific, with moderate closeness. Reassuring, firm, or quietly encouraging tones can vary with the stakes. A coach persona organizes learning; it does not invent qualifications, knowledge of the reader’s emotions, or a past teaching relationship. Do not call the work easy, assume failure, or congratulate the reader on a result that has not happened.
\n\nOrient the reader to the actual decision or output. Break the task into a few meaningful passes, each beginning with an action and followed by its reason. Show how the small checks connect, rather than presenting isolated tips. Transitions such as “Now compare” or “With those terms clear” signal a real dependency. End by returning the decision to the reader, with criteria they can use. Do not conclude with generic cheerleading or an unnecessary recap of every step.
\n\nUse supportive imperatives: check, compare, write, keep, ask. Follow the action with a sentence that explains its consequence. Vary sentence length so the sequence does not sound like a command drill. A conditional clause can support a genuine branch; place it before the action. Colons introduce a worked interpretation, and commas supply ordinary pauses. Repeat an important distinction at the point of transfer, not after every step. Keep asides out of the numbered action line.
\n\nUse the reader’s task vocabulary and make abstractions concrete through a worked interpretation. A small example can show why a completed count is different from an outcome, without inventing findings. Warmth lives in a usable next step and permission to name an unresolved issue. Humor is optional and gentle. Emotional intensity remains contained. Avoid diminutives, presumed frustration, and exaggerated praise; they can make respectful scaffolding sound patronizing.
\n\nUse numbers when the passes have a useful order, with short headings that name the action. Follow each action with a compact explanation. For a simple two-step message, prose may be enough. Plain text preserves the numerals and headings; emphasis should not carry the order. Do not label every sentence “Step” or construct a checklist so long that it becomes harder than the task. A required condition must remain inside the relevant step, not in a distant note.
\n\nProtect facts and literal spans before simplifying an explanation. A coach can help the reader interpret the brief but cannot supply approval or guarantee learning. Combine with V09 for accessible wording or V06 for a worked question; keep the primary sequence clear. Avoid a commanding expert voice that closes off legitimate questions. If the source already offers the right sequence and reasons, retain it. More scaffolding is not automatically better, especially for an experienced reader.
\n\nWrite the task the reader must finish. Identify the smallest meaningful checks that lead to it. Draft each action, then add only the explanation needed to understand why it matters. Include one interpretation that the reader can transfer, such as separating preference from learning. Check whether the reader has enough information to perform every step. Replace invented answers with named open questions. Read the sequence without its explanations to verify that the actions still form a coherent path.
\n\nFaulty prose: “This is easy: approve the session and watch visitors learn.” It trivializes the judgment, supplies unauthorized approval, and predicts a result. Repair: “First, check the proposed session’s terms. Then separate what the record would show from what remains unknown. There are no results or demonstrated learning benefits. Use those limits to decide whether to authorize the session or request revisions.” The repair provides a sequence while leaving the decision and evidence honest.
\n\nA coach can be brief and technical. A friendly tone alone does not make a passage instructional.
\n\nAn advanced learner may need only a small worked distinction; long step lists are not mandatory.
\n\nSubstitute encouragement for instruction. Check: Remove “easy” and praise: the task must still be learnable.
Pretend the learner succeeded or understood. Check: No unobserved result may be asserted about the real reader.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional documentation lesson: 202 means an export is queued; a file is available only after completion.
\n\nYour goal is to distinguish acceptance from completion. First, label a 202 response “queued.” That prevents you from promising a file that is not ready. Next, check for completion before offering a download. Self-check: does “accepted” alone justify a download link? No—the completion condition is still needed.
\n\nYou are doing great! A 202 response means queued, and a download is available after completion. Exports are easy once you know that. Well done!
\n\nWhy it differs: The second states facts but supplies no meaningful practice or independent diagnostic, and it invents learner success.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nTeaching and audience guidance are relevant; the exact action–reason–check pattern is a local instructional choice.
\n\nTutorials — Originator/practitioner framework.
Speeches — University teaching guidance.
Fundamentals of Editing — Professional association standards.
Draftline’s Version history supports restoration of retained document versions, under a defined permission rule and retention period.
\n\nThe feature becomes available on 20 October 2026 and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Versions are retained for 30 days. Only workspace editors can restore a version.
\n\nRestoration makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. The operation changes which version is current while retaining the stored record. The interface action is named Version history.
\n\nThe feature cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled. This restriction concerns prior deletion and is separate from the thirty-day version-retention rule. These terms provide neither an unlimited recovery claim nor a general backup guarantee.
" }, { "key": "human-r01", "label": "Study participants, quoted by Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke · Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK", "path": "excerpts/R01.md", "source": { "title": "Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK", "author": "Study participants, quoted by Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke", "publicationDate": "2021-10-13", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258344", "locator": "Findings §1: Loss of in-person interaction; participant quotations; Method/Procedure/Analysis for provenance", "rights": "CC BY 4.0", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/", "relationship": "Methods, analysis, findings and limitations are distinguishable.", "edition": "2021-10-13", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "Participant quotations reproduced from the credited research article; omissions are marked. No participant identity is inferred.", "note": "Participant testimony quoted in the research article." }, "markdown": "“I think it’s probably the not socialising like face-to-face.”\n\n(Participant 1, 27-year-old female)\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]\n\n“You sort of don’t realise how sociable you are, or how much of a routine you’re in of seeing people until you physically can’t.”\n\n(Participant 2, 21-year-old female)\n", "id": "V12/human-r01", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "“I think it’s probably the not socialising like face-to-face.”\n\n(Participant 1, 27-year-old female)\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]\n\n“You sort of don’t realise how sociable you are, or how much of a routine you’re in of seeing people until you physically can’t.”\n\n(Participant 2, 21-year-old female)\n", "sha256": "b733476af18b8847db35aa2b16c2ea14e592539673ee4b62902721e90a246d2d", "html": "“I think it’s probably the not socialising like face-to-face.”
\n\n(Participant 1, 27-year-old female)
\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]
\n\n“You sort of don’t realise how sociable you are, or how much of a routine you’re in of seeing people until you physically can’t.”
\n\n(Participant 2, 21-year-old female)
" }, { "key": "human-r02", "label": "Study participants, quoted by Ilaria Falvo; Maria Caiata Zufferey; Emiliano Albanese; Marta Fadda · Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study", "path": "excerpts/R02.md", "source": { "title": "Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study", "author": "Study participants, quoted by Ilaria Falvo; Maria Caiata Zufferey; Emiliano Albanese; Marta Fadda", "publicationDate": "2021-06-23", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252101", "locator": "Results: Impact on the individual level; Method: consent and translation", "rights": "CC BY 4.0", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/", "relationship": "The article reports sampling, translation and variation.", "edition": "2021-06-23", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "Participant quotations reproduced from the credited research article; omissions are marked. No participant identity is inferred.", "note": "Participant testimony quoted in the research article." }, "markdown": "I am locked inside my house and I am afraid to go out. I must stay at home because of the federal ordinance. Those who are over 65 cannot even go out to buy their groceries. Here at home, I don’t see anyone… This is how it works here. People are afraid to go out. (P2, male, 74, secondary school, living alone in a flat)\n", "id": "V12/human-r02", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "I am locked inside my house and I am afraid to go out. I must stay at home because of the federal ordinance. Those who are over 65 cannot even go out to buy their groceries. Here at home, I don’t see anyone… This is how it works here. People are afraid to go out. (P2, male, 74, secondary school, living alone in a flat)\n", "sha256": "a155575bc770c4e8d81ec3a87262e9abe17aae3c200333409622cdb91a31888f", "html": "I am locked inside my house and I am afraid to go out. I must stay at home because of the federal ordinance. Those who are over 65 cannot even go out to buy their groceries. Here at home, I don’t see anyone… This is how it works here. People are afraid to go out. (P2, male, 74, secondary school, living alone in a flat)
" }, { "key": "human-r01-abstract", "label": "Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke · Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK — Abstract", "path": "excerpts/R01-abstract.md", "source": { "title": "Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK — Abstract", "author": "Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke", "publicationDate": "2021-10-13", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258344", "locator": "Complete author-written Abstract; original section headings retained.", "rights": "CC BY 4.0", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/", "relationship": "Connects the research question, method and findings in a compact summary.", "edition": "2021-10-13", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke. Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK — Abstract. PLOS ONE (2021). CC BY 4.0. Retained abstract with original headings.", "note": "" }, "markdown": "## Abstract\n\nThe COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated physical distancing which is expected to continue in some form for the foreseeable future. Physical distancing policies have increased reliance on digital forms of social connection and there are widespread concerns about social isolation and mental health in this context. This qualitative study sought to understand how loneliness was experienced during physical distancing in the initial national UK COVID-19 lockdown. Eight individuals who reported feeling lonely during the initial lockdown were interviewed in May 2020. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Four main themes were identified: (1) Loss of in-person interaction causing loneliness, (2) Constrained freedom, (3) Challenging emotions, and (4) Coping with loneliness. The loss of in-person interaction contributed to feelings of loneliness and digital interaction was viewed as an insufficient alternative. Social freedom could be constrained by distancing policies and by social contacts, contributing to strained personal relationships and feelings of frustration as part of loneliness. Fluctuations in mood and difficult emotions were experienced alongside loneliness, and distraction and seeking reconnection were commonly reported methods of coping, although they were less accessible. These findings indicate that physical distancing measures can impact loneliness due to the limitations they impose on in-person social contact and the perceived insufficiency of digital contact as a substitute.\n", "id": "V12/human-r01-abstract", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "## Abstract\n\nThe COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated physical distancing which is expected to continue in some form for the foreseeable future. Physical distancing policies have increased reliance on digital forms of social connection and there are widespread concerns about social isolation and mental health in this context. This qualitative study sought to understand how loneliness was experienced during physical distancing in the initial national UK COVID-19 lockdown. Eight individuals who reported feeling lonely during the initial lockdown were interviewed in May 2020. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Four main themes were identified: (1) Loss of in-person interaction causing loneliness, (2) Constrained freedom, (3) Challenging emotions, and (4) Coping with loneliness. The loss of in-person interaction contributed to feelings of loneliness and digital interaction was viewed as an insufficient alternative. Social freedom could be constrained by distancing policies and by social contacts, contributing to strained personal relationships and feelings of frustration as part of loneliness. Fluctuations in mood and difficult emotions were experienced alongside loneliness, and distraction and seeking reconnection were commonly reported methods of coping, although they were less accessible. These findings indicate that physical distancing measures can impact loneliness due to the limitations they impose on in-person social contact and the perceived insufficiency of digital contact as a substitute.\n", "sha256": "30d2e00dc0145e78034210174c7deeb04ca10604a328f9638b599642e7255824", "html": "The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated physical distancing which is expected to continue in some form for the foreseeable future. Physical distancing policies have increased reliance on digital forms of social connection and there are widespread concerns about social isolation and mental health in this context. This qualitative study sought to understand how loneliness was experienced during physical distancing in the initial national UK COVID-19 lockdown. Eight individuals who reported feeling lonely during the initial lockdown were interviewed in May 2020. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Four main themes were identified: (1) Loss of in-person interaction causing loneliness, (2) Constrained freedom, (3) Challenging emotions, and (4) Coping with loneliness. The loss of in-person interaction contributed to feelings of loneliness and digital interaction was viewed as an insufficient alternative. Social freedom could be constrained by distancing policies and by social contacts, contributing to strained personal relationships and feelings of frustration as part of loneliness. Fluctuations in mood and difficult emotions were experienced alongside loneliness, and distraction and seeking reconnection were commonly reported methods of coping, although they were less accessible. These findings indicate that physical distancing measures can impact loneliness due to the limitations they impose on in-person social contact and the perceived insufficiency of digital contact as a substitute.
" }, { "key": "human-r02-abstract", "label": "Ilaria Falvo; Maria Caiata Zufferey; Emiliano Albanese; Marta Fadda · Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study — Abstract", "path": "excerpts/R02-abstract.md", "source": { "title": "Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study — Abstract", "author": "Ilaria Falvo; Maria Caiata Zufferey; Emiliano Albanese; Marta Fadda", "publicationDate": "2021-06-23", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252101", "locator": "Complete author-written Abstract; original section headings retained.", "rights": "CC BY 4.0", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/", "relationship": "Connects the research question, method and findings in a compact summary.", "edition": "2021-06-23", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "Ilaria Falvo; Maria Caiata Zufferey; Emiliano Albanese; Marta Fadda. Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study — Abstract. PLOS ONE (2021). CC BY 4.0. Retained abstract with original headings.", "note": "" }, "markdown": "## Background and aim\n\nPublic health measures used to mitigate the COVID-19 epidemic may have unintended, detrimental consequences particularly on older adults, whose voices and perspectives are often silent or silenced. The aim of this study was to explore the lived experiences of individuals aged 64 or older during the first COVID-19 lockdown.\n\n## Methods\n\nWe conducted a qualitative study in a convenience sample of 19 older adults (aged 64+) living at home in the Italian-speaking region of Switzerland during the first COVID-19 lockdown, between April and May 2020. Participants varied in terms of gender, education, age, nationality, and socio-economic status. We conducted semi-structured phone interviews to elicit emotions, expectations and hopes in relation to the present situation, and the post-pandemic world. We inquired about opinions on the enforced public health measures, including those specifically targeting older adults, and on the societal portrayal of older adults.\n\n## Findings\n\nWe found that the epidemic and the public health response to it had both generated a variety of resentments and a high degree of ambivalence at the individual, micro-, meso- and macro-social levels. We also found that labelling older adults as an at-risk sub-population inevitably contributed to public and self-stigmatization.\n\n## Discussion\n\nWe conducted an in-depth qualitative investigation of lived experiences of older adults during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in one of the most gravely hit region in Europe. Our findings on the complexity of unintended, detrimental consequences of outbreak responses on older adults have relevant implications for local adaptions of public health measures, and suggest that public health authorities should engage vulnerable sub-populations and promote bi-directional communication to inform and support communities.\n", "id": "V12/human-r02-abstract", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "## Background and aim\n\nPublic health measures used to mitigate the COVID-19 epidemic may have unintended, detrimental consequences particularly on older adults, whose voices and perspectives are often silent or silenced. The aim of this study was to explore the lived experiences of individuals aged 64 or older during the first COVID-19 lockdown.\n\n## Methods\n\nWe conducted a qualitative study in a convenience sample of 19 older adults (aged 64+) living at home in the Italian-speaking region of Switzerland during the first COVID-19 lockdown, between April and May 2020. Participants varied in terms of gender, education, age, nationality, and socio-economic status. We conducted semi-structured phone interviews to elicit emotions, expectations and hopes in relation to the present situation, and the post-pandemic world. We inquired about opinions on the enforced public health measures, including those specifically targeting older adults, and on the societal portrayal of older adults.\n\n## Findings\n\nWe found that the epidemic and the public health response to it had both generated a variety of resentments and a high degree of ambivalence at the individual, micro-, meso- and macro-social levels. We also found that labelling older adults as an at-risk sub-population inevitably contributed to public and self-stigmatization.\n\n## Discussion\n\nWe conducted an in-depth qualitative investigation of lived experiences of older adults during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in one of the most gravely hit region in Europe. Our findings on the complexity of unintended, detrimental consequences of outbreak responses on older adults have relevant implications for local adaptions of public health measures, and suggest that public health authorities should engage vulnerable sub-populations and promote bi-directional communication to inform and support communities.\n", "sha256": "962b0fd4a653aad8e016368ad85ce32ddad6a1ec52f593a98e812ef12995329f", "html": "Public health measures used to mitigate the COVID-19 epidemic may have unintended, detrimental consequences particularly on older adults, whose voices and perspectives are often silent or silenced. The aim of this study was to explore the lived experiences of individuals aged 64 or older during the first COVID-19 lockdown.
\n\nWe conducted a qualitative study in a convenience sample of 19 older adults (aged 64+) living at home in the Italian-speaking region of Switzerland during the first COVID-19 lockdown, between April and May 2020. Participants varied in terms of gender, education, age, nationality, and socio-economic status. We conducted semi-structured phone interviews to elicit emotions, expectations and hopes in relation to the present situation, and the post-pandemic world. We inquired about opinions on the enforced public health measures, including those specifically targeting older adults, and on the societal portrayal of older adults.
\n\nWe found that the epidemic and the public health response to it had both generated a variety of resentments and a high degree of ambivalence at the individual, micro-, meso- and macro-social levels. We also found that labelling older adults as an at-risk sub-population inevitably contributed to public and self-stigmatization.
\n\nWe conducted an in-depth qualitative investigation of lived experiences of older adults during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in one of the most gravely hit region in Europe. Our findings on the complexity of unintended, detrimental consequences of outbreak responses on older adults have relevant implications for local adaptions of public health measures, and suggest that public health authorities should engage vulnerable sub-populations and promote bi-directional communication to inform and support communities.
" }, { "id": "V12/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# Clearer Notes: session scope\n\nThe fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop is scheduled for **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Attendance is free, capacity is **12 places**, and registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nThe defined participant task is to bring **one paragraph to revise**.\n\nLocation, time zone, trainer credentials and access arrangements are not specified. Those omissions limit planning and should be resolved before attendance. The one-hour session offers a defined revision task; its title and duration do not establish an outcome.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V12\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Clearer Notes: session scope\n\nThe fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop is scheduled for **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Attendance is free, capacity is **12 places**, and registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nThe defined participant task is to bring **one paragraph to revise**.\n\nLocation, time zone, trainer credentials and access arrangements are not specified. Those omissions limit planning and should be resolved before attendance. The one-hour session offers a defined revision task; its title and duration do not establish an outcome.\n\n", "sha256": "abe3b8b919a16489a20125dfd0110f361bd13ac11f689f329f3f97452a176f51", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 14.4, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.8391304347826087, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 22, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 15.277777777777779, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 72, "prose_sentences": 5, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 11, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "abe3b8b919a16489a20125dfd0110f361bd13ac11f689f329f3f97452a176f51", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "The fictional Clearer Notes workshop is scheduled for 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. Attendance is free, capacity is 12 places, and registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nThe defined participant task is to bring one paragraph to revise.
\n\nLocation, time zone, trainer credentials and access arrangements are not specified. Those omissions limit planning and should be resolved before attendance. The one-hour session offers a defined revision task; its title and duration do not establish an outcome.
" }, { "id": "V12/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# Draftline incident: current evidence\n\n**Reported service state:** new uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read.\n\n**Causal status:** the cause is not yet known.\n\n**Next communication:** an update at **3 p.m.** No repair time, causal explanation or verified workaround follows from these statements.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V12\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Draftline incident: current evidence\n\n**Reported service state:** new uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read.\n\n**Causal status:** the cause is not yet known.\n\n**Next communication:** an update at **3 p.m.** No repair time, causal explanation or verified workaround follows from these statements.\n\n", "sha256": "f12b9b842297c267782fcccae8eeb803153cd8c2858c5ae3ee647fbec1950af3", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 13.333333333333334, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 13, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 22.5, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 40, "prose_sentences": 3, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "f12b9b842297c267782fcccae8eeb803153cd8c2858c5ae3ee647fbec1950af3", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Reported service state: new uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read.
\n\nCausal status: the cause is not yet known.
\n\nNext communication: an update at 3 p.m. No repair time, causal explanation or verified workaround follows from these statements.
" }, { "id": "V12/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# Evaluating a proposed tool-lending service\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\n## Aim and design\n\nThe proposed Marlow Library Tool Shelf would examine the operation of a bounded lending service. The planned six-week pilot would run on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. It requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits and would provide free borrowing. The pilot has not been approved.\n\n## Access and observations\n\nThe service design includes an optional web reservation form alongside telephone and walk-up routes. Retaining these alternatives makes it possible to consider access beyond successful online reservations. It does not establish in advance that access will be equitable or that any particular group will prefer a channel.\n\nProposed records cover completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. These observations address service use, operational effort, and unsuccessful interactions respectively. They should remain analytically distinct rather than be collapsed into a single performance indicator. Borrower names would not be published.\n\n## Interpretation limits\n\nNo measured outcomes or savings are available. The requested budget is an input, not evidence of value produced. The proposed service window and inventory do not themselves establish demand, convenience, or long-term feasibility. Kit contents and loan conditions also remain unresolved.\n\nThe description contains no empirical result and therefore should not adopt the language of a completed evaluation. Findings from a future trial would need to be interpreted within its duration, design and operating conditions.\n\n## Decision required\n\nThe immediate decision is whether to authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. A decision about permanent provision should remain separate. The purpose of the pilot is to generate a basis for later judgment, not to attach a research-like appearance to a conclusion already assumed.", "sourceMarkdown": "# Evaluating a proposed tool-lending service\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\n## Aim and design\n\nThe proposed Marlow Library Tool Shelf would examine the operation of a bounded lending service. The planned six-week pilot would run on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. It requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits and would provide free borrowing. The pilot has not been approved.\n\n## Access and observations\n\nThe service design includes an optional web reservation form alongside telephone and walk-up routes. Retaining these alternatives makes it possible to consider access beyond successful online reservations. It does not establish in advance that access will be equitable or that any particular group will prefer a channel.\n\nProposed records cover completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. These observations address service use, operational effort, and unsuccessful interactions respectively. They should remain analytically distinct rather than be collapsed into a single performance indicator. Borrower names would not be published.\n\n## Interpretation limits\n\nNo measured outcomes or savings are available. The requested budget is an input, not evidence of value produced. The proposed service window and inventory do not themselves establish demand, convenience, or long-term feasibility. Kit contents and loan conditions also remain unresolved.\n\nThe description contains no empirical result and therefore should not adopt the language of a completed evaluation. Findings from a future trial would need to be interpreted within its duration, design and operating conditions.\n\n## Decision required\n\nThe immediate decision is whether to authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. A decision about permanent provision should remain separate. The purpose of the pilot is to generate a basis for later judgment, not to attach a research-like appearance to a conclusion already assumed.\n", "sha256": "88a2657bdc6afcf9d62fdf09ecc13514769077ef83dfce7142a543c3737cf2e2", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nThe proposed Marlow Library Tool Shelf would examine the operation of a bounded lending service. The planned six-week pilot would run on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. It requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits and would provide free borrowing. The pilot has not been approved.
\n\nThe service design includes an optional web reservation form alongside telephone and walk-up routes. Retaining these alternatives makes it possible to consider access beyond successful online reservations. It does not establish in advance that access will be equitable or that any particular group will prefer a channel.
\n\nProposed records cover completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. These observations address service use, operational effort, and unsuccessful interactions respectively. They should remain analytically distinct rather than be collapsed into a single performance indicator. Borrower names would not be published.
\n\nNo measured outcomes or savings are available. The requested budget is an input, not evidence of value produced. The proposed service window and inventory do not themselves establish demand, convenience, or long-term feasibility. Kit contents and loan conditions also remain unresolved.
\n\nThe description contains no empirical result and therefore should not adopt the language of a completed evaluation. Findings from a future trial would need to be interpreted within its duration, design and operating conditions.
\n\nThe immediate decision is whether to authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. A decision about permanent provision should remain separate. The purpose of the pilot is to generate a basis for later judgment, not to attach a research-like appearance to a conclusion already assumed.
" }, { "id": "V12/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "# V12 · Research register · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThe review meeting has been rescheduled to Thursday. The scope remains unchanged, and a revised delivery deadline has not been approved. Meeting attendance and delivery commitments should therefore be confirmed as separate decisions.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V12 · Research register · schedule update\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThe review meeting has been rescheduled to Thursday. The scope remains unchanged, and a revised delivery deadline has not been approved. Meeting attendance and delivery commitments should therefore be confirmed as separate decisions.\n", "sha256": "aa658f084cec5378f8fc368899967d81d4064ca4adb0851d26c59b2806a3152f", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nThe review meeting has been rescheduled to Thursday. The scope remains unchanged, and a revised delivery deadline has not been approved. Meeting attendance and delivery commitments should therefore be confirmed as separate decisions.
" }, { "id": "V12/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "# V12 · Research register · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThe fictional writing session will compare revisions of a participant-supplied paragraph against its stated communicative purpose. This is a practice exercise, not an evaluation with established outcomes. Bring the draft and a question about the intended reader takeaway.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V12 · Research register · writing-session invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.*\n\nThe fictional writing session will compare revisions of a participant-supplied paragraph against its stated communicative purpose. This is a practice exercise, not an evaluation with established outcomes. Bring the draft and a question about the intended reader takeaway.\n", "sha256": "bbf9eed12e85d6a0f119b292dc7deaad5d8c0bed68b775c1fb756b4a4e085482", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · synthetic short task · fictional facts; no actual event or approval implied.
\n\nThe fictional writing session will compare revisions of a participant-supplied paragraph against its stated communicative purpose. This is a practice exercise, not an evaluation with established outcomes. Bring the draft and a question about the intended reader takeaway.
" }, { "id": "V12/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V12 · Research register\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\n## Aim and status\n\nThe Alder Photo Archive has 48 donated photographs to catalog. This note specifies the agreed workflow for the fictional project and its information boundaries. No scanning has been reported complete. No preservation or speed benefit has been measured, so the procedure should not be described as an established success.\n\n## Handling and file procedure\n\nA missing sleeve number or handling that could damage a photograph requires a stop. In either case, ask the archive lead before proceeding. The supplied workflow does not authorize resolving the missing number or handling risk through an assumption.\n\nKeep the originals in their numbered sleeves and match each file to the sleeve number. The agreed workflow specifies scanning at 600 dpi and saving an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. These parameters describe this project’s agreement; they are not presented as a universal preservation standard.\n\n## Source description and correction\n\nUse the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Record corrections in a separate catalog note. This separation retains the distinction between source wording and a subsequent catalog intervention. It does not, by itself, verify either account.\n\nRecord a missing date as “unknown.” Do not infer a year from clothing. The actual dates and donor biographies have not been supplied, and the scanner model is unspecified.\n\n## Distribution and interpretation limits\n\nThe viewing copies remain internal until the rights review is complete. No completion date has been promised. Creating a viewing copy is therefore distinct from clearing it for distribution.\n\nFor volunteers, the immediate task is to follow the agreed procedure, preserve the specified information distinctions, and apply the stopping rule. Any later account of progress or benefit would require evidence beyond the workflow described here.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V12 · Research register\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\n## Aim and status\n\nThe Alder Photo Archive has 48 donated photographs to catalog. This note specifies the agreed workflow for the fictional project and its information boundaries. No scanning has been reported complete. No preservation or speed benefit has been measured, so the procedure should not be described as an established success.\n\n## Handling and file procedure\n\nA missing sleeve number or handling that could damage a photograph requires a stop. In either case, ask the archive lead before proceeding. The supplied workflow does not authorize resolving the missing number or handling risk through an assumption.\n\nKeep the originals in their numbered sleeves and match each file to the sleeve number. The agreed workflow specifies scanning at 600 dpi and saving an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. These parameters describe this project’s agreement; they are not presented as a universal preservation standard.\n\n## Source description and correction\n\nUse the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Record corrections in a separate catalog note. This separation retains the distinction between source wording and a subsequent catalog intervention. It does not, by itself, verify either account.\n\nRecord a missing date as “unknown.” Do not infer a year from clothing. The actual dates and donor biographies have not been supplied, and the scanner model is unspecified.\n\n## Distribution and interpretation limits\n\nThe viewing copies remain internal until the rights review is complete. No completion date has been promised. Creating a viewing copy is therefore distinct from clearing it for distribution.\n\nFor volunteers, the immediate task is to follow the agreed procedure, preserve the specified information distinctions, and apply the stopping rule. Any later account of progress or benefit would require evidence beyond the workflow described here.\n", "sha256": "402163453fb33fa4c61e9affd6b2bf3ca7dce37302faf421335d32306417e983", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.
\n\nThe Alder Photo Archive has 48 donated photographs to catalog. This note specifies the agreed workflow for the fictional project and its information boundaries. No scanning has been reported complete. No preservation or speed benefit has been measured, so the procedure should not be described as an established success.
\n\nA missing sleeve number or handling that could damage a photograph requires a stop. In either case, ask the archive lead before proceeding. The supplied workflow does not authorize resolving the missing number or handling risk through an assumption.
\n\nKeep the originals in their numbered sleeves and match each file to the sleeve number. The agreed workflow specifies scanning at 600 dpi and saving an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. These parameters describe this project’s agreement; they are not presented as a universal preservation standard.
\n\nUse the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Record corrections in a separate catalog note. This separation retains the distinction between source wording and a subsequent catalog intervention. It does not, by itself, verify either account.
\n\nRecord a missing date as “unknown.” Do not infer a year from clothing. The actual dates and donor biographies have not been supplied, and the scanner model is unspecified.
\n\nThe viewing copies remain internal until the rights review is complete. No completion date has been promised. Creating a viewing copy is therefore distinct from clearing it for distribution.
\n\nFor volunteers, the immediate task is to follow the agreed procedure, preserve the specified information distinctions, and apply the stopping rule. Any later account of progress or benefit would require evidence beyond the workflow described here.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V12", "sample_id": "V12/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V12/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "423093da0b0ead889a7ab54f59dc9e34bd1a30f729fd2927c9bb36433ab84ccd", "trimmed_body_sha256": "971b285875a35aafe084bd44a46717fa2d28c2667c5ad01029e4927a9bf3cb73", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "## Defined operation", "start": 408, "end": 428, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public prose and ordinary headings fit neutral professional3, without ceremonial or strongly institutional conventions for5." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "## Defined operation", "start": 408, "end": 428, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "No intended comic device appears across the whole piece. The quote illustrates the prevailing serious stance; a quote alone cannot prove absence." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Draftline’s **Version history** supports restoration of retained document versions, under a defined permission rule and retention period.", "start": 62, "end": 199, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Matter-of-fact presentation remains restrained; positive capability statements do not themselves establish enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Draftline’s **Version history** supports restoration of retained document versions, under a defined permission rule and retention period.", "start": 62, "end": 199, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The relationship is impersonal and task-only; useful information does not itself imply relational care." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "This restriction concerns prior deletion and is separate from the thirty-day version-retention rule.", "start": 736, "end": 836, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace role, retention and restoration require a little product familiarity, but consequences are explained; below several unexplained domain concepts3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "This restriction concerns prior deletion and is separate from the thirty-day version-retention rule.", "start": 736, "end": 836, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Selected distinctions explain the rules, but this shortened piece mostly states conditions rather than building an extended worked model." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session", "title": "Analyse a research session", "id": "S46" }, { "url": "https://aclanthology.org/2021.acl-long.185/", "title": "Style is NOT a single variable: Case Studies for Cross-Stylistic Language Understanding", "id": "S12" } ], "researchLimits": "Service-research process informs evidence organization, not all scholarly genres or a scientific register classifier.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v12-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v12-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V12/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V12/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V12/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V12.svg", "bundleSha256": "7c4088c6e20565e74db3fc36338cc5856dd36a504ad3ee068a26d86310941dbd", "bundleBytes": 90140 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice when readers need to distinguish an aim, a method, an observation, and the limits of an inference. It fits research summaries, evaluation plans, methods notes, and analytical reports. Its purpose is traceable reasoning, not an appearance of scholarship. A volunteer instruction can use this register if the actions remain visible. Formal submission requirements, discipline-specific terminology, and citation styles must come from the actual assignment rather than from this voice card.
\n\nThe stable voice makes agency, design, and evidential status explicit. Its stance is analytical and accountable, with greater distance than a colleague’s note but no requirement for impersonal passives. Concern, caution, or confidence can modify tone in proportion to support. A researcher persona selects methodological questions; it does not create credentials, institutional affiliation, ethics approval, or data access. Separate genre conventions from voice and keep citations as evidence requirements rather than scholarly decoration.
\n\nMove from aim and status to design or agreed procedure, then observations, interpretation limits, and the decision or action required. Give each paragraph one analytical relation to establish. Use headings when the reader may need to revisit methods independently of interpretation. Transitions such as “These records would describe” and “The supplied information does not establish” state the relation directly. End with what can be concluded or decided at this stage, avoiding a broad importance claim unsupported by the evidence.
\n\nUse moderate-length sentences with explicit subjects and carefully placed conditions. A longer sentence can distinguish several related measures, provided their parallel structure remains clear. Use colons for definitions and semicolons for genuinely related propositions; avoid stacked nominalizations and noun strings. Repeat a technical term when consistency matters. Parentheses suit a necessary definition or citation, not a buried limitation. A short status sentence can interrupt a dense paragraph and restore pace. Digressions require a methodological purpose.
\n\nPrefer precise verbs: describes, records, supports, estimates, proposes. “Suggests” and “demonstrates” imply different evidential strength and cannot be exchanged for variety. Detail should identify a method, boundary, or source, rather than display expertise. Humor, sensory imagery, and emotional intensity are usually low. Technical vocabulary is appropriate when needed and explained for the audience. Avoid claiming that a bounded exercise is representative, effective, or generalizable unless the supplied design and evidence support that conclusion.
\n\nUse scholarly headings that truthfully describe content. A proposed-method section must not become “Results” because the template expects one. Tables can compare measures or limitations when parallel structure helps. Plain text retains headings and citations in a readable conventional form. Never invent references, identifiers, statistics, or bibliographic details. Code blocks belong only to literal data or code. Emphasis should help navigation without treating bold statements as stronger evidence.
\n\nProtect quotations, citations, formulas, units, technical terms, dates, and negations. Preserve distinctions among no result, no reported result, and a measured null result. V10 can strengthen procedural precision; V05 can expose an inference gap without adding suspicion. Avoid combining this register with undocumented eyewitness narration or a comic result claim. If the source already makes its agency and limitations clear, retain it. Editing scholarly prose does not independently verify the study, validate its method, or satisfy an ethics review.
\n\nInventory aims, supplied methods, available observations, and unknowns before drafting. Assign each statement to one of those roles. Write the interpretation only after the available evidence is clear. Check that conditional and future language remain attached to proposed work. Verify actual citations when supplied, and mark unresolved support rather than fabricating it. Read headings alone for false result claims, then compare the conclusion with the evidence paragraph. A qualified conclusion still needs a specific basis.
\n\nFaulty prose: “The archive’s 600 dpi protocol preserves the collection efficiently, confirming the success of digitization.” It turns an agreed procedure into unmeasured preservation and speed findings. Repair: “The agreed procedure specifies 600 dpi scans, an unchanged TIFF master, and a JPEG viewing copy. No scanning has been reported complete, and no preservation or speed benefit has been measured.” Method and result are now distinct, with the literal parameters preserved and no invented citation added.
\n\nRead the full seed demonstration, schedule update, and writing-session invitation as different task sizes. The new-topic application tests the mechanism on archive instruction facts. All are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations; none establishes audience benefit or Kyle’s personal voice. The source card supplies the starting mechanism. The seed review records retained language and exact repairs. Compare rhetorical choices while holding facts fixed; a different topic is not evidence of a better voice.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "R01", "title": "Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK", "author": "Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke", "year": "2021", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258344", "relationship": "Methods, analysis, findings and limitations are distinguishable.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Qualitative research article containing transcribed speech", "publicationDate": "2021-10-13" }, { "id": "R02", "title": "Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study", "author": "Ilaria Falvo; Maria Caiata Zufferey; Emiliano Albanese; Marta Fadda", "year": "2021", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252101", "relationship": "The article reports sampling, translation and variation.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Qualitative research article containing translated testimony", "publicationDate": "2021-06-23" }, { "id": "R01-abstract", "title": "Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK — Abstract", "author": "Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke", "year": "2021", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258344", "relationship": "Connects the research question, method and findings in a compact summary.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Qualitative research abstract", "publicationDate": "2021-10-13" }, { "id": "R02-abstract", "title": "Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study — Abstract", "author": "Ilaria Falvo; Maria Caiata Zufferey; Emiliano Albanese; Marta Fadda", "year": "2021", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252101", "relationship": "Connects the research question, method and findings in a compact summary.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Qualitative research abstract", "publicationDate": "2021-06-23" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Research register · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V12.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Analyse a research session", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session", "relationship": "Government practitioner guidance" }, { "title": "Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research — registry record", "url": "https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/srqr/", "relationship": "Reporting-guideline registry" }, { "title": "Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Seventh Edition", "url": "https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/publication-manual-7th-edition-spiral", "relationship": "Governing organization / edition record" }, { "title": "The Topic Confusion Task: A Novel Scenario for Authorship Attribution", "url": "https://aclanthology.org/2021.findings-emnlp.359/", "relationship": "Primary research paper record and abstract" }, { "title": "ISO 24495-3:2026 — Plain language, Part 3: Science writing", "url": "https://www.iso.org/standard/86938.html", "relationship": "Formal standards organization" } ], "formats": [ { "id": "APA7", "name": "APA 7", "title": "APA 7 · Format guide", "path": "formats/APA7.md", "html": "Select this format only when the assignment requests APA, seventh edition. It is separate from the Research register voice and from MLA. The American Psychological Association owns APA Style; this is the Writing Library’s implementation summary, with links to the governing material and Purdue OWL’s teaching guidance.
\n\nConfirm whether the paper is a student assignment or a professional submission, and read the instructor’s or publisher’s requirements. Keep departures from ordinary APA conventions explicit.
\n\nUse double spacing and one-inch margins on US Letter pages. Choose a consistent, legible font; APA permits several font choices. Put the page number at the upper right. Professional papers also use a shortened title in the header; student papers ordinarily do not.
\n\nUse a separate title page. For a student paper, include the title, writer, affiliation, course, instructor and due date. Professional submissions have different author-note requirements. Student papers do not automatically need an abstract. When required, the abstract starts on a new page with a centered, bold heading and an unindented paragraph. Follow the venue’s abstract-length requirement.
\n\nSource: Purdue OWL — APA general format.
\n\nOrdinary citations use author and year. Add a precise locator for direct quotations. Use a meaningful section or paragraph locator when the source has no pages; do not invent page numbers. A paraphrase normally needs author and year, with a locator when useful. A quotation of 40 words or more is a separately indented block without quotation marks.
\n\nFictional syntax example: Chen (2020) describes the limitation (p. 7). The example does not establish that such a source exists.
Source: Purdue OWL — APA in-text citations.
\n\nStart References on a new page. Alphabetize entries and use a hanging indent. Check the correct pattern for each source type and preserve the actual author, date, title and retrieval information. Cross-check ordinary recoverable citations against their entries.
\n\nSource: Purdue OWL — reference-list rules.
\n\nFirst draft with the selected voice and actual evidence. Then apply APA conventions as a separate pass. Do not force passive voice, invent citations, or blend MLA parenthetical forms into APA. Inspect the rendered document before claiming layout conformance; Markdown alone cannot prove margins or pagination.
\n\nThis summary does not reproduce the complete manual or cover every source type, statistical notation, table, figure or exception. Resolve those against APA’s official manual and resources. Public guidance checked 6 October 2026.
" }, { "id": "MLA9", "name": "MLA 9", "title": "MLA 9 · Format guide", "path": "formats/MLA9.md", "html": "Select this format only when the assignment requests MLA, ninth edition. It is separate from APA and from any particular prose voice. The Modern Language Association owns MLA style. This Writing Library summary connects its public citation guidance with basic manuscript guidance from Purdue OWL.
\n\nAn in-text citation identifies the corresponding Works Cited entry, usually by author or title. Add an available page, line or time locator when referring to a particular passage. If the author is already named in the sentence, do not repeat that name in parentheses. Do not invent a page number for unpaginated material.
\n\nFictional syntax example: Chen describes the limitation (7). This demonstrates a pattern, not a real source. Ordinary MLA citations do not import APA’s author–date–page-label structure.
Source: MLA — in-text citations.
\n\nConstruct each entry from the applicable core elements: author, source title, container, contributors, version, number, publisher, date and location. Include only elements that actually exist for the source. Containers can be nested, such as an article within a journal accessed through a database. Check the source-type example when the structure is unusual.
\n\nSources: MLA — Works Cited quick guide and citations by format.
\n\nFollow the assignment’s requirements. The common manuscript arrangement uses double spacing, one-inch margins and a legible font. The upper-left first-page heading identifies the writer, instructor, course and date, followed by a centered title. A separate title page is not ordinarily required unless requested. A header normally gives the surname and page number at the upper right. Indent the start of ordinary paragraphs by half an inch.
\n\nSource: Purdue OWL — MLA general format. That page also discusses older style-manual guidance; its suggested heading system is not treated here as a universal MLA 9 requirement.
\n\nDraft the selected rhetorical style using real evidence, then format and check citations separately. First person, argument structure and tone come from the task, not an invented universal “MLA voice.” Inspect the rendered document before claiming layout conformance.
\n\nComplex quotations, verse, plays, translations, legal works and unusual publication layouts need their specific guidance. This summary does not replace the complete MLA Handbook, ninth edition. Public guidance checked 6 October 2026.
" } ], "html": "A research-facing account that separates the question, method, observations, inference, and limits so readers can inspect how claims were produced.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nThe study’s actual status, method and evidence available, scope of inference, and missing information. Proposed studies are allowed when unmistakably labeled.
\n\nAim/status → method → observation or planned observation → inference → limitation → bounded conclusion.
\n\nIdentify whether the account describes proposed, ongoing, or completed research. Check: A reviewer must not mistake a method plan for completed data collection.
Separate what was recorded from the inference drawn. Check: Annotate observations and interpretations as different claim classes.
Bound the conclusion by the actual method and sample. Check: Check that the conclusion does not silently generalize beyond the evidence.
Use this voice when readers need to distinguish an aim, a method, an observation, and the limits of an inference. It fits research summaries, evaluation plans, methods notes, and analytical reports. Its purpose is traceable reasoning, not an appearance of scholarship. A volunteer instruction can use this register if the actions remain visible. Formal submission requirements, discipline-specific terminology, and citation styles must come from the actual assignment rather than from this voice card.
\n\nThe stable voice makes agency, design, and evidential status explicit. Its stance is analytical and accountable, with greater distance than a colleague’s note but no requirement for impersonal passives. Concern, caution, or confidence can modify tone in proportion to support. A researcher persona selects methodological questions; it does not create credentials, institutional affiliation, ethics approval, or data access. Separate genre conventions from voice and keep citations as evidence requirements rather than scholarly decoration.
\n\nMove from aim and status to design or agreed procedure, then observations, interpretation limits, and the decision or action required. Give each paragraph one analytical relation to establish. Use headings when the reader may need to revisit methods independently of interpretation. Transitions such as “These records would describe” and “The supplied information does not establish” state the relation directly. End with what can be concluded or decided at this stage, avoiding a broad importance claim unsupported by the evidence.
\n\nUse moderate-length sentences with explicit subjects and carefully placed conditions. A longer sentence can distinguish several related measures, provided their parallel structure remains clear. Use colons for definitions and semicolons for genuinely related propositions; avoid stacked nominalizations and noun strings. Repeat a technical term when consistency matters. Parentheses suit a necessary definition or citation, not a buried limitation. A short status sentence can interrupt a dense paragraph and restore pace. Digressions require a methodological purpose.
\n\nPrefer precise verbs: describes, records, supports, estimates, proposes. “Suggests” and “demonstrates” imply different evidential strength and cannot be exchanged for variety. Detail should identify a method, boundary, or source, rather than display expertise. Humor, sensory imagery, and emotional intensity are usually low. Technical vocabulary is appropriate when needed and explained for the audience. Avoid claiming that a bounded exercise is representative, effective, or generalizable unless the supplied design and evidence support that conclusion.
\n\nUse scholarly headings that truthfully describe content. A proposed-method section must not become “Results” because the template expects one. Tables can compare measures or limitations when parallel structure helps. Plain text retains headings and citations in a readable conventional form. Never invent references, identifiers, statistics, or bibliographic details. Code blocks belong only to literal data or code. Emphasis should help navigation without treating bold statements as stronger evidence.
\n\nProtect quotations, citations, formulas, units, technical terms, dates, and negations. Preserve distinctions among no result, no reported result, and a measured null result. V10 can strengthen procedural precision; V05 can expose an inference gap without adding suspicion. Avoid combining this register with undocumented eyewitness narration or a comic result claim. If the source already makes its agency and limitations clear, retain it. Editing scholarly prose does not independently verify the study, validate its method, or satisfy an ethics review.
\n\nInventory aims, supplied methods, available observations, and unknowns before drafting. Assign each statement to one of those roles. Write the interpretation only after the available evidence is clear. Check that conditional and future language remain attached to proposed work. Verify actual citations when supplied, and mark unresolved support rather than fabricating it. Read headings alone for false result claims, then compare the conclusion with the evidence paragraph. A qualified conclusion still needs a specific basis.
\n\nFaulty prose: “The archive’s 600 dpi protocol preserves the collection efficiently, confirming the success of digitization.” It turns an agreed procedure into unmeasured preservation and speed findings. Repair: “The agreed procedure specifies 600 dpi scans, an unchanged TIFF master, and a JPEG viewing copy. No scanning has been reported complete, and no preservation or speed benefit has been measured.” Method and result are now distinct, with the literal parameters preserved and no invented citation added.
\n\nFirst person and active voice are compatible. Not every research note needs every section of a journal article.
\n\nA proposed-method note can pass without results. A completed-results template cannot be satisfied by inventing them.
\n\nUse scholarly tone to launder unsupported findings. Check: A citation-like surface cannot replace a traceable source.
Require impersonal or passive language as proof of scientific quality. Check: Evaluate claim traceability rather than pronoun counts.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Synthetic study fixture: four volunteers attempted an export task; one asked whether “accepted” meant ready. No timing or comparison data were collected. The quotation is invented solely for this fixture.
\n\nSynthetic study report: Four volunteers attempted the export task. One asked whether “accepted” meant the file was ready. This suggests a terminology question worth investigating, not its prevalence. Without timing or comparison data, the exercise does not establish a performance improvement.
\n\nSynthetic study report: Four volunteers attempted the export task, and one asked whether “accepted” meant ready. Terminology is an interesting issue. No timing or comparison data were collected. Research is important for good design.
\n\nWhy it differs: The near-miss preserves observations but never makes the observation-to-inference relation inspectable or supplies a bounded conclusion.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nResearch and reporting sources support inspectability. SRQR is a registry lead only; this dossier is not SRQR or APA certification.
\n\nAnalyse a research session — Government practitioner guidance.
Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research — registry record — Reporting-guideline registry.
Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Seventh Edition — Governing organization / edition record.
The Topic Confusion Task: A Novel Scenario for Authorship Attribution — Primary research paper record and abstract.
ISO 24495-3:2026 — Plain language, Part 3: Science writing — Formal standards organization.
1. The word “restore.” It sounds like a return, but the operation creates something new: in Draftline, restoring makes a new current version. Stored history is not deleted.
\n\n2. The entry point. The interface action is named Version history. The feature becomes available on 20 October 2026, on every existing plan at no additional charge.
\n\n3. Who can act. Only workspace editors can restore. A reader and an editor may be looking at the same document while having different permissions. The role requirement cannot be inferred from the act of reading.
\n\n4. The length of the record. Versions are retained for 30 days. That is a concrete period, not a metaphor for keeping everything indefinitely.
\n\n5. A different absence. The feature cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled. A deleted file and an earlier stored version are different recovery tasks; this feature supports the retained-version task.
\n\n6. The connection. Permission, retention and restoration describe different parts of one decision. Before restoring, identify the version you need, check your role and the retention window, and distinguish that task from recovery of a file deleted before enablement.
" }, { "key": "human-l20", "label": "Marcus Aurelius; English translation by Meric Casaubon, editorially revised · Meditations, Book IV", "path": "excerpts/L20.md", "source": { "title": "Meditations, Book IV", "author": "Marcus Aurelius; English translation by Meric Casaubon, editorially revised", "publicationDate": "2001-06-01", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2680/pg2680-images.html", "locator": "Book IV, entries II and opening of III, two adjacent numbered entries.", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2680", "relationship": "Unequal numbered entries and self-address; not a task notebook with a final operational choice.", "edition": "Revised Casaubon English translation; digital release 2001-06-01. Exact print impression unestablished.", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "II. Let nothing be done rashly, and at random, but all things according to the most exact and perfect rules of art.\n\nIII. They seek for themselves private retiring places, as country villages, the sea-shore, mountains; yea thou thyself art wont to long much after such places. But all this thou must know proceeds from simplicity in the highest degree. At what time soever thou wilt, it is in thy power to retire into thyself, and to be at rest, and free from all businesses.\n", "id": "V13/human-l20", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "II. Let nothing be done rashly, and at random, but all things according to the most exact and perfect rules of art.\n\nIII. They seek for themselves private retiring places, as country villages, the sea-shore, mountains; yea thou thyself art wont to long much after such places. But all this thou must know proceeds from simplicity in the highest degree. At what time soever thou wilt, it is in thy power to retire into thyself, and to be at rest, and free from all businesses.\n", "sha256": "a45d8a7085ef5f443e0b3c6167f5e6d2a4624aa20fcf5d24c33c247c6ec3282b", "html": "II. Let nothing be done rashly, and at random, but all things according to the most exact and perfect rules of art.
\n\nIII. They seek for themselves private retiring places, as country villages, the sea-shore, mountains; yea thou thyself art wont to long much after such places. But all this thou must know proceeds from simplicity in the highest degree. At what time soever thou wilt, it is in thy power to retire into thyself, and to be at rest, and free from all businesses.
" }, { "key": "human-l09", "label": "Laurence Sterne · The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, Volume I", "path": "excerpts/L09.md", "source": { "title": "The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, Volume I", "author": "Laurence Sterne", "publicationDate": "1759", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1079", "locator": "Volume I, chapter XIV, opening paragraph", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1079", "relationship": "Visible reflection interrupts the narration; not the guide’s explicit numbered evidence labels.", "edition": "Volume I first published 1759; current Gutenberg transcription, exact print impression not established", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "UPON looking into my mother’s marriage settlement, in order to satisfy myself and reader in a point necessary to be cleared up, before we could proceed any farther in this history;—I had the good fortune to pop upon the very thing I wanted before I had read a day and a half straight forwards,—it might have taken me up a month;—which shews plainly, that when a man sits down to write a history,—tho’ it be but the history of Jack Hickathrift or Tom Thumb, he knows no more than his heels what lets and confounded hindrances he is to meet with in his way,—or what a dance he may be led, by one excursion or another, before all is over.\n", "id": "V13/human-l09", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "UPON looking into my mother’s marriage settlement, in order to satisfy myself and reader in a point necessary to be cleared up, before we could proceed any farther in this history;—I had the good fortune to pop upon the very thing I wanted before I had read a day and a half straight forwards,—it might have taken me up a month;—which shews plainly, that when a man sits down to write a history,—tho’ it be but the history of Jack Hickathrift or Tom Thumb, he knows no more than his heels what lets and confounded hindrances he is to meet with in his way,—or what a dance he may be led, by one excursion or another, before all is over.\n", "sha256": "6d3b0b72b3c84d42f376cbf824de1e2af86a9a4e877eb9bca55c8d9adefe490f", "html": "UPON looking into my mother’s marriage settlement, in order to satisfy myself and reader in a point necessary to be cleared up, before we could proceed any farther in this history;—I had the good fortune to pop upon the very thing I wanted before I had read a day and a half straight forwards,—it might have taken me up a month;—which shews plainly, that when a man sits down to write a history,—tho’ it be but the history of Jack Hickathrift or Tom Thumb, he knows no more than his heels what lets and confounded hindrances he is to meet with in his way,—or what a dance he may be led, by one excursion or another, before all is over.
" }, { "id": "V13/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# Clearer Notes · things to keep together\n\n**Bring:** One paragraph to revise.\n\n**Why that size matters:** It gives the fictional workshop a concrete task. It does not establish how much the paragraph will improve.\n\n**Calendar:** **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**\n\n**Terms:** Free; **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\n**Still to check:** Location, time zone and access arrangements have not been supplied. Check those arrangements before planning your attendance.\n\n**Decision:** Does a workshop devoted to a paragraph fit the work you want to do?", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V13\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Clearer Notes · things to keep together\n\n**Bring:** One paragraph to revise.\n\n**Why that size matters:** It gives the fictional workshop a concrete task. It does not establish how much the paragraph will improve.\n\n**Calendar:** **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**\n\n**Terms:** Free; **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\n**Still to check:** Location, time zone and access arrangements have not been supplied. Check those arrangements before planning your attendance.\n\n**Decision:** Does a workshop devoted to a paragraph fit the work you want to do?\n\n", "sha256": "cf19e8336bc155c4dc3c84497b24da17c3b7974b86c58bccd1728ea1c3c3ed7a", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 8.11111111111111, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.8624999999999998, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 27.397260273972602, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 11.11111111111111, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 11, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 21.91780821917808, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 73, "prose_sentences": 9, "prose_paragraphs": 6, "reader_address_events": 2, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 1, "emphasized_word_union": 16, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "cf19e8336bc155c4dc3c84497b24da17c3b7974b86c58bccd1728ea1c3c3ed7a", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Bring: One paragraph to revise.
\n\nWhy that size matters: It gives the fictional workshop a concrete task. It does not establish how much the paragraph will improve.
\n\nCalendar: 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.
\n\nTerms: Free; 12 places. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nStill to check: Location, time zone and access arrangements have not been supplied. Check those arrangements before planning your attendance.
\n\nDecision: Does a workshop devoted to a paragraph fit the work you want to do?
" }, { "id": "V13/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# Draftline · current notes\n\n**Unavailable:** New uploads.\n\n**Still available:** Reading existing documents.\n\n**Unknown:** The cause.\n\n**Next update:** **3 p.m.**\n\nThe update time does not state when uploads will return.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V13\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Draftline · current notes\n\n**Unavailable:** New uploads.\n\n**Still available:** Reading existing documents.\n\n**Unknown:** The cause.\n\n**Next update:** **3 p.m.**\n\nThe update time does not state when uploads will return.\n\n", "sha256": "1b46ca02c6e37b35ec9fcb3266d6ea67f394da6e9fe67985aa483008e33ae3f7", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 5, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 4, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 32, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 25, "prose_sentences": 5, "prose_paragraphs": 5, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 8, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "1b46ca02c6e37b35ec9fcb3266d6ea67f394da6e9fe67985aa483008e33ae3f7", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Unavailable: New uploads.
\n\nStill available: Reading existing documents.
\n\nUnknown: The cause.
\n\nNext update: 3 p.m.
\n\nThe update time does not state when uploads will return.
" }, { "id": "V13/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# Notes toward a shelf\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\n**1. A word to keep small.**\nPilot. The Marlow Library Tool Shelf is proposed, not approved. A six-week trial is a different promise from a permanent service.\n\n**2. The numbers on the page.**\n24 tool kits. $2,400 requested. Borrowing free. These are proposed inputs and terms. They tell us nothing yet about savings or outcomes. Numbers can look more settled than the decision that contains them.\n\n**3. The calendar.**\nSaturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, 7 November–12 December 2026. A narrow window. Whether it is a useful window remains a question; the typography of a timetable cannot answer it.\n\n**4. Three routes, not one.**\nAn optional web reservation form. Telephone access. Walk-up access. The first route may be convenient without deserving to become compulsory. The person who never reaches the form is still relevant to the service.\n\n**5. What belongs in the record.**\nCompleted loans; staff time; failed borrowing attempts. Keep the categories distinct. An unsuccessful attempt can teach us something a checkout total cannot. Borrower names do *not* belong in the public report.\n\n**6. What does not belong in the story yet.**\nA claim that the service worked. A claim that it saved money. A confident description of kit contents or loan conditions that no one has decided. Leave the missing information visible.\n\n**7. Back to the desk.**\nThe decision is whether to authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. Notes can keep a question open, but they should not obscure who needs to answer it. Before the service can produce a record, the proposal needs a decision.", "sourceMarkdown": "# Notes toward a shelf\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\n**1. A word to keep small.**\nPilot. The Marlow Library Tool Shelf is proposed, not approved. A six-week trial is a different promise from a permanent service.\n\n**2. The numbers on the page.**\n24 tool kits. $2,400 requested. Borrowing free. These are proposed inputs and terms. They tell us nothing yet about savings or outcomes. Numbers can look more settled than the decision that contains them.\n\n**3. The calendar.**\nSaturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, 7 November–12 December 2026. A narrow window. Whether it is a useful window remains a question; the typography of a timetable cannot answer it.\n\n**4. Three routes, not one.**\nAn optional web reservation form. Telephone access. Walk-up access. The first route may be convenient without deserving to become compulsory. The person who never reaches the form is still relevant to the service.\n\n**5. What belongs in the record.**\nCompleted loans; staff time; failed borrowing attempts. Keep the categories distinct. An unsuccessful attempt can teach us something a checkout total cannot. Borrower names do *not* belong in the public report.\n\n**6. What does not belong in the story yet.**\nA claim that the service worked. A claim that it saved money. A confident description of kit contents or loan conditions that no one has decided. Leave the missing information visible.\n\n**7. Back to the desk.**\nThe decision is whether to authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. Notes can keep a question open, but they should not obscure who needs to answer it. Before the service can produce a record, the proposal needs a decision.\n", "sha256": "6adb001cbfb987a0d506f292010c5ede8192cd9caca9b40987940675fafe452b", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.
\n\n1. A word to keep small.\nPilot. The Marlow Library Tool Shelf is proposed, not approved. A six-week trial is a different promise from a permanent service.
\n\n2. The numbers on the page.\n24 tool kits. $2,400 requested. Borrowing free. These are proposed inputs and terms. They tell us nothing yet about savings or outcomes. Numbers can look more settled than the decision that contains them.
\n\n3. The calendar.\nSaturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, 7 November–12 December 2026. A narrow window. Whether it is a useful window remains a question; the typography of a timetable cannot answer it.
\n\n4. Three routes, not one.\nAn optional web reservation form. Telephone access. Walk-up access. The first route may be convenient without deserving to become compulsory. The person who never reaches the form is still relevant to the service.
\n\n5. What belongs in the record.\nCompleted loans; staff time; failed borrowing attempts. Keep the categories distinct. An unsuccessful attempt can teach us something a checkout total cannot. Borrower names do not belong in the public report.
\n\n6. What does not belong in the story yet.\nA claim that the service worked. A claim that it saved money. A confident description of kit contents or loan conditions that no one has decided. Leave the missing information visible.
\n\n7. Back to the desk.\nThe decision is whether to authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. Notes can keep a question open, but they should not obscure who needs to answer it. Before the service can produce a record, the proposal needs a decision.
" }, { "id": "V13/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\nCalendar: review moved to Thursday.\n\nScope: unchanged.\n\nDelivery date: no revised deadline approved.\n\nA small distinction worth keeping: agreeing to a meeting time is not agreeing to a delivery commitment. Please confirm the former; leave the latter open until it is decided.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\nCalendar: review moved to Thursday.\n\nScope: unchanged.\n\nDelivery date: no revised deadline approved.\n\nA small distinction worth keeping: agreeing to a meeting time is not agreeing to a delivery commitment. Please confirm the former; leave the latter open until it is decided.\n", "sha256": "1a95be905e4a336ea060e82ffec7b582ebe83c77c910886082028d10055d96a8", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.
\n\nCalendar: review moved to Thursday.
\n\nScope: unchanged.
\n\nDelivery date: no revised deadline approved.
\n\nA small distinction worth keeping: agreeing to a meeting time is not agreeing to a delivery commitment. Please confirm the former; leave the latter open until it is decided.
" }, { "id": "V13/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\nBring: a paragraph.\n\nAlso bring: a question you want to explore through revision.\n\nNot required: a polished draft or a confident explanation.\n\nThis fictional writing session offers a place to revise. It does not promise what the revised paragraph will achieve.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\nBring: a paragraph.\n\nAlso bring: a question you want to explore through revision.\n\nNot required: a polished draft or a confident explanation.\n\nThis fictional writing session offers a place to revise. It does not promise what the revised paragraph will achieve.\n", "sha256": "a9882d49a21190b95e72b93cf09733ee6bf949b8e175d5bca0127ea3c709dfc9", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.
\n\nBring: a paragraph.
\n\nAlso bring: a question you want to explore through revision.
\n\nNot required: a polished draft or a confident explanation.
\n\nThis fictional writing session offers a place to revise. It does not promise what the revised paragraph will achieve.
" }, { "id": "V13/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V13 · Marginal notebook\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\n**1. Two versions of a sentence are still two drafts.**\nLinden Museum proposes a single label-comparison session. It has not been approved. Six replica objects would each have two draft labels. The comparison begins with alternatives; it does not begin with a winner.\n\n**2. The proposed window.**\n16 March 2027, 2–4 p.m. A date can make a plan look settled. Here it identifies the session the team is being asked to consider, not an event visitors can already count on attending.\n\n**3. The price of the question.**\n$900 requested. Participation would be free. The request tells us the proposed cost; it does not tell us how many people would come. Attendance is unknown, and staffing remains unresolved.\n\n**4. Which way into the words?**\nVisitors could read ordinary or large-print copies. An optional audio reading would use the same transcript. Keep those routes visible together. The audio is another way to encounter the wording, not a new label smuggled into the comparison.\n\n**5. What to carry out of the room.**\nRecord which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Do not record visitor names. A preference and a misunderstanding are different observations; the plan for analyzing choices is still unknown.\n\n**6. The empty entry.**\nResults: none. Demonstrated learning benefit: none. Leave that space empty rather than filling it with the outcome the proposal hopes to make possible.\n\n**7. Back to the decision.**\nThe team must authorize the session or request revisions. My recommendation is to request the staffing and analysis details before deciding on authorization. That is a proposed next step, not a report that the team has already taken it.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V13 · Marginal notebook\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\n**1. Two versions of a sentence are still two drafts.**\nLinden Museum proposes a single label-comparison session. It has not been approved. Six replica objects would each have two draft labels. The comparison begins with alternatives; it does not begin with a winner.\n\n**2. The proposed window.**\n16 March 2027, 2–4 p.m. A date can make a plan look settled. Here it identifies the session the team is being asked to consider, not an event visitors can already count on attending.\n\n**3. The price of the question.**\n$900 requested. Participation would be free. The request tells us the proposed cost; it does not tell us how many people would come. Attendance is unknown, and staffing remains unresolved.\n\n**4. Which way into the words?**\nVisitors could read ordinary or large-print copies. An optional audio reading would use the same transcript. Keep those routes visible together. The audio is another way to encounter the wording, not a new label smuggled into the comparison.\n\n**5. What to carry out of the room.**\nRecord which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Do not record visitor names. A preference and a misunderstanding are different observations; the plan for analyzing choices is still unknown.\n\n**6. The empty entry.**\nResults: none. Demonstrated learning benefit: none. Leave that space empty rather than filling it with the outcome the proposal hopes to make possible.\n\n**7. Back to the decision.**\nThe team must authorize the session or request revisions. My recommendation is to request the staffing and analysis details before deciding on authorization. That is a proposed next step, not a report that the team has already taken it.\n", "sha256": "663e712a5c5f1b289e88c0ccc6ccf49e013035dd635382194d1b601cbe0de452", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.
\n\n1. Two versions of a sentence are still two drafts.\nLinden Museum proposes a single label-comparison session. It has not been approved. Six replica objects would each have two draft labels. The comparison begins with alternatives; it does not begin with a winner.
\n\n2. The proposed window.\n16 March 2027, 2–4 p.m. A date can make a plan look settled. Here it identifies the session the team is being asked to consider, not an event visitors can already count on attending.
\n\n3. The price of the question.\n$900 requested. Participation would be free. The request tells us the proposed cost; it does not tell us how many people would come. Attendance is unknown, and staffing remains unresolved.
\n\n4. Which way into the words?\nVisitors could read ordinary or large-print copies. An optional audio reading would use the same transcript. Keep those routes visible together. The audio is another way to encounter the wording, not a new label smuggled into the comparison.
\n\n5. What to carry out of the room.\nRecord which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Do not record visitor names. A preference and a misunderstanding are different observations; the plan for analyzing choices is still unknown.
\n\n6. The empty entry.\nResults: none. Demonstrated learning benefit: none. Leave that space empty rather than filling it with the outcome the proposal hopes to make possible.
\n\n7. Back to the decision.\nThe team must authorize the session or request revisions. My recommendation is to request the staffing and analysis details before deciding on authorization. That is a proposed next step, not a report that the team has already taken it.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V13", "sample_id": "V13/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V13/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "7b47b8953948b5e8e04704440b23d4cedde46c2d22c1665b7a3be257482173ad", "trimmed_body_sha256": "94b431d325f59c29884a91a5183270686051125a51ed9cdb8a8fe6cc2869daec", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**4. The length of the record.** Versions are retained for **30 days**.", "start": 615, "end": 686, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public prose and ordinary headings fit neutral professional3, without ceremonial or strongly institutional conventions for5." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**4. The length of the record.** Versions are retained for **30 days**.", "start": 615, "end": 686, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "No intended comic device appears across the whole piece. The quote illustrates the prevailing serious stance; a quote alone cannot prove absence." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Before restoring, identify the version you need, check your role and the retention window, and distinguish that task from recovery of a file deleted before enablement.", "start": 1087, "end": 1254, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Matter-of-fact presentation remains restrained; positive capability statements do not themselves establish enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Before restoring, identify the version you need, check your role and the retention window, and distinguish that task from recovery of a file deleted before enablement.", "start": 1087, "end": 1254, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Practical decision support shows modest reader regard, between task-only1 and explicit acknowledgment3." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "A reader and an editor may be looking at the same document while having different permissions.", "start": 454, "end": 548, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace role, retention and restoration require a little product familiarity, but consequences are explained; below several unexplained domain concepts3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "A reader and an editor may be looking at the same document while having different permissions.", "start": 454, "end": 548, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Several connected distinctions explain operation, permissions and recovery boundaries; exceeds selected reasons3 without a fully worked example sequence for5." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session", "title": "Analyse a research session", "id": "S46" }, { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/explanation/", "title": "Explanation", "id": "S42" } ], "researchLimits": "Sources constrain observation and interpretation; notebook attention and rhythm are editorial choices.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v13-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v13-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V13/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V13/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V13/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V13.svg", "bundleSha256": "dd7604033842c9c2e077b416d6d35f7cce4aa1bb1a148d3fa530006d2bff671c", "bundleBytes": 79994 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice for a reader who needs to see a problem taking shape: a colleague reviewing early observations, a planning group comparing uncertainties, or an essay reader following an inquiry. It suits research notebooks, exploratory briefs, and reflective updates. Its fragments are an arrangement made for reading, not a facsimile of an authentic diary. Avoid it for emergency instructions or a decision whose answer must be immediately visible without reconstruction.
\n\nThe stable voice notices what sits beside the main argument: a term doing too much work, an unexplained number, an unanswered question. Its stance is provisional but responsible. The narrator is close to the thinking and moderately distant from imagined participants. Tone can be curious, rueful, or sober without changing this attention. “I wonder” signals a present question, never evidence that an actual person wondered it. Genre supplies the task; notebook form does not excuse an incomplete answer.
\n\nOpen with a small, consequential word or observation. Arrange numbered entries so one detail prompts the next: status, quantities, access, records, uncertainty, decision. Vary entry size; a fragment can name the snag, while a complete paragraph explains its consequence. Use an echo such as “Back to the question” when returning from a digression. The ending gathers the loose observations into the reader’s actual choice. Leave the unknown answer open, not the identity of the next action.
\n\nAlternate noun fragments with sentences that make their logical relationship explicit: “Two labels. One comparison. Neither is a result.” Follow that compression with a longer causal or conditional sentence when needed. Colons label the subject of an entry; semicolons hold neighboring observations together without claiming causation. Parentheses can preserve a minor aside, but required limitations stay outside them. Repeat a key noun to maintain the thread rather than searching for decorative synonyms. Pauses come from entry boundaries and changes in sentence length, not an accumulation of ellipses.
\n\nChoose exact objects, quantities, and terms before adding interpretation. Modest language such as “unresolved,” “perhaps,” or “worth checking” must identify a real uncertainty rather than soften a known fact. Imagery may explain the experience of thinking—a margin, a gap, an unfinished entry—but must not manufacture an observed scene. Humor can notice the writer’s temptation to overclaim. It should not ridicule the people represented by the notes. Emotional intensity remains restrained; attention supplies the interest.
\n\nUse numbered entries with short verbal labels. Italics may distinguish an open question, but also write “Open question:” so meaning survives without styling. Blank lines separate entries. Avoid simulated handwriting, distressed paper, invented dates, or signatures that imply a real notebook. In plain text, keep numbers, labels, and sequence; replace any typographic emphasis with the exact qualifying words. A note whose meaning depends on italics needs repair before export.
\n\nProtect dates, amounts, names, technical tokens, quotations, and supplied field labels. Distinguish supplied fact, interpretation, and question within each entry; juxtaposition alone does not establish a causal link. Never turn a gap into a fabricated memory. This voice combines well with criteria-led reflection or a decision-first closing paragraph. It conflicts with relentless slogan repetition and strict chronological reportage unless the reader explicitly needs those structures. If existing notes already preserve facts, have a legible sequence, and end with a usable question, retain them. Do not fragment good prose merely to make the profile conspicuous.
\n\nWrite the required facts in a separate checklist. Choose the detail that raises the useful question and make it entry one. Cluster the remaining facts into a few labeled entries, then add only observations that change how the reader interprets them. Give one longer entry room to connect the fragments. Mark every unknown directly. End with the action or decision still required. Finally read only the labels: they should form a coherent route; read only the prose: it should still explain the task without decorative headings.
\n\nFaulty: “1. The room will be busy. 2. The labels will work. 3. Six objects, therefore a success.” The fragments disguise invented attendance and results, while “therefore” claims a connection the facts do not support.
\n\nRepair: “1. Attendance: unknown. 2. Six replica objects would each have two draft labels. 3. Results: none yet. The team must authorize the session or request revisions.” The revised notes preserve the object count, make the gaps legible, and return to the decision without pretending the inquiry is finished.
\n\nRead the full seed, schedule update, and writing invitation. The museum application transfers the numbered inquiry to new facts. All are AI-authored demonstrations; they do not establish audience benefit or Kyle’s personal voice.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "L20", "title": "Meditations, Book IV", "author": "Marcus Aurelius; English translation by Meric Casaubon, editorially revised", "year": "2001", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2680/pg2680-images.html", "relationship": "Unequal numbered entries and self-address; not a task notebook with a final operational choice.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Translated philosophical notes", "publicationDate": "2001-06-01" }, { "id": "L09", "title": "The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, Volume I", "author": "Laurence Sterne", "year": "1759", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1079", "relationship": "Visible reflection interrupts the narration; not the guide’s explicit numbered evidence labels.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Digressive comic fiction", "publicationDate": "1759" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Marginal notebook · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V13.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Aporia", "url": "https://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/A/aporia.htm", "relationship": "University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference" }, { "title": "Stylistic Editing", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/stylistic-editing/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" }, { "title": "Asking Analytical Questions", "url": "https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/asking-analytical-questions", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A provisional working notebook whose uneven fragments accumulate into a usable connection or next question. The unevenness reflects live organization of a problem, not arbitrary fragmentation.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA real or declared fictional thinking task, known facts, and clearly labeled provisional ideas.
\n\nSnag → uneven notes → connections and revisions → return to snag → provisional synthesis.
\n\nGive the notes a shared consequential problem. Check: State the snag to which each retained note contributes.
Mark provisional thoughts so they are not mistaken for findings. Check: Identify uncertainty, hypothesis, and known facts separately.
Let the fragments gather into a connection or next move. Check: The closing must use something learned from the notes.
Use this voice for a reader who needs to see a problem taking shape: a colleague reviewing early observations, a planning group comparing uncertainties, or an essay reader following an inquiry. It suits research notebooks, exploratory briefs, and reflective updates. Its fragments are an arrangement made for reading, not a facsimile of an authentic diary. Avoid it for emergency instructions or a decision whose answer must be immediately visible without reconstruction.
\n\nThe stable voice notices what sits beside the main argument: a term doing too much work, an unexplained number, an unanswered question. Its stance is provisional but responsible. The narrator is close to the thinking and moderately distant from imagined participants. Tone can be curious, rueful, or sober without changing this attention. “I wonder” signals a present question, never evidence that an actual person wondered it. Genre supplies the task; notebook form does not excuse an incomplete answer.
\n\nOpen with a small, consequential word or observation. Arrange numbered entries so one detail prompts the next: status, quantities, access, records, uncertainty, decision. Vary entry size; a fragment can name the snag, while a complete paragraph explains its consequence. Use an echo such as “Back to the question” when returning from a digression. The ending gathers the loose observations into the reader’s actual choice. Leave the unknown answer open, not the identity of the next action.
\n\nAlternate noun fragments with sentences that make their logical relationship explicit: “Two labels. One comparison. Neither is a result.” Follow that compression with a longer causal or conditional sentence when needed. Colons label the subject of an entry; semicolons hold neighboring observations together without claiming causation. Parentheses can preserve a minor aside, but required limitations stay outside them. Repeat a key noun to maintain the thread rather than searching for decorative synonyms. Pauses come from entry boundaries and changes in sentence length, not an accumulation of ellipses.
\n\nChoose exact objects, quantities, and terms before adding interpretation. Modest language such as “unresolved,” “perhaps,” or “worth checking” must identify a real uncertainty rather than soften a known fact. Imagery may explain the experience of thinking—a margin, a gap, an unfinished entry—but must not manufacture an observed scene. Humor can notice the writer’s temptation to overclaim. It should not ridicule the people represented by the notes. Emotional intensity remains restrained; attention supplies the interest.
\n\nUse numbered entries with short verbal labels. Italics may distinguish an open question, but also write “Open question:” so meaning survives without styling. Blank lines separate entries. Avoid simulated handwriting, distressed paper, invented dates, or signatures that imply a real notebook. In plain text, keep numbers, labels, and sequence; replace any typographic emphasis with the exact qualifying words. A note whose meaning depends on italics needs repair before export.
\n\nProtect dates, amounts, names, technical tokens, quotations, and supplied field labels. Distinguish supplied fact, interpretation, and question within each entry; juxtaposition alone does not establish a causal link. Never turn a gap into a fabricated memory. This voice combines well with criteria-led reflection or a decision-first closing paragraph. It conflicts with relentless slogan repetition and strict chronological reportage unless the reader explicitly needs those structures. If existing notes already preserve facts, have a legible sequence, and end with a usable question, retain them. Do not fragment good prose merely to make the profile conspicuous.
\n\nWrite the required facts in a separate checklist. Choose the detail that raises the useful question and make it entry one. Cluster the remaining facts into a few labeled entries, then add only observations that change how the reader interprets them. Give one longer entry room to connect the fragments. Mark every unknown directly. End with the action or decision still required. Finally read only the labels: they should form a coherent route; read only the prose: it should still explain the task without decorative headings.
\n\nFaulty: “1. The room will be busy. 2. The labels will work. 3. Six objects, therefore a success.” The fragments disguise invented attendance and results, while “therefore” claims a connection the facts do not support.
\n\nRepair: “1. Attendance: unknown. 2. Six replica objects would each have two draft labels. 3. Results: none yet. The team must authorize the session or request revisions.” The revised notes preserve the object count, make the gaps legible, and return to the decision without pretending the inquiry is finished.
\n\nFragments, full sentences, numbering, and uneven lengths are optional means. Deliberate disorder still needs an intelligible problem.
\n\nA neatly edited set of notes can pass. Messy typography is not evidence of genuine thinking or human authorship.
\n\nUse randomness or numbering as the entire mechanism. Check: Shuffle or remove notes: if the synthesis is unaffected, examine whether they belong.
Present imagined field notes as actual observations. Check: Check provenance independently of notebook styling.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional planning facts: workshop fee is zero; travel is not provided; attendance is unstudied. Notes explore the invitation’s wording.
\n\nSnag: “free” is doing too much work.
Fee: zero. Travel: not provided.
Not evidence of exclusion—attendance has not been studied. Keep that distinction.
Return to the wording: say “no workshop fee,” then state the travel condition. That solves a wording problem without claiming an attendance result.
Fee: zero.
Travel: not provided.
Attendance: unstudied.
Invitations exist.
Words are interesting.
Why it differs: The list contains the same facts but never organizes them into a consequential provisional insight.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nNo external authority for this exact notebook profile was located. The specification is a local synthesis with rhetorical and editorial neighbors.
\n\nAporia — University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference.
Stylistic Editing — Professional association standards.
Asking Analytical Questions — University teaching guidance.
The draft. An earlier version may contain the wording you want to make current. In Draftline, restoring it makes a new current version. It does not delete stored history.
\n\nThe permission. Wanting that change and being able to make it are separate matters. Only workspace editors can restore a version. Reading the document does not by itself establish that role.
\n\nThe record. Versions are retained for 30 days. This gives the stored history a defined window. The feature cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled, a separate boundary that the retention period does not undo.
\n\nReturn to the draft: earlier content can become current without describing the operation as erasing the intervening record. Return to permission: the action belongs to workspace editors. Return to the record: its limits stay part of the explanation, even when the desired version feels close at hand.
\n\nThese strands meet in the interface action Version history. It becomes available on 20 October 2026 and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.
\n\nA sound decision holds the three strands together. Identify the version needed, check the role required, and establish whether the task is within the available history. If the task instead concerns a file deleted before enablement, the feature does not provide that recovery.
" }, { "key": "human-l06", "label": "W. E. B. Du Bois · The Souls of Black Folk", "path": "excerpts/L06.md", "source": { "title": "The Souls of Black Folk", "author": "W. E. B. Du Bois", "publicationDate": "1903", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/408", "locator": "Chapter XI “Of the Passing of the First-Born”; one paragraph", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/408", "relationship": "Personal memory and social interpretation repeatedly meet.", "edition": "1903", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "How beautiful he was, with his olive-tinted flesh and dark gold ringlets, his eyes of mingled blue and brown, his perfect little limbs, and the soft voluptuous roll which the blood of Africa had moulded into his features! I held him in my arms, after we had sped far away from our Southern home,—held him, and glanced at the hot red soil of Georgia and the breathless city of a hundred hills, and felt a vague unrest. Why was his hair tinted with gold? An evil omen was golden hair in my life. Why had not the brown of his eyes crushed out and killed the blue?—for brown were his father’s eyes, and his father’s father’s. And thus in the Land of the Color-line I saw, as it fell across my baby, the shadow of the Veil.\n", "id": "V14/human-l06", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "How beautiful he was, with his olive-tinted flesh and dark gold ringlets, his eyes of mingled blue and brown, his perfect little limbs, and the soft voluptuous roll which the blood of Africa had moulded into his features! I held him in my arms, after we had sped far away from our Southern home,—held him, and glanced at the hot red soil of Georgia and the breathless city of a hundred hills, and felt a vague unrest. Why was his hair tinted with gold? An evil omen was golden hair in my life. Why had not the brown of his eyes crushed out and killed the blue?—for brown were his father’s eyes, and his father’s father’s. And thus in the Land of the Color-line I saw, as it fell across my baby, the shadow of the Veil.\n", "sha256": "346ae27827eb2df52f6bce2f4f6c60dc26cb3533a56eef5cebe514077653e60d", "html": "How beautiful he was, with his olive-tinted flesh and dark gold ringlets, his eyes of mingled blue and brown, his perfect little limbs, and the soft voluptuous roll which the blood of Africa had moulded into his features! I held him in my arms, after we had sped far away from our Southern home,—held him, and glanced at the hot red soil of Georgia and the breathless city of a hundred hills, and felt a vague unrest. Why was his hair tinted with gold? An evil omen was golden hair in my life. Why had not the brown of his eyes crushed out and killed the blue?—for brown were his father’s eyes, and his father’s father’s. And thus in the Land of the Color-line I saw, as it fell across my baby, the shadow of the Veil.
" }, { "id": "V14/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# A paragraph and a date\n\n**The paragraph:** Bring one to revise at the fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop. The material gives the hour a focus, without promising its outcome.\n\n**The date:** **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** The workshop is free, has **12 places**, and closes registration on **5 November**.\n\nReturn to the paragraph: choose something you want to work on. Return to the date: check the missing location, time zone and access details before making arrangements.\n\nThe two strands meet in a practical choice—whether this revision task fits the time and conditions available to you.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V14\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# A paragraph and a date\n\n**The paragraph:** Bring one to revise at the fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop. The material gives the hour a focus, without promising its outcome.\n\n**The date:** **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** The workshop is free, has **12 places**, and closes registration on **5 November**.\n\nReturn to the paragraph: choose something you want to work on. Return to the date: check the missing location, time zone and access details before making arrangements.\n\nThe two strands meet in a practical choice—whether this revision task fits the time and conditions available to you.\n\n", "sha256": "3729552a259f56544618f95d74e0cbb3eb562d49acc466a2a160879b53461d69", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 14.333333333333334, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7664864864864869, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 23.25581395348837, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 21.5, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 12.790697674418604, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 86, "prose_sentences": 6, "prose_paragraphs": 4, "reader_address_events": 2, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 11, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "3729552a259f56544618f95d74e0cbb3eb562d49acc466a2a160879b53461d69", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "The paragraph: Bring one to revise at the fictional Clearer Notes workshop. The material gives the hour a focus, without promising its outcome.
\n\nThe date: 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. The workshop is free, has 12 places, and closes registration on 5 November.
\n\nReturn to the paragraph: choose something you want to work on. Return to the date: check the missing location, time zone and access details before making arrangements.
\n\nThe two strands meet in a practical choice—whether this revision task fits the time and conditions available to you.
" }, { "id": "V14/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# Draftline: availability and uncertainty\n\nFor new work, **uploads are unavailable**. For existing material, documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. Those two availability statements describe the present state; they do not explain why it happened.\n\nThe next update is at **3 p.m.** It is a communication commitment, not a repair deadline.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V14\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Draftline: availability and uncertainty\n\nFor new work, **uploads are unavailable**. For existing material, documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. Those two availability statements describe the present state; they do not explain why it happened.\n\nThe next update is at **3 p.m.** It is a communication commitment, not a repair deadline.\n\n", "sha256": "96e3ae923298a56d676fa3e43602baeaab0d9e6e5399ae27bd17160137b471b9", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 10.2, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.83, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 16, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 9.803921568627452, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 51, "prose_sentences": 5, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 5, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "96e3ae923298a56d676fa3e43602baeaab0d9e6e5399ae27bd17160137b471b9", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "For new work, uploads are unavailable. For existing material, documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. Those two availability statements describe the present state; they do not explain why it happened.
\n\nThe next update is at 3 p.m. It is a communication commitment, not a repair deadline.
" }, { "id": "V14/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# The shelf, the route, the record\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\nA shelf suggests order: objects in places, a place for each object. The proposed Marlow Library Tool Shelf offers that satisfying picture. Twenty-four tool kits, a requested budget of $2,400, and free borrowing. The picture is not yet a service. Approval has not been given.\n\nA route suggests something else: movement from a need to a possible answer. The proposal keeps three routes in view—an optional web reservation form, telephone access, and walking up to the desk. A well-ordered shelf would matter little to someone unable to reach it through the expected channel.\n\nA record asks what survives after the encounter. Completed loans, staff time, failed borrowing attempts. Each catches a different part of what happened. Borrower names would stay out of public reporting.\n\nReturn to the shelf. Its proposed opening is limited to six weeks: Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, 7 November–12 December 2026. There is reassurance in that boundary, but no proof. The kit contents and borrowing conditions are still to be decided.\n\nReturn to the route. We do not know whether the available paths will be sufficient. Keeping alternatives is a considered starting point, not a finding about access. The record should remain open to problems as well as completed transactions.\n\nReturn to the record. No measured outcome or savings claim can be made now. The story of what the shelf changes is not available simply because the writer can imagine one.\n\nThese strands meet in a practical choice: authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. Order, access, and evidence belong in the same proposal. None should be allowed to stand in for the other two.", "sourceMarkdown": "# The shelf, the route, the record\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\nA shelf suggests order: objects in places, a place for each object. The proposed Marlow Library Tool Shelf offers that satisfying picture. Twenty-four tool kits, a requested budget of $2,400, and free borrowing. The picture is not yet a service. Approval has not been given.\n\nA route suggests something else: movement from a need to a possible answer. The proposal keeps three routes in view—an optional web reservation form, telephone access, and walking up to the desk. A well-ordered shelf would matter little to someone unable to reach it through the expected channel.\n\nA record asks what survives after the encounter. Completed loans, staff time, failed borrowing attempts. Each catches a different part of what happened. Borrower names would stay out of public reporting.\n\nReturn to the shelf. Its proposed opening is limited to six weeks: Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, 7 November–12 December 2026. There is reassurance in that boundary, but no proof. The kit contents and borrowing conditions are still to be decided.\n\nReturn to the route. We do not know whether the available paths will be sufficient. Keeping alternatives is a considered starting point, not a finding about access. The record should remain open to problems as well as completed transactions.\n\nReturn to the record. No measured outcome or savings claim can be made now. The story of what the shelf changes is not available simply because the writer can imagine one.\n\nThese strands meet in a practical choice: authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. Order, access, and evidence belong in the same proposal. None should be allowed to stand in for the other two.\n", "sha256": "6c703f1f9b1105dace70c69e0235ec7a0c891deedaa0e3479e98238ff965a45f", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.
\n\nA shelf suggests order: objects in places, a place for each object. The proposed Marlow Library Tool Shelf offers that satisfying picture. Twenty-four tool kits, a requested budget of $2,400, and free borrowing. The picture is not yet a service. Approval has not been given.
\n\nA route suggests something else: movement from a need to a possible answer. The proposal keeps three routes in view—an optional web reservation form, telephone access, and walking up to the desk. A well-ordered shelf would matter little to someone unable to reach it through the expected channel.
\n\nA record asks what survives after the encounter. Completed loans, staff time, failed borrowing attempts. Each catches a different part of what happened. Borrower names would stay out of public reporting.
\n\nReturn to the shelf. Its proposed opening is limited to six weeks: Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, 7 November–12 December 2026. There is reassurance in that boundary, but no proof. The kit contents and borrowing conditions are still to be decided.
\n\nReturn to the route. We do not know whether the available paths will be sufficient. Keeping alternatives is a considered starting point, not a finding about access. The record should remain open to problems as well as completed transactions.
\n\nReturn to the record. No measured outcome or savings claim can be made now. The story of what the shelf changes is not available simply because the writer can imagine one.
\n\nThese strands meet in a practical choice: authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. Order, access, and evidence belong in the same proposal. None should be allowed to stand in for the other two.
" }, { "id": "V14/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\nThe calendar changes: Thursday now holds the review. The scope holds: the work remains as agreed. Delivery decision: no revised deadline has been approved. Confirming the new meeting time should not quietly join those three strands into one commitment.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\nThe calendar changes: Thursday now holds the review. The scope holds: the work remains as agreed. Delivery decision: no revised deadline has been approved. Confirming the new meeting time should not quietly join those three strands into one commitment.\n", "sha256": "7f9819b57fbe96026edfbab613b6fcf545b9eff0509b4d67698f53e6b1e085f3", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.
\n\nThe calendar changes: Thursday now holds the review. The scope holds: the work remains as agreed. Delivery decision: no revised deadline has been approved. Confirming the new meeting time should not quietly join those three strands into one commitment.
" }, { "id": "V14/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\nA draft gives us the words. A question gives us a reason to move them. Bring one paragraph from your draft and your question to the fictional writing session. We will compare revisions of that paragraph, keeping the intended meaning in view; the outcome remains something to discover rather than something promised.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\nA draft gives us the words. A question gives us a reason to move them. Bring one paragraph from your draft and your question to the fictional writing session. We will compare revisions of that paragraph, keeping the intended meaning in view; the outcome remains something to discover rather than something promised.\n", "sha256": "72e8568d843333466cdaa2425f1d1e4af14e972d866e5f8d17416fb371e59548", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.
\n\nA draft gives us the words. A question gives us a reason to move them. Bring one paragraph from your draft and your question to the fictional writing session. We will compare revisions of that paragraph, keeping the intended meaning in view; the outcome remains something to discover rather than something promised.
" }, { "id": "V14/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V14 · Braided reflection\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\nA numbered sleeve holds one kind of connection: this original photograph belongs with this record. At the fictional Alder Photo Archive, 48 donated photographs await cataloging. If a sleeve number is missing, or handling could damage a photograph, stop and ask the archive lead. Keep the originals in their numbered sleeves, and match each file to the sleeve number. The connection must survive the change of medium.\n\nA description holds another kind of connection. It preserves what the donor supplied, including wording a cataloger might want to improve. Put that description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Record corrections in a separate catalog note. The two fields let the original wording and the correction remain distinguishable.\n\nA viewing copy opens a different question: who may see it? For this project, scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. The JPEG copies remain internal until the rights review is complete. No completion date has been promised.\n\nReturn to the sleeve. Its number links the original to each file; that is the connection the opening rule protects. A smooth sequence is less important than respecting the point where the agreed work must pause.\n\nReturn to the description. If a date is missing, record it as unknown. Clothing may invite a guess; it does not supply an authorized year. The actual dates and donor biographies are not established by this brief.\n\nReturn to the copy. The scanner model is unspecified, rights clearance remains unresolved, and no scanning has been reported complete. No preservation or speed benefit has been measured.\n\nThese strands meet in a volunteer’s task: maintain the connection to the original, preserve the supplied wording, and respect the limits on handling and use. Follow this project’s agreement without turning it into a universal preservation standard.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V14 · Braided reflection\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\nA numbered sleeve holds one kind of connection: this original photograph belongs with this record. At the fictional Alder Photo Archive, 48 donated photographs await cataloging. If a sleeve number is missing, or handling could damage a photograph, stop and ask the archive lead. Keep the originals in their numbered sleeves, and match each file to the sleeve number. The connection must survive the change of medium.\n\nA description holds another kind of connection. It preserves what the donor supplied, including wording a cataloger might want to improve. Put that description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Record corrections in a separate catalog note. The two fields let the original wording and the correction remain distinguishable.\n\nA viewing copy opens a different question: who may see it? For this project, scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. The JPEG copies remain internal until the rights review is complete. No completion date has been promised.\n\nReturn to the sleeve. Its number links the original to each file; that is the connection the opening rule protects. A smooth sequence is less important than respecting the point where the agreed work must pause.\n\nReturn to the description. If a date is missing, record it as unknown. Clothing may invite a guess; it does not supply an authorized year. The actual dates and donor biographies are not established by this brief.\n\nReturn to the copy. The scanner model is unspecified, rights clearance remains unresolved, and no scanning has been reported complete. No preservation or speed benefit has been measured.\n\nThese strands meet in a volunteer’s task: maintain the connection to the original, preserve the supplied wording, and respect the limits on handling and use. Follow this project’s agreement without turning it into a universal preservation standard.\n", "sha256": "29789539ac301b12cfc539ea8cec3befe896c8e5ab93bff365998ec416dd3e38", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.
\n\nA numbered sleeve holds one kind of connection: this original photograph belongs with this record. At the fictional Alder Photo Archive, 48 donated photographs await cataloging. If a sleeve number is missing, or handling could damage a photograph, stop and ask the archive lead. Keep the originals in their numbered sleeves, and match each file to the sleeve number. The connection must survive the change of medium.
\n\nA description holds another kind of connection. It preserves what the donor supplied, including wording a cataloger might want to improve. Put that description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Record corrections in a separate catalog note. The two fields let the original wording and the correction remain distinguishable.
\n\nA viewing copy opens a different question: who may see it? For this project, scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. The JPEG copies remain internal until the rights review is complete. No completion date has been promised.
\n\nReturn to the sleeve. Its number links the original to each file; that is the connection the opening rule protects. A smooth sequence is less important than respecting the point where the agreed work must pause.
\n\nReturn to the description. If a date is missing, record it as unknown. Clothing may invite a guess; it does not supply an authorized year. The actual dates and donor biographies are not established by this brief.
\n\nReturn to the copy. The scanner model is unspecified, rights clearance remains unresolved, and no scanning has been reported complete. No preservation or speed benefit has been measured.
\n\nThese strands meet in a volunteer’s task: maintain the connection to the original, preserve the supplied wording, and respect the limits on handling and use. Follow this project’s agreement without turning it into a universal preservation standard.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V14", "sample_id": "V14/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V14/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "d4de6953d403e05b91c73ca64473ea3b2dfb97494bf9166f1d4963b4f6009d09", "trimmed_body_sha256": "473be7b4a7340dbe51f596ef7cd4a3edf8cb287086c20ed26e51a4849672cca2", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "These strands meet in the interface action **Version history**.", "start": 952, "end": 1015, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited neutral professional sentences and controlled structure fit3; no strongly ceremonial conventions justify5." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "These strands meet in the interface action **Version history**.", "start": 952, "end": 1015, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "No intended comic device was found across the full sample. The quoted passage illustrates the prevailing factual or reflective stance." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "These strands meet in the interface action **Version history**.", "start": 952, "end": 1015, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Direct orientation, rhetorical movement or expressive interest adds some energy, below overt moderate encouragement3 or sustained excitement5." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "These strands meet in the interface action **Version history**.", "start": 952, "end": 1015, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Reader-directed decision support or non-punitive explanation adds modest regard, between task-only1 and explicit relational acknowledgment3." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**Only workspace editors** can restore a version.", "start": 309, "end": 358, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace-editor, retention and restore concepts require a little product-role familiarity, but the consequences are explained in ordinary language. This is below the few-unexplained-domain-concepts level3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**The permission.** Wanting that change and being able to make it are separate matters.", "start": 221, "end": 308, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The full sample repeatedly explains distinctions among operation, permissions, retained versions and prior deletion; this exceeds selected reasons3 but lacks a fully worked concrete example/definition sequence sufficient for5." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/explanation/", "title": "Explanation", "id": "S42" }, { "url": "https://aclanthology.org/2021.acl-long.185/", "title": "Style is NOT a single variable: Case Studies for Cross-Stylistic Language Understanding", "id": "S12" } ], "researchLimits": "Connections in explanation motivate a braid design; no source establishes this literary form’s transferability.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v14-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v14-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V14/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V14/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V14/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V14.svg", "bundleSha256": "a63f31c6f499092e49a088692af74ef890b517e2d91af7fd4a4d0a5f3dff723e", "bundleBytes": 79670 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice when a reader must keep several related concerns in mind without reducing them to a checklist. It suits reflective essays, thoughtful proposal introductions, and explanations where objects, access, and accountability affect the same choice. Each strand needs factual substance. Avoid it for a rapid safety instruction, a terse status bulletin, or material so short that the reader cannot recognize a returning strand.
\n\nThe stable voice attends to relationships: what a material object suggests, what a person must do, and what the record can establish. Its stance is contemplative but accountable. Narrative distance stays outside unsupported personal experience; an object can be contemplated without claiming to have held it. Tone may become hopeful or wary while the braid remains intact. The essay form permits reflection, but the writer’s interpretation is distinct from the operational facts and from any result that has actually been measured.
\n\nChoose two or three strands that genuinely share a decision. Introduce each separately, return to each with a changed implication, and let them converge in the ending. In the archive application, physical care, recorded description, and permitted use supply the strands. “Return to the sleeve” is a structural cue, not an incantation required in every paragraph. Each return must add information. Mix a substantial explanatory paragraph with a shorter turning paragraph. End where the strands affect what the reader should do, rather than celebrating the elegance of the pattern.
\n\nLet a longer sentence follow an image into its practical limit, then use a short sentence to mark the limit clearly. Parallel openings can establish the strands; later vary the syntax so recurrence does not become mechanical. Use a colon when the abstract idea needs its concrete contents. A semicolon can hold two related observations in view. Reserve dashes for a genuine interruption, and avoid attaching every qualification as an afterthought. Repetition belongs to selected nouns or phrases whose meaning develops; digressions must rejoin a named strand.
\n\nKeep imagery within the material world supplied by the brief. A numbered sleeve can suggest a continuing connection; it cannot testify to a donor’s grief. Pair every metaphor with a plain statement of what it does and does not establish. Use specific verbs such as “match,” “record,” and “retain” as anchors beneath the reflection. Emotional intensity comes from patient attention, not superlatives. Humor is optional and slight; a dry observation about tidy records can work, but a joke should not trivialize care or uncertainty.
\n\nOne title and ordinary paragraphs are usually enough. Blank lines or a simple section break can separate a new pass through the strands. Repeated headings often make the braid look like disconnected categories, so use them only for a long piece. Meaning must survive when decorative separators disappear. In plain text, retain transition phrases naming the object or concern and maintain paragraph breaks. Never rely on color, alternating columns, or italics to identify the strand.
\n\nProtect the brief’s names, figures, access conditions, technical settings, quotations, and source fields. Do not use an image as proof, or describe an imagined consequence as something already observed. This voice can borrow the reflective critic’s explicit criteria and the personal letter’s direct relationship with the reader. It competes with an inverted pyramid and with a procedure that must be followed strictly in order. In those cases, provide the procedure first or choose another profile. Keep an existing effective braid unchanged when its returns add meaning and the practical conclusion is clear.
\n\nFirst list the required facts and the reader’s action. Assign each fact to a strand without duplicating it merely for rhythm. Draft a first pass introducing the strands, then a second pass exposing a limit or consequence in each. Check that every returning image adds a factual or interpretive step. Write the ending as an actual decision or instruction. Read across each strand separately to find contradictions, then read in page order to test whether transitions help the reader carry all concerns together.
\n\nFaulty: “Each photograph is a doorway into a donor’s childhood, and every scan will preserve that childhood forever.” The metaphor invents donor biography and guarantees a preservation outcome.
\n\nRepair: “A numbered sleeve connects the original to its record. The digital files need that same number. The donor’s supplied description remains verbatim in its own field; corrections belong in a separate catalog note.” The connection now joins physical handling and description through supplied facts. Reflection remains possible without turning it into testimony or a benefit claim.
\n\nThe full seed braids shelf, route, and record. The update and invitation compress the mechanism. The archive application tests a new braid. These AI-authored examples are fictional demonstrations, not personal samples or evidence of reader response.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "L06", "title": "The Souls of Black Folk", "author": "W. E. B. Du Bois", "year": "1903", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/408", "relationship": "Personal memory and social interpretation repeatedly meet.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Autobiographical and sociological essay collection", "publicationDate": "1903" }, { "id": "M06", "title": "Total Eclipse", "author": "Annie Dillard", "year": "1982", "url": "https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/annie-dillards-total-eclipse/536148/", "relationship": "Experience and recollection recur across the essay’s sections.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Literary personal essay", "publicationDate": "1982" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Braided reflection · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V14.md", "sources": [ { "title": "The Braided Essay as Social Justice Action", "url": "https://creativenonfiction.org/writing/the-braided-essay-as-social-justice-action/", "relationship": "Primary craft essay by a practitioner" }, { "title": "The Lyric Essay", "url": "https://senecareview.hws.edu/the-lyric-essay", "relationship": "Primary literary editorial statement" }, { "title": "Stylistic Editing", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/stylistic-editing/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A reflection in which recurring strands alter one another’s meaning and converge on a consequential interpretation. Alternation is structural; interaction is the defining requirement.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nAt least two legitimate strands, their provenance, and a reason their relation matters. Memories must be authorized, not fabricated to supply a strand.
\n\nStrand A → strand B → changed return to A/B → convergence without erasing tension.
\n\nMaintain at least two distinguishable strands with a meaningful relation. Check: Name each strand and its contribution to the question.
Revisit a strand after the other has changed its significance. Check: Mark a changed return, not merely A/B topic switching.
Produce a convergence or productive tension that depends on both strands. Check: Remove one strand and explain what interpretation becomes unavailable.
Use this voice when a reader must keep several related concerns in mind without reducing them to a checklist. It suits reflective essays, thoughtful proposal introductions, and explanations where objects, access, and accountability affect the same choice. Each strand needs factual substance. Avoid it for a rapid safety instruction, a terse status bulletin, or material so short that the reader cannot recognize a returning strand.
\n\nThe stable voice attends to relationships: what a material object suggests, what a person must do, and what the record can establish. Its stance is contemplative but accountable. Narrative distance stays outside unsupported personal experience; an object can be contemplated without claiming to have held it. Tone may become hopeful or wary while the braid remains intact. The essay form permits reflection, but the writer’s interpretation is distinct from the operational facts and from any result that has actually been measured.
\n\nChoose two or three strands that genuinely share a decision. Introduce each separately, return to each with a changed implication, and let them converge in the ending. In the archive application, physical care, recorded description, and permitted use supply the strands. “Return to the sleeve” is a structural cue, not an incantation required in every paragraph. Each return must add information. Mix a substantial explanatory paragraph with a shorter turning paragraph. End where the strands affect what the reader should do, rather than celebrating the elegance of the pattern.
\n\nLet a longer sentence follow an image into its practical limit, then use a short sentence to mark the limit clearly. Parallel openings can establish the strands; later vary the syntax so recurrence does not become mechanical. Use a colon when the abstract idea needs its concrete contents. A semicolon can hold two related observations in view. Reserve dashes for a genuine interruption, and avoid attaching every qualification as an afterthought. Repetition belongs to selected nouns or phrases whose meaning develops; digressions must rejoin a named strand.
\n\nKeep imagery within the material world supplied by the brief. A numbered sleeve can suggest a continuing connection; it cannot testify to a donor’s grief. Pair every metaphor with a plain statement of what it does and does not establish. Use specific verbs such as “match,” “record,” and “retain” as anchors beneath the reflection. Emotional intensity comes from patient attention, not superlatives. Humor is optional and slight; a dry observation about tidy records can work, but a joke should not trivialize care or uncertainty.
\n\nOne title and ordinary paragraphs are usually enough. Blank lines or a simple section break can separate a new pass through the strands. Repeated headings often make the braid look like disconnected categories, so use them only for a long piece. Meaning must survive when decorative separators disappear. In plain text, retain transition phrases naming the object or concern and maintain paragraph breaks. Never rely on color, alternating columns, or italics to identify the strand.
\n\nProtect the brief’s names, figures, access conditions, technical settings, quotations, and source fields. Do not use an image as proof, or describe an imagined consequence as something already observed. This voice can borrow the reflective critic’s explicit criteria and the personal letter’s direct relationship with the reader. It competes with an inverted pyramid and with a procedure that must be followed strictly in order. In those cases, provide the procedure first or choose another profile. Keep an existing effective braid unchanged when its returns add meaning and the practical conclusion is clear.
\n\nFirst list the required facts and the reader’s action. Assign each fact to a strand without duplicating it merely for rhythm. Draft a first pass introducing the strands, then a second pass exposing a limit or consequence in each. Check that every returning image adds a factual or interpretive step. Write the ending as an actual decision or instruction. Read across each strand separately to find contradictions, then read in page order to test whether transitions help the reader carry all concerns together.
\n\nFaulty: “Each photograph is a doorway into a donor’s childhood, and every scan will preserve that childhood forever.” The metaphor invents donor biography and guarantees a preservation outcome.
\n\nRepair: “A numbered sleeve connects the original to its record. The digital files need that same number. The donor’s supplied description remains verbatim in its own field; corrections belong in a separate catalog note.” The connection now joins physical handling and description through supplied facts. Reflection remains possible without turning it into testimony or a benefit claim.
\n\nTwo or three strands are the inherited local default, not a universal maximum. Equal paragraph lengths are unnecessary.
\n\nA braided piece may preserve tension instead of delivering a moral; forced resolution can destroy its mechanism.
\n\nAlternate unrelated material merely to simulate a braid. Check: A transition label cannot substitute for a relation.
Invent personal memories to create emotional contrast. Check: Check the source class of every autobiographical statement.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional reflective exercise: a travel condition in a workshop invitation; an explicitly imagined chair facing a door. No real memory is claimed.
\n\nThe invitation says “free.” Imagine, alongside that word, a chair facing a door.\nThe actual terms of this fictional invitation leave travel to the attendee. The chair now suggests more than an available seat: somebody must still reach it.\nReturning to the invitation, I would name the fee and travel separately. A seat and a welcome are related, but neither erases the journey.
\n\nThe invitation says “free,” and travel is the attendee’s responsibility. Imagine a chair facing a door. The invitation has words. The chair has legs. Both are interesting.
\n\nWhy it differs: The topics alternate, but no return changes either strand’s meaning or produces a dependent interpretation.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nWalker offers a closely relevant craft argument. Strand interaction is supported as a technique, not an experimentally established universal definition.
\n\nThe Braided Essay as Social Justice Action — Primary craft essay by a practitioner.
The Lyric Essay — Primary literary editorial statement.
Stylistic Editing — Professional association standards.
If you use Draftline, keep three things in mind about Version history: the role, the window, and the result.
\n\nFirst, the role. Only workspace editors can restore a version. If you can read a document, that alone does not mean you have permission to restore it.
\n\nNext, the window. Versions are retained for 30 days. The feature cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled. These are separate limits on what you can restore.
\n\nThen, the result. Restoring makes a new current version. It does not delete stored history. Earlier content becomes current; the stored record is not erased by restoration.
\n\nVersion history becomes available on 20 October 2026. It is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. When you look for the action, use its exact name: Version history.
\n\nThe role, the window, the result. That sequence helps you decide whether the feature fits what you need to do. It does not turn a limited feature into an unlimited recovery promise.
\n\nBefore you restore, ask what you need to recover. A stored version is one situation. A file deleted before enablement is another. The role, the window, the result: check all three against your task.
" }, { "key": "human-l02", "label": "Michael Faraday; edited by William Crookes · The Chemical History of a Candle", "path": "excerpts/L02.md", "source": { "title": "The Chemical History of a Candle", "author": "Michael Faraday; edited by William Crookes", "publicationDate": "1861", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14474", "locator": "Lecture I, opening address", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14474", "relationship": "An actual lecture opening welcomes an audience into a concrete topic.", "edition": "1908 New Impression, edited by William Crookes; Project Gutenberg digital release 2004-12-26", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "I purpose, in return for the honour you do us by coming to see what are our proceedings here, to bring before you, in the course of these lectures, the Chemical History of a Candle. I have taken this subject on a former occasion; and were it left to my own will, I should prefer to repeat it almost every year—so abundant is the interest that attaches itself to the subject, so wonderful are the varieties of outlet which it offers into the various departments of philosophy.\n\nThere is not a law under which any part of this universe is governed which does not come into play, and is touched upon in these phenomena. There is no better, there is no more open door by which you can enter into the study of natural philosophy, than by considering the physical phenomena of a candle.\n", "id": "V15/human-l02", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "I purpose, in return for the honour you do us by coming to see what are our proceedings here, to bring before you, in the course of these lectures, the Chemical History of a Candle. I have taken this subject on a former occasion; and were it left to my own will, I should prefer to repeat it almost every year—so abundant is the interest that attaches itself to the subject, so wonderful are the varieties of outlet which it offers into the various departments of philosophy.\n\nThere is not a law under which any part of this universe is governed which does not come into play, and is touched upon in these phenomena. There is no better, there is no more open door by which you can enter into the study of natural philosophy, than by considering the physical phenomena of a candle.\n", "sha256": "608c3a587457b26d2a6ac2802aec1cff839dba741faf44cfcfb3472ad42a0865", "html": "I purpose, in return for the honour you do us by coming to see what are our proceedings here, to bring before you, in the course of these lectures, the Chemical History of a Candle. I have taken this subject on a former occasion; and were it left to my own will, I should prefer to repeat it almost every year—so abundant is the interest that attaches itself to the subject, so wonderful are the varieties of outlet which it offers into the various departments of philosophy.
\n\nThere is not a law under which any part of this universe is governed which does not come into play, and is touched upon in these phenomena. There is no better, there is no more open door by which you can enter into the study of natural philosophy, than by considering the physical phenomena of a candle.
" }, { "key": "human-h03", "label": "18F (institutional byline) · Ask us (almost) anything", "path": "excerpts/H03.md", "source": { "title": "Ask us (almost) anything", "author": "18F (institutional byline)", "publicationDate": "2014-04-01", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-04-01-ask-us-almost-anything.md", "locator": "Invitation and practical footer; links reduced to visible labels", "rights": "CC0 · 18F staff prose", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/", "relationship": "Invitation gives topic and route to participate, but is written web copy rather than spoken delivery.", "edition": "18F repository snapshot df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5 (2021-12-30)", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "GitHub for Government did their very first AMA (Ask Me Anything) last week with Philadelphia's Chief Data Officer, Mark Headd. After some prodding by GitHub's Head Bureaucat, Ben Balter, 18F decided to use this new avenue to do some Q&A.\n\nIf you have questions about 18F or the Presidential Innovation Fellows program, please come ask us (almost) anything!\n\n**18F AMA: government/ask-me-anything#4**\n\n- About 18F\n- Who's answering? Team 18F, fellows\n- Apply to be a Presidential Innovation Fellow\n\nP.S. The deadline for the current fellowship application is April 7, 2014!\n", "id": "V15/human-h03", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "GitHub for Government did their very first AMA (Ask Me Anything) last week with Philadelphia's Chief Data Officer, Mark Headd. After some prodding by GitHub's Head Bureaucat, Ben Balter, 18F decided to use this new avenue to do some Q&A.\n\nIf you have questions about 18F or the Presidential Innovation Fellows program, please come ask us (almost) anything!\n\n**18F AMA: government/ask-me-anything#4**\n\n- About 18F\n- Who's answering? Team 18F, fellows\n- Apply to be a Presidential Innovation Fellow\n\nP.S. The deadline for the current fellowship application is April 7, 2014!\n", "sha256": "a040bd0d5a281454e11a20ba1e6e0284776e885bb4abded323b87c7619e862b2", "html": "GitHub for Government did their very first AMA (Ask Me Anything) last week with Philadelphia's Chief Data Officer, Mark Headd. After some prodding by GitHub's Head Bureaucat, Ben Balter, 18F decided to use this new avenue to do some Q&A.
\n\nIf you have questions about 18F or the Presidential Innovation Fellows program, please come ask us (almost) anything!
\n\n18F AMA: government/ask-me-anything#4
\n\nAbout 18F
Who's answering? Team 18F, fellows
Apply to be a Presidential Innovation Fellow
P.S. The deadline for the current fellowship application is April 7, 2014!
" }, { "id": "V15/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# Bring one paragraph\n\nBring one paragraph to the fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop. One paragraph to revisit. **One paragraph to revise.**\n\nWe meet on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** The workshop is free. There are **12 places**, and registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nThe location, time zone and access details are not supplied in this invitation, so check them before making plans. And there is no promised result hidden in the title.\n\nIf the task fits, choose the paragraph you want to work on and keep the registration date in view. That is the invitation.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V15\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Bring one paragraph\n\nBring one paragraph to the fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop. One paragraph to revisit. **One paragraph to revise.**\n\nWe meet on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** The workshop is free. There are **12 places**, and registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nThe location, time zone and access details are not supplied in this invitation, so check them before making plans. And there is no promised result hidden in the title.\n\nIf the task fits, choose the paragraph you want to work on and keep the registration date in view. That is the invitation.\n\n", "sha256": "16898e4c776354997863ae7afba12add6519f078f1a8b6ff0abbb81e5be6ccd0", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 9.666666666666666, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7968421052631581, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 11.494252873563218, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 20.5, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 12.64367816091954, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 87, "prose_sentences": 9, "prose_paragraphs": 4, "reader_address_events": 1, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 11, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "16898e4c776354997863ae7afba12add6519f078f1a8b6ff0abbb81e5be6ccd0", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Bring one paragraph to the fictional Clearer Notes workshop. One paragraph to revisit. One paragraph to revise.
\n\nWe meet on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. The workshop is free. There are 12 places, and registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nThe location, time zone and access details are not supplied in this invitation, so check them before making plans. And there is no promised result hidden in the title.
\n\nIf the task fits, choose the paragraph you want to work on and keep the registration date in view. That is the invitation.
" }, { "id": "V15/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# Draftline service update\n\nHere is the current position. **New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.**\n\nWe do not yet know the cause. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\nThat is when the next update is due, not a promise that uploads will be restored by then.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V15\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Draftline service update\n\nHere is the current position. **New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.**\n\nWe do not yet know the cause. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\nThat is when the next update is due, not a promise that uploads will be restored by then.\n\n", "sha256": "99eb6b0fd40ebb7ea8a1e0d899e83d50e690bcbdbaaa50a88ea39cdeeea8142e", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 7.833333333333333, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 15, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 25.53191489361702, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 47, "prose_sentences": 6, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 12, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "99eb6b0fd40ebb7ea8a1e0d899e83d50e690bcbdbaaa50a88ea39cdeeea8142e", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Here is the current position. New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nWe do not yet know the cause. The next update is at 3 p.m.
\n\nThat is when the next update is due, not a promise that uploads will be restored by then.
" }, { "id": "V15/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# Before we call it a service\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\n*Hypothetical image:* picture a shelf of tools. Now picture a person who wants to borrow one. Those are not the same picture, are they? One concerns the objects. The other asks what someone could actually do.\n\nThat is why I’m asking you to consider the Marlow Library Tool Shelf as a trial. Six weeks. Twenty-four tool kits. A requested budget of $2,400, with borrowing free. The proposed hours are Saturdays, 10 a.m. to noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026.\n\nProposed is the word to remember. The pilot has not been approved.\n\nWe would offer an optional web reservation form. But someone could also telephone or come to the desk. A convenient route should stay convenient. It should not quietly become the only route.\n\nAnd when we look back, what should we count? Completed loans, certainly. Staff time, too. Failed borrowing attempts as well. We need the part of the story that did not end with a tool leaving the shelf. We do not need to put borrowers’ names in a public report.\n\nWe have no measured result yet. No savings to announce. The kit contents and loan conditions still need decisions. Saying those things plainly does not weaken the proposal; it tells us what remains to do.\n\nSo the question is not whether we are ready to celebrate a new service. The question is whether to authorize this bounded trial or request revisions first. Let us make that decision, then let the experience supply the story. A shelf is a beginning. We still need to find out what it makes possible.", "sourceMarkdown": "# Before we call it a service\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\n*Hypothetical image:* picture a shelf of tools. Now picture a person who wants to borrow one. Those are not the same picture, are they? One concerns the objects. The other asks what someone could actually do.\n\nThat is why I’m asking you to consider the Marlow Library Tool Shelf as a trial. Six weeks. Twenty-four tool kits. A requested budget of $2,400, with borrowing free. The proposed hours are Saturdays, 10 a.m. to noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026.\n\nProposed is the word to remember. The pilot has not been approved.\n\nWe would offer an optional web reservation form. But someone could also telephone or come to the desk. A convenient route should stay convenient. It should not quietly become the only route.\n\nAnd when we look back, what should we count? Completed loans, certainly. Staff time, too. Failed borrowing attempts as well. We need the part of the story that did not end with a tool leaving the shelf. We do not need to put borrowers’ names in a public report.\n\nWe have no measured result yet. No savings to announce. The kit contents and loan conditions still need decisions. Saying those things plainly does not weaken the proposal; it tells us what remains to do.\n\nSo the question is not whether we are ready to celebrate a new service. The question is whether to authorize this bounded trial or request revisions first. Let us make that decision, then let the experience supply the story. A shelf is a beginning. We still need to find out what it makes possible.\n", "sha256": "a41f00dbf8527ef9c300712eb98d925e22e29d0601156956b538721535af4aff", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.
\n\nHypothetical image: picture a shelf of tools. Now picture a person who wants to borrow one. Those are not the same picture, are they? One concerns the objects. The other asks what someone could actually do.
\n\nThat is why I’m asking you to consider the Marlow Library Tool Shelf as a trial. Six weeks. Twenty-four tool kits. A requested budget of $2,400, with borrowing free. The proposed hours are Saturdays, 10 a.m. to noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026.
\n\nProposed is the word to remember. The pilot has not been approved.
\n\nWe would offer an optional web reservation form. But someone could also telephone or come to the desk. A convenient route should stay convenient. It should not quietly become the only route.
\n\nAnd when we look back, what should we count? Completed loans, certainly. Staff time, too. Failed borrowing attempts as well. We need the part of the story that did not end with a tool leaving the shelf. We do not need to put borrowers’ names in a public report.
\n\nWe have no measured result yet. No savings to announce. The kit contents and loan conditions still need decisions. Saying those things plainly does not weaken the proposal; it tells us what remains to do.
\n\nSo the question is not whether we are ready to celebrate a new service. The question is whether to authorize this bounded trial or request revisions first. Let us make that decision, then let the experience supply the story. A shelf is a beginning. We still need to find out what it makes possible.
" }, { "id": "V15/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\nA small calendar update: the review is on Thursday now. The work itself has not changed, and we have not agreed a new delivery deadline. Can you confirm Thursday works? Let’s settle the meeting without accidentally settling something else.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\nA small calendar update: the review is on Thursday now. The work itself has not changed, and we have not agreed a new delivery deadline. Can you confirm Thursday works? Let’s settle the meeting without accidentally settling something else.\n", "sha256": "848850bb56e24bb98de010706f84e5402eb63d7962d57833dbe4bf689d8ddffa", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.
\n\nA small calendar update: the review is on Thursday now. The work itself has not changed, and we have not agreed a new delivery deadline. Can you confirm Thursday works? Let’s settle the meeting without accidentally settling something else.
" }, { "id": "V15/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\nHave a paragraph that almost says what you mean? Bring it to the fictional writing session. You do not need to bring a perfect draft. Bring the paragraph, bring your question, and we can try a few ways through it together.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\nHave a paragraph that almost says what you mean? Bring it to the fictional writing session. You do not need to bring a perfect draft. Bring the paragraph, bring your question, and we can try a few ways through it together.\n", "sha256": "2b8a7b57892f92a6b910f887c490ab4b6cd3fd0608552b77308607a1ef78bdf1", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.
\n\nHave a paragraph that almost says what you mean? Bring it to the fictional writing session. You do not need to bring a perfect draft. Bring the paragraph, bring your question, and we can try a few ways through it together.
" }, { "id": "V15/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V15 · Spoken invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\nConsider one replica object with two draft labels beside it. That is a hypothetical picture of the choice Linden Museum wants to explore. Now give each of six replica objects two labels. Which words would visitors choose, and what might they misunderstand?\n\nThose are questions for a proposed session. We do not have the answers yet.\n\nThe proposal is for one session on 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. It requests $900. Participation would be free. The session has not been approved, so this is an invitation to make a decision, not an announcement that the event is going ahead.\n\nKeep the ways of reading in view. Visitors could choose ordinary or large-print copies. An optional audio reading would have the same transcript. Different ways to reach the same wording belong in the plan from the beginning.\n\nAnd keep the record useful. Record which label visitors choose. Record what they misunderstand. Record staff time. Do not record visitor names. We need to examine the comparison without collecting names the plan does not call for.\n\nThere are practical gaps to address. Attendance is unknown. Staffing is unresolved. How the choices will be analyzed is also unknown. We should not let a clear date and a clear budget make those questions disappear.\n\nWe do not have the answers yet. There are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. That limit belongs beside the proposal, not in small print after it.\n\nPlease decide whether to authorize the session or request revisions. My recommendation is to ask for the staffing and analysis details first. Give the team a clear decision about this one session, and leave the conclusions for evidence that does not yet exist.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V15 · Spoken invitation\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\nConsider one replica object with two draft labels beside it. That is a hypothetical picture of the choice Linden Museum wants to explore. Now give each of six replica objects two labels. Which words would visitors choose, and what might they misunderstand?\n\nThose are questions for a proposed session. We do not have the answers yet.\n\nThe proposal is for one session on 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. It requests $900. Participation would be free. The session has not been approved, so this is an invitation to make a decision, not an announcement that the event is going ahead.\n\nKeep the ways of reading in view. Visitors could choose ordinary or large-print copies. An optional audio reading would have the same transcript. Different ways to reach the same wording belong in the plan from the beginning.\n\nAnd keep the record useful. Record which label visitors choose. Record what they misunderstand. Record staff time. Do not record visitor names. We need to examine the comparison without collecting names the plan does not call for.\n\nThere are practical gaps to address. Attendance is unknown. Staffing is unresolved. How the choices will be analyzed is also unknown. We should not let a clear date and a clear budget make those questions disappear.\n\nWe do not have the answers yet. There are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. That limit belongs beside the proposal, not in small print after it.\n\nPlease decide whether to authorize the session or request revisions. My recommendation is to ask for the staffing and analysis details first. Give the team a clear decision about this one session, and leave the conclusions for evidence that does not yet exist.\n", "sha256": "9e9f67c4ddc8d1aed8aaf042c1d6f8532429c9afdf7d1c6563bbe58ef369e11c", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.
\n\nConsider one replica object with two draft labels beside it. That is a hypothetical picture of the choice Linden Museum wants to explore. Now give each of six replica objects two labels. Which words would visitors choose, and what might they misunderstand?
\n\nThose are questions for a proposed session. We do not have the answers yet.
\n\nThe proposal is for one session on 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. It requests $900. Participation would be free. The session has not been approved, so this is an invitation to make a decision, not an announcement that the event is going ahead.
\n\nKeep the ways of reading in view. Visitors could choose ordinary or large-print copies. An optional audio reading would have the same transcript. Different ways to reach the same wording belong in the plan from the beginning.
\n\nAnd keep the record useful. Record which label visitors choose. Record what they misunderstand. Record staff time. Do not record visitor names. We need to examine the comparison without collecting names the plan does not call for.
\n\nThere are practical gaps to address. Attendance is unknown. Staffing is unresolved. How the choices will be analyzed is also unknown. We should not let a clear date and a clear budget make those questions disappear.
\n\nWe do not have the answers yet. There are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. That limit belongs beside the proposal, not in small print after it.
\n\nPlease decide whether to authorize the session or request revisions. My recommendation is to ask for the staffing and analysis details first. Give the team a clear decision about this one session, and leave the conclusions for evidence that does not yet exist.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V15", "sample_id": "V15/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V15/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "d71a11d987e6292ec9896efdf2c0a836788bee2f357669e0acb0c9c36b883c2a", "trimmed_body_sha256": "8fdc2651acbd099fd05e03378cf21eb9eed2d0434f84c6753f91fd86befb0e02", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "First, the role.", "start": 159, "end": 175, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Conversational phrasing, spoken turns or a personal note sit below neutral professional3; the text remains edited." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "First, the role.", "start": 159, "end": 175, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "No intended comic device appears across the whole piece. The quote illustrates the prevailing serious stance; a quote alone cannot prove absence." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "If you use Draftline, keep three things in mind about **Version history**: **the role, the window, and the result**.", "start": 41, "end": 157, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Rhetorical movement or reader-directed engagement adds some energy, below overt encouragement3 or excitement5." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "If you use Draftline, keep three things in mind about **Version history**: **the role, the window, and the result**.", "start": 41, "end": 157, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Practical decision support shows modest reader regard, between task-only1 and explicit acknowledgment3." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Earlier content becomes current; the stored record is not erased by restoration.", "start": 588, "end": 668, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace role, retention and restoration require a little product familiarity, but consequences are explained; below several unexplained domain concepts3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Earlier content becomes current; the stored record is not erased by restoration.", "start": 588, "end": 668, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Several connected distinctions explain operation, permissions and recovery boundaries; exceeds selected reasons3 without a fully worked example sequence for5." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/getting-users-consent-for-research", "title": "Getting informed consent for user research", "id": "S47" }, { "url": "https://styleguide.mailchimp.com/voice-and-tone/", "title": "Voice and Tone", "id": "S18" } ], "researchLimits": "Research consent requirements cannot automatically be imposed as legal rules on every invitation.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v15-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v15-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V15/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V15/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V15/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V15.svg", "bundleSha256": "99d8b9090e5f30c3ed191c383cc7f05686d5cc681acf71074ca47945fca5ba5f", "bundleBytes": 80089 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice for listeners who need to understand a concrete possibility and respond: a workshop group, a small meeting, or an audience hearing a proposal. It also works in a written invitation intended to be read aloud. The reader should be able to follow the point without seeing a table. Avoid it for exact legal wording, dense technical reference, or communication where participatory warmth would pressure someone to agree.
\n\nThe stable voice makes room for the listener while keeping the task in view. It speaks alongside the audience, with enough authority to guide the sequence and enough restraint to leave the decision open. Tone can be welcoming, serious, or gently challenging. Direct address is a relationship choice, not permission to assume shared values or experience. A facilitator persona selects what to notice; it does not establish the writer’s profession, cultural identity, or history of leading events.
\n\nStart with a concrete premise or a question the listener can hold in mind. Move quickly to what is proposed, why it deserves attention, what remains uncertain, and what response is requested. Establish one short callback that can return after the operational detail. Each recurrence should orient the audience at a new point. Short speaking paragraphs mark changes in thought. End with the practical ask in words that work without an accompanying slide; do not substitute applause, excitement, or a slogan for the decision.
\n\nBuild sentences around a clear main clause and avoid nesting qualifications several levels deep. Break a dense set of numbers into sensible breath groups without changing their relationships. A short sentence after a longer one can restore the central point: “Approval still comes first.” Use purposeful repetition such as “Bring the paragraph. Bring the question.” Commas guide ordinary phrasing; full stops supply the major pauses. Do not use ellipses as a performance script. Rhetorical questions should open attention, not demand the answer the writer prefers.
\n\nChoose familiar verbs and concrete nouns while preserving necessary technical vocabulary. Explain an unfamiliar term where it first affects the listener’s action. Contractions can reduce distance; phonetic spellings and invented proverbs manufacture identity and should be avoided. Imagery should be easy to grasp on first hearing, and any imagined scene must be labeled. Humor can lower the cost of bringing an unfinished draft, but should never make uncertain participants the joke. Keep enthusiasm proportional to the invitation; an opportunity to try is not a promised transformation.
\n\nUse short paragraphs rather than line breaks after every breath. If delivery notes are required, visibly label them as production notes and keep them separate from spoken wording. Bold is optional emphasis, never the only signal that an action is conditional. A plain-text version keeps the paragraphs and repeats essential nouns instead of saying “as shown above.” Read the actual words aloud during preparation when audio access exists; silent inspection alone does not validate timing or a comfortable delivery duration.
\n\nProtect names, dates, quantities, access routes, consent language, and quoted wording. Spoken ease does not permit rounding a budget or dropping a privacy condition. “We” must refer to an authorized group or a clearly fictional speaker, not imply Kyle’s membership or approval. This profile pairs well with a bounded decision structure and a restrained recurring image. It conflicts with dense documentary montage, constant sarcasm, or an unexplained academic register. Leave strong conversational prose unchanged when its facts, cadence, and ask already work; do not add a refrain just to advertise the voice.
\n\nIdentify what the listener must remember and what they can decide. Write that ask first. Place the essential facts in an order that can be heard once, then choose a callback that preserves the uncertainty rather than erases it. Add a direct opening and a clear return to the ask. Check every “we,” prediction, and audience assumption. Review long sentences for breath and meaning, then remove any repetition that merely fills airtime. Keep all logistical facts available in a companion written version when one is needed.
\n\nFaulty: “You all know this will work, so let’s celebrate our approved museum session!” It assumes agreement, invents results, and converts a proposal into an approval.
\n\nRepair: “You have a proposal to consider. Linden Museum would compare two draft labels for each of six replica objects. The session has not been approved. Please decide whether to authorize it or request revisions.” Direct address now serves the actual choice. Confidence lies in the clarity of the invitation, not in a fabricated outcome.
\n\nCompare the full seed, spoken update, and writing invitation. The museum application carries the voice to a new decision. They are AI-authored demonstrations, with no claim of recorded delivery, audience testing, or Kyle’s approval.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "L02", "title": "The Chemical History of a Candle", "author": "Michael Faraday; edited by William Crookes", "year": "1861", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14474", "relationship": "An actual lecture opening welcomes an audience into a concrete topic.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Edited public science lectures", "publicationDate": "1861" }, { "id": "H03", "title": "Ask us (almost) anything", "author": "18F (institutional byline)", "year": "2014", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-04-01-ask-us-almost-anything.md", "relationship": "Invitation gives topic and route to participate, but is written web copy rather than spoken delivery.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Government digital-service blog", "publicationDate": "2014-04-01" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Spoken invitation · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V15.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Speeches", "url": "https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/speeches/", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" }, { "title": "Brand voice: Above all, simple and human", "url": "https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/style-guide/brand-voice-above-all-simple-human", "relationship": "Organization-owned house style" }, { "title": "Fundamentals of Editing", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/fundamentals-editing/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" } ], "formats": [], "html": "An invitation designed to be understood by listening: the opportunity, terms, and response remain clear without slides, rereading, or a visually carried disclaimer.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nAn actual opportunity, listener-relevant conditions, a feasible response route, and a truthful account of optionality.
\n\nAudible premise → opportunity and terms → uncertainty or constraint → orienting callback → clear ask.
\n\nName the opportunity in language a listener can retain. Check: Read aloud without showing the page; the listener should identify the event or action.
Speak consequential terms rather than hiding them in visual formatting. Check: Remove slides and typography; eligibility, timing, and obligations must survive.
End with one intelligible response request or route. Check: A listener should know what response is being sought.
Use this voice for listeners who need to understand a concrete possibility and respond: a workshop group, a small meeting, or an audience hearing a proposal. It also works in a written invitation intended to be read aloud. The reader should be able to follow the point without seeing a table. Avoid it for exact legal wording, dense technical reference, or communication where participatory warmth would pressure someone to agree.
\n\nThe stable voice makes room for the listener while keeping the task in view. It speaks alongside the audience, with enough authority to guide the sequence and enough restraint to leave the decision open. Tone can be welcoming, serious, or gently challenging. Direct address is a relationship choice, not permission to assume shared values or experience. A facilitator persona selects what to notice; it does not establish the writer’s profession, cultural identity, or history of leading events.
\n\nStart with a concrete premise or a question the listener can hold in mind. Move quickly to what is proposed, why it deserves attention, what remains uncertain, and what response is requested. Establish one short callback that can return after the operational detail. Each recurrence should orient the audience at a new point. Short speaking paragraphs mark changes in thought. End with the practical ask in words that work without an accompanying slide; do not substitute applause, excitement, or a slogan for the decision.
\n\nBuild sentences around a clear main clause and avoid nesting qualifications several levels deep. Break a dense set of numbers into sensible breath groups without changing their relationships. A short sentence after a longer one can restore the central point: “Approval still comes first.” Use purposeful repetition such as “Bring the paragraph. Bring the question.” Commas guide ordinary phrasing; full stops supply the major pauses. Do not use ellipses as a performance script. Rhetorical questions should open attention, not demand the answer the writer prefers.
\n\nChoose familiar verbs and concrete nouns while preserving necessary technical vocabulary. Explain an unfamiliar term where it first affects the listener’s action. Contractions can reduce distance; phonetic spellings and invented proverbs manufacture identity and should be avoided. Imagery should be easy to grasp on first hearing, and any imagined scene must be labeled. Humor can lower the cost of bringing an unfinished draft, but should never make uncertain participants the joke. Keep enthusiasm proportional to the invitation; an opportunity to try is not a promised transformation.
\n\nUse short paragraphs rather than line breaks after every breath. If delivery notes are required, visibly label them as production notes and keep them separate from spoken wording. Bold is optional emphasis, never the only signal that an action is conditional. A plain-text version keeps the paragraphs and repeats essential nouns instead of saying “as shown above.” Read the actual words aloud during preparation when audio access exists; silent inspection alone does not validate timing or a comfortable delivery duration.
\n\nProtect names, dates, quantities, access routes, consent language, and quoted wording. Spoken ease does not permit rounding a budget or dropping a privacy condition. “We” must refer to an authorized group or a clearly fictional speaker, not imply Kyle’s membership or approval. This profile pairs well with a bounded decision structure and a restrained recurring image. It conflicts with dense documentary montage, constant sarcasm, or an unexplained academic register. Leave strong conversational prose unchanged when its facts, cadence, and ask already work; do not add a refrain just to advertise the voice.
\n\nIdentify what the listener must remember and what they can decide. Write that ask first. Place the essential facts in an order that can be heard once, then choose a callback that preserves the uncertainty rather than erases it. Add a direct opening and a clear return to the ask. Check every “we,” prediction, and audience assumption. Review long sentences for breath and meaning, then remove any repetition that merely fills airtime. Keep all logistical facts available in a companion written version when one is needed.
\n\nFaulty: “You all know this will work, so let’s celebrate our approved museum session!” It assumes agreement, invents results, and converts a proposal into an approval.
\n\nRepair: “You have a proposal to consider. Linden Museum would compare two draft labels for each of six replica objects. The session has not been approved. Please decide whether to authorize it or request revisions.” Direct address now serves the actual choice. Confidence lies in the clarity of the invitation, not in a fabricated outcome.
\n\nA transcript may use contractions or repeated nouns; neither is mandatory. Spoken does not mean improvised or casual.
\n\nA mandatory briefing must not be described as optional. Select an appropriate spoken notice instead of forcing an invitation label.
\n\nRely on a dense table or silent footnote to carry an essential condition. Check: Evaluate the audio-only version.
Invent audience enthusiasm or acceptance. Check: No claimed applause, agreement, or attendance without evidence.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional invitation: an optional writing session on Thursday, 2–3, in Room 4; bring a draft; reply by Tuesday only if attending.
\n\nThere is an optional writing session on Thursday, from two to three, in Room Four. Bring a draft to work on. Again, that is Thursday, two to three. Please reply by Tuesday only if you plan to attend.
\n\nThere is an optional writing session. Event metadata: Thursday; 2–3; Room 4; draft required; Tuesday response cutoff for attendees.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second compresses the same facts into metadata rather than an easily followed spoken invitation.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nSpeech-writing guidance supplies directly relevant prewritten examples; the invitation-specific ordering is local.
\n\nSpeeches — University teaching guidance.
Brand voice: Above all, simple and human — Organization-owned house style.
Fundamentals of Editing — Professional association standards.
An explicitly fictional parable: a notebook offers to make an earlier page its present page. “Must I lose the pages between?” asks its reader. “No,” says the impossible notebook. “Returning is still a new page.” The notebook is invented; it is not a description of Draftline’s implementation.
\n\nThe literal feature is Version history in Draftline. It becomes available on 20 October 2026 and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Versions are retained for 30 days.
\n\nOnly workspace editors can restore a version. Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. This is the limited correspondence with the parable: the current state changes while stored history remains.
\n\nThe correspondence stops there. The feature cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled. The imagined notebook does not extend that recovery limit. The retention period is also a real constraint, not an endless supply of pages.
\n\nLook for the interface action named Version history. Assess the task through its actual permission, retention and recovery terms.
" }, { "key": "human-l21", "label": "Edwin A. Abbott · Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions", "path": "excerpts/L21.md", "source": { "title": "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions", "author": "Edwin A. Abbott", "publicationDate": "1884", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/97/pg97-images.html", "locator": "Section 1, first two paragraphs.", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/97", "relationship": "An impossible world has explicit rules; no separate modern application paragraph.", "edition": "1884", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "I call our world Flatland, not because we call it so, but to make its nature clearer to you, my happy readers, who are privileged to live in Space.\n\nImagine a vast sheet of paper on which straight Lines, Triangles, Squares, Pentagons, Hexagons, and other figures, instead of remaining fixed in their places, move freely about, on or in the surface, but without the power of rising above or sinking below it, very much like shadows—only hard with luminous edges—and you will then have a pretty correct notion of my country and countrymen.\n", "id": "V16/human-l21", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "I call our world Flatland, not because we call it so, but to make its nature clearer to you, my happy readers, who are privileged to live in Space.\n\nImagine a vast sheet of paper on which straight Lines, Triangles, Squares, Pentagons, Hexagons, and other figures, instead of remaining fixed in their places, move freely about, on or in the surface, but without the power of rising above or sinking below it, very much like shadows—only hard with luminous edges—and you will then have a pretty correct notion of my country and countrymen.\n", "sha256": "a6f4275ccba40bb7e84c48851263ae03e15365f748877703edf2562c2e72a1fb", "html": "I call our world Flatland, not because we call it so, but to make its nature clearer to you, my happy readers, who are privileged to live in Space.
\n\nImagine a vast sheet of paper on which straight Lines, Triangles, Squares, Pentagons, Hexagons, and other figures, instead of remaining fixed in their places, move freely about, on or in the surface, but without the power of rising above or sinking below it, very much like shadows—only hard with luminous edges—and you will then have a pretty correct notion of my country and countrymen.
" }, { "id": "V16/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# A paragraph asks for an hour\n\n*An explicitly fictional miniature:* a paragraph knocks on a workshop door. It does not claim to be a finished essay. It asks whether there is room to revise.\n\nThe literal invitation is to **Clearer Notes**, a fictional workshop on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It is free, with **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**. Bring **one paragraph to revise**.\n\nThe miniature supplies no event logistics or results. Location, time zone and access arrangements still need checking. The invitation is to a revision task, not a guarantee that the paragraph leaves transformed.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V16\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# A paragraph asks for an hour\n\n*An explicitly fictional miniature:* a paragraph knocks on a workshop door. It does not claim to be a finished essay. It asks whether there is room to revise.\n\nThe literal invitation is to **Clearer Notes**, a fictional workshop on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It is free, with **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**. Bring **one paragraph to revise**.\n\nThe miniature supplies no event logistics or results. Location, time zone and access arrangements still need checking. The invitation is to a revision task, not a guarantee that the paragraph leaves transformed.\n\n", "sha256": "d19f5014ad50d3ec55d7efd5566ee36c19cbb2a403755203ce5506f0e3bfc45c", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 9.777777777777779, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7923076923076924, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 28, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 17.045454545454547, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 88, "prose_sentences": 9, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 15, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "d19f5014ad50d3ec55d7efd5566ee36c19cbb2a403755203ce5506f0e3bfc45c", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "An explicitly fictional miniature: a paragraph knocks on a workshop door. It does not claim to be a finished essay. It asks whether there is room to revise.
\n\nThe literal invitation is to Clearer Notes, a fictional workshop on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. It is free, with 12 places. Registration closes on 5 November. Bring one paragraph to revise.
\n\nThe miniature supplies no event logistics or results. Location, time zone and access arrangements still need checking. The invitation is to a revision task, not a guarantee that the paragraph leaves transformed.
" }, { "id": "V16/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# Draftline upload status\n\n**New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.**\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.** That update time is not a promised repair time.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V16\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Draftline upload status\n\n**New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.**\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.** That update time is not a promised repair time.\n\n", "sha256": "af01426bd845bef8f0dc4dd241a5900d8ad32ce9d57d5b96c9be7e655fa0a606", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 8, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 37.5, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 32, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 12, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "af01426bd845bef8f0dc4dd241a5900d8ad32ce9d57d5b96c9be7e655fa0a606", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m. That update time is not a promised repair time.
" }, { "id": "V16/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# The shelf that thought it was a door\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\n*An original fictional parable.* A shelf was told it would help people borrow tools. It arranged its imaginary contents beautifully and waited to be congratulated.\n\n“But how will people reach you?” asked a door.\n\n“I have a form,” said the shelf.\n\nThe telephone rang. Someone stood at the desk. The shelf began to suspect that looking ready was not quite the same as being available.\n\n## Where the parable stops\n\nThe proposed Marlow Library Tool Shelf is a six-week trial, not an approved service. It requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits and would offer free borrowing on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026.\n\nAn optional web reservation form would sit alongside telephone and walk-up access. The fictional conversation above explains a concern; it is not evidence that a particular person encountered it.\n\nThe proposed record would include completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. Public reporting would exclude borrower names. No measured outcomes or savings are available. Kit contents and loan conditions remain unresolved.\n\nThe practical decision is whether to authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. The parable cannot make that decision. It can only keep us from confusing a neat arrangement with a completed experience.\n\nIn another story, the shelf might become a hero and solve the whole problem. In this one, it has a smaller job: carry tools, leave room for people’s actual attempts to use them, and let the record disagree with the opening promise. A fictional shelf can learn a lesson instantly. A proposed service needs permission and evidence.", "sourceMarkdown": "# The shelf that thought it was a door\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\n*An original fictional parable.* A shelf was told it would help people borrow tools. It arranged its imaginary contents beautifully and waited to be congratulated.\n\n“But how will people reach you?” asked a door.\n\n“I have a form,” said the shelf.\n\nThe telephone rang. Someone stood at the desk. The shelf began to suspect that looking ready was not quite the same as being available.\n\n## Where the parable stops\n\nThe proposed Marlow Library Tool Shelf is a six-week trial, not an approved service. It requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits and would offer free borrowing on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026.\n\nAn optional web reservation form would sit alongside telephone and walk-up access. The fictional conversation above explains a concern; it is not evidence that a particular person encountered it.\n\nThe proposed record would include completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. Public reporting would exclude borrower names. No measured outcomes or savings are available. Kit contents and loan conditions remain unresolved.\n\nThe practical decision is whether to authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. The parable cannot make that decision. It can only keep us from confusing a neat arrangement with a completed experience.\n\nIn another story, the shelf might become a hero and solve the whole problem. In this one, it has a smaller job: carry tools, leave room for people’s actual attempts to use them, and let the record disagree with the opening promise. A fictional shelf can learn a lesson instantly. A proposed service needs permission and evidence.\n", "sha256": "d9850eaab0a567c6e28c2e630f1c77e5f4f7da760ee1f1bd2ac2fea8443dfff3", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.
\n\nAn original fictional parable. A shelf was told it would help people borrow tools. It arranged its imaginary contents beautifully and waited to be congratulated.
\n\n“But how will people reach you?” asked a door.
\n\n“I have a form,” said the shelf.
\n\nThe telephone rang. Someone stood at the desk. The shelf began to suspect that looking ready was not quite the same as being available.
\n\nThe proposed Marlow Library Tool Shelf is a six-week trial, not an approved service. It requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits and would offer free borrowing on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026.
\n\nAn optional web reservation form would sit alongside telephone and walk-up access. The fictional conversation above explains a concern; it is not evidence that a particular person encountered it.
\n\nThe proposed record would include completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. Public reporting would exclude borrower names. No measured outcomes or savings are available. Kit contents and loan conditions remain unresolved.
\n\nThe practical decision is whether to authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. The parable cannot make that decision. It can only keep us from confusing a neat arrangement with a completed experience.
\n\nIn another story, the shelf might become a hero and solve the whole problem. In this one, it has a smaller job: carry tools, leave room for people’s actual attempts to use them, and let the record disagree with the opening promise. A fictional shelf can learn a lesson instantly. A proposed service needs permission and evidence.
" }, { "id": "V16/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\n*Fictional image:* the calendar moved a meeting and tried to move the entire project with it. The actual update is narrower. The review has moved to Thursday, the scope is unchanged, and no new delivery deadline has been approved. Confirm the meeting; decide the deadline separately.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\n*Fictional image:* the calendar moved a meeting and tried to move the entire project with it. The actual update is narrower. The review has moved to Thursday, the scope is unchanged, and no new delivery deadline has been approved. Confirm the meeting; decide the deadline separately.\n", "sha256": "d6c33827b42984d3ed214263c17aa597c9e10de439d2523f41750647cd1e0d63", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.
\n\nFictional image: the calendar moved a meeting and tried to move the entire project with it. The actual update is narrower. The review has moved to Thursday, the scope is unchanged, and no new delivery deadline has been approved. Confirm the meeting; decide the deadline separately.
" }, { "id": "V16/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\n*Fictional premise:* a paragraph arrives carrying too many suitcases. At the fictional writing session we ask what belongs to its journey. Bring one paragraph from a draft and a question about its intended meaning. We will try revisions of that paragraph, without promising that every sentence will leave transformed.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\n*Fictional premise:* a paragraph arrives carrying too many suitcases. At the fictional writing session we ask what belongs to its journey. Bring one paragraph from a draft and a question about its intended meaning. We will try revisions of that paragraph, without promising that every sentence will leave transformed.\n", "sha256": "0ebd0113954228e0a3a283aa885e914ae71131cb4e768d9103f56a6a4472c8ba", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.
\n\nFictional premise: a paragraph arrives carrying too many suitcases. At the fictional writing session we ask what belongs to its journey. Bring one paragraph from a draft and a question about its intended meaning. We will try revisions of that paragraph, without promising that every sentence will leave transformed.
" }, { "id": "V16/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V16 · Speculative parable\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\n**Invented parable: the number that wanted a promotion.**\n\nA sleeve number decided it was too small a thing to matter. It left its photograph and became a grand title: *An Unforgettable Summer*.\n\nThe catalog asked which photograph it belonged to.\n\n“Surely the title is enough,” said the number.\n\nBut the title could not point back to the sleeve. The number returned to its old job. It had confused sounding meaningful with keeping a connection intact.\n\n**Where the story stops.**\n\nThe fictional Alder Photo Archive has 48 donated photographs to catalog. Keep the originals in their numbered sleeves and match each file to the sleeve number. If a sleeve number is missing, stop and ask the archive lead. Stop and ask the lead if handling could damage a photograph, too. The talking number is an invented image, not an incident report.\n\nFor this project, the agreed workflow is to scan at 600 dpi, saving an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. The scanner model is unspecified. These are this project’s instructions, not a claim about a universal preservation standard.\n\nUse the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Put corrections in a separate catalog note. Record a missing date as unknown; do not guess a year from clothing. No donor biography or actual photograph date is supplied here.\n\nKeep the viewing copies internal until the rights review is complete. Rights clearance remains unresolved, and no completion date has been promised. No scanning has been reported complete; no preservation or speed benefit has been measured.\n\nThe parable can remind us why a connection matters. It cannot clear rights, supply a missing number, or tell a volunteer that a fragile photograph is safe to handle. For a missing sleeve number or possible handling damage, stop and ask the archive lead. Keep the viewing copies internal while rights review remains incomplete.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V16 · Speculative parable\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\n**Invented parable: the number that wanted a promotion.**\n\nA sleeve number decided it was too small a thing to matter. It left its photograph and became a grand title: *An Unforgettable Summer*.\n\nThe catalog asked which photograph it belonged to.\n\n“Surely the title is enough,” said the number.\n\nBut the title could not point back to the sleeve. The number returned to its old job. It had confused sounding meaningful with keeping a connection intact.\n\n**Where the story stops.**\n\nThe fictional Alder Photo Archive has 48 donated photographs to catalog. Keep the originals in their numbered sleeves and match each file to the sleeve number. If a sleeve number is missing, stop and ask the archive lead. Stop and ask the lead if handling could damage a photograph, too. The talking number is an invented image, not an incident report.\n\nFor this project, the agreed workflow is to scan at 600 dpi, saving an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. The scanner model is unspecified. These are this project’s instructions, not a claim about a universal preservation standard.\n\nUse the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Put corrections in a separate catalog note. Record a missing date as unknown; do not guess a year from clothing. No donor biography or actual photograph date is supplied here.\n\nKeep the viewing copies internal until the rights review is complete. Rights clearance remains unresolved, and no completion date has been promised. No scanning has been reported complete; no preservation or speed benefit has been measured.\n\nThe parable can remind us why a connection matters. It cannot clear rights, supply a missing number, or tell a volunteer that a fragile photograph is safe to handle. For a missing sleeve number or possible handling damage, stop and ask the archive lead. Keep the viewing copies internal while rights review remains incomplete.\n", "sha256": "cc7e9c6f1a182ceb550d1235b0c25ed067d506cd9b7a1d7e70b06c464c225c8d", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.
\n\nInvented parable: the number that wanted a promotion.
\n\nA sleeve number decided it was too small a thing to matter. It left its photograph and became a grand title: An Unforgettable Summer.
\n\nThe catalog asked which photograph it belonged to.
\n\n“Surely the title is enough,” said the number.
\n\nBut the title could not point back to the sleeve. The number returned to its old job. It had confused sounding meaningful with keeping a connection intact.
\n\nWhere the story stops.
\n\nThe fictional Alder Photo Archive has 48 donated photographs to catalog. Keep the originals in their numbered sleeves and match each file to the sleeve number. If a sleeve number is missing, stop and ask the archive lead. Stop and ask the lead if handling could damage a photograph, too. The talking number is an invented image, not an incident report.
\n\nFor this project, the agreed workflow is to scan at 600 dpi, saving an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. The scanner model is unspecified. These are this project’s instructions, not a claim about a universal preservation standard.
\n\nUse the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Put corrections in a separate catalog note. Record a missing date as unknown; do not guess a year from clothing. No donor biography or actual photograph date is supplied here.
\n\nKeep the viewing copies internal until the rights review is complete. Rights clearance remains unresolved, and no completion date has been promised. No scanning has been reported complete; no preservation or speed benefit has been measured.
\n\nThe parable can remind us why a connection matters. It cannot clear rights, supply a missing number, or tell a volunteer that a fragile photograph is safe to handle. For a missing sleeve number or possible handling damage, stop and ask the archive lead. Keep the viewing copies internal while rights review remains incomplete.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V16", "sample_id": "V16/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V16/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "b4c192d57264830e2abe8d37eec16fe3e85878e5fcd1c80ef5743574d9c58100", "trimmed_body_sha256": "6fed66eeff790d9b72e0fdfbbeb9a0daa2c55e433904c72fe6f5fd84ddd216fc", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "“No,” says the impossible notebook. “Returning is still a new page.”", "start": 189, "end": 257, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Conversational phrasing, spoken turns or a personal note sit below neutral professional3; the text remains edited." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "“No,” says the impossible notebook. “Returning is still a new page.”", "start": 189, "end": 257, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The impossible talking notebook offers mild playful personification; literal explanation dominates, below occasional clear lightness3." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "“No,” says the impossible notebook. “Returning is still a new page.”", "start": 189, "end": 257, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Rhetorical movement or reader-directed engagement adds some energy, below overt encouragement3 or excitement5." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Assess the task through its actual permission, retention and recovery terms.", "start": 1080, "end": 1156, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Practical decision support shows modest reader regard, between task-only1 and explicit acknowledgment3." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "This is the limited correspondence with the parable: the current state changes while stored history remains.", "start": 677, "end": 785, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace role, retention and restoration require a little product familiarity, but consequences are explained; below several unexplained domain concepts3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "This is the limited correspondence with the parable: the current state changes while stored history remains.", "start": 677, "end": 785, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Several connected distinctions explain operation, permissions and recovery boundaries; exceeds selected reasons3 without a fully worked example sequence for5." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://aclanthology.org/2021.acl-long.185/", "title": "Style is NOT a single variable: Case Studies for Cross-Stylistic Language Understanding", "id": "S12" }, { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/explanation/", "title": "Explanation", "id": "S42" } ], "researchLimits": "Cross-style and explanation sources are design context, not validation of a fictional teaching mechanism.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v16-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v16-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V16/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V16/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V16/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V16.svg", "bundleSha256": "ce65f8cc360304537a2f16e9fd2ce6411ff5357330f758843dd34313c14b6519", "bundleBytes": 79213 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice when a reader can benefit from a brief imaginative model before confronting exact terms. It suits reflective teaching, a proposal with a conceptual trap, or an explanatory essay about mistaken assumptions. The fiction should illuminate one relationship. Avoid it as the sole format for safety instructions, factual reporting, or urgent decisions; the reader must never need to decode an allegory to know what to do.
\n\nThe stable voice tests an idea by giving it a small, impossible world, then inspects the limits of that world. Its fictional narrator may be playful; its explanatory narrator stays exact and restrained. Tone can range from whimsical to unsettling without changing the boundary between invention and evidence. Narrative distance changes openly at the handoff: a talking object belongs to the parable, while the project facts belong to the supplied brief. Neither speaker establishes a real biography or professional authority.
\n\nBegin with an explicit fiction label before any invented scene or dialogue. Introduce an impossible premise, let one consequence or reversal expose the mistaken assumption, and stop the story before it consumes the task. Use a clear transition such as “Where the story stops” to start the factual application. That section supplies all required facts and an actual instruction or decision. The ending may briefly recall the image, but it must not let the fictional resolution answer an empirical question the project has not tested.
\n\nIn the story, alternate simple narrative sentences with a short piece of dialogue or an unexpected turn. Repetition can give an object a comic habit, provided it changes at the reversal. In the application, return to complete, direct clauses and exact conditional language. Full stops are the main pause. Quotation marks identify invented dialogue only inside the labeled fiction; they never lend authority to fabricated testimony. A small digression may enrich the premise, but discard it if it makes the mapping ambiguous or delays a required stopping rule.
\n\nChoose one family of images and keep its logic understandable. A number that wants to escape its sleeve can dramatize a broken connection between object and record; it cannot prove that a scan is safe. Personification gives an abstraction a motive, not a real person’s feelings. Humor comes from the mismatch between an object’s ambition and its limited job. Keep the explanatory diction literal. Avoid stacking a magical archive, a sailing ship, and a garden into the same short piece; competing metaphors make the practical lesson hard to locate.
\n\nPlace “Invented parable” or equivalent in ordinary words, even if it is also italicized. Use a separate labeled section for the factual application. In plain text, keep those labels and paragraph breaks; quotation marks alone are insufficient evidence that dialogue is imaginary. Do not style the story as a historical clipping, interview transcript, or case study. If the factual section is excerpted, its fictional-project context should remain visible rather than depending on a label several pages earlier.
\n\nProtect every operational fact, technical token, quotation, and supplied description in the factual section. Fiction may invent a world, not retrospectively invent project events, donor memories, approval, or outcomes. State where an analogy stops. This profile combines with spoken explanation or an explicit procedure following the story. It conflicts with a news lead, unmarked first-person testimony, or a requirement for immediate factual compression. If a plain explanation already resolves the misunderstanding, keep it; a parable is optional and should earn the time it takes to read.
\n\nWrite the literal lesson and full factual application first. Identify the single misconception the story could expose. Invent a small world with one mechanism, one reversal, and no unnecessary backstory. Label it before the first invented claim. Join the sections with an explicit mapping and limitation. Check that removing the story leaves complete instructions, and that removing the factual section would clearly leave only fiction. Inspect each callback for accidental claims of measured benefit. Read the stopping rule separately to ensure no metaphor weakens it.
\n\nFaulty: “A donor told us the photograph remembered its own date, proving the archive can recover every year.” This fabricates testimony and turns fantasy into a research finding.
\n\nRepair: “Invented parable: a photograph asked the calendar for a date, but the calendar could not supply one. In the fictional archive workflow, record a missing date as unknown; do not guess a year from clothing.” The story now exposes the temptation to invent, while the plain application gives the required action and makes no recovery claim.
\n\nThe full seed, update, and invitation show different sizes of parable. The archive application tests the boundary on a new topic. All are AI-authored fiction and explanation, not records of actual events.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "L21", "title": "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions", "author": "Edwin A. Abbott", "year": "1884", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/97/pg97-images.html", "relationship": "An impossible world has explicit rules; no separate modern application paragraph.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Speculative mathematical fiction", "publicationDate": "1884" }, { "id": "L28", "title": "The War Prayer, in Europe and Elsewhere", "author": "Mark Twain; collection edited by Albert Bigelow Paine", "year": "1923", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/68604/pg68604-images.html", "relationship": "A fictional messenger reveals consequences; application stays implicit.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Anti-war satirical parable", "publicationDate": "1923" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Speculative parable · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V16.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Allegory", "url": "https://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/A/allegory.htm", "relationship": "University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference" }, { "title": "Simile", "url": "https://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/S/simile.htm", "relationship": "University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference" }, { "title": "The Lyric Essay", "url": "https://senecareview.hws.edu/the-lyric-essay", "relationship": "Primary literary editorial statement" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A clearly fictional miniature in which an impossible premise generates a consequence that illuminates a real question without pretending to prove a real-world claim.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nPermission for fiction, an invented premise and events, and a bounded topic of comparison.
\n\nFictional frame → impossible premise → consequential reversal → limited real-world application.
\n\nEstablish an explicitly fictional frame and a nonliteral premise. Check: The reader must not confuse the invented event with reporting.
Let the premise cause a meaningful consequence or reversal. Check: Explain the relation between the impossible rule and what changes.
Bound the real-world application as an analogy or question. Check: The conclusion must not treat the fictional outcome as empirical evidence.
Use this voice when a reader can benefit from a brief imaginative model before confronting exact terms. It suits reflective teaching, a proposal with a conceptual trap, or an explanatory essay about mistaken assumptions. The fiction should illuminate one relationship. Avoid it as the sole format for safety instructions, factual reporting, or urgent decisions; the reader must never need to decode an allegory to know what to do.
\n\nThe stable voice tests an idea by giving it a small, impossible world, then inspects the limits of that world. Its fictional narrator may be playful; its explanatory narrator stays exact and restrained. Tone can range from whimsical to unsettling without changing the boundary between invention and evidence. Narrative distance changes openly at the handoff: a talking object belongs to the parable, while the project facts belong to the supplied brief. Neither speaker establishes a real biography or professional authority.
\n\nBegin with an explicit fiction label before any invented scene or dialogue. Introduce an impossible premise, let one consequence or reversal expose the mistaken assumption, and stop the story before it consumes the task. Use a clear transition such as “Where the story stops” to start the factual application. That section supplies all required facts and an actual instruction or decision. The ending may briefly recall the image, but it must not let the fictional resolution answer an empirical question the project has not tested.
\n\nIn the story, alternate simple narrative sentences with a short piece of dialogue or an unexpected turn. Repetition can give an object a comic habit, provided it changes at the reversal. In the application, return to complete, direct clauses and exact conditional language. Full stops are the main pause. Quotation marks identify invented dialogue only inside the labeled fiction; they never lend authority to fabricated testimony. A small digression may enrich the premise, but discard it if it makes the mapping ambiguous or delays a required stopping rule.
\n\nChoose one family of images and keep its logic understandable. A number that wants to escape its sleeve can dramatize a broken connection between object and record; it cannot prove that a scan is safe. Personification gives an abstraction a motive, not a real person’s feelings. Humor comes from the mismatch between an object’s ambition and its limited job. Keep the explanatory diction literal. Avoid stacking a magical archive, a sailing ship, and a garden into the same short piece; competing metaphors make the practical lesson hard to locate.
\n\nPlace “Invented parable” or equivalent in ordinary words, even if it is also italicized. Use a separate labeled section for the factual application. In plain text, keep those labels and paragraph breaks; quotation marks alone are insufficient evidence that dialogue is imaginary. Do not style the story as a historical clipping, interview transcript, or case study. If the factual section is excerpted, its fictional-project context should remain visible rather than depending on a label several pages earlier.
\n\nProtect every operational fact, technical token, quotation, and supplied description in the factual section. Fiction may invent a world, not retrospectively invent project events, donor memories, approval, or outcomes. State where an analogy stops. This profile combines with spoken explanation or an explicit procedure following the story. It conflicts with a news lead, unmarked first-person testimony, or a requirement for immediate factual compression. If a plain explanation already resolves the misunderstanding, keep it; a parable is optional and should earn the time it takes to read.
\n\nWrite the literal lesson and full factual application first. Identify the single misconception the story could expose. Invent a small world with one mechanism, one reversal, and no unnecessary backstory. Label it before the first invented claim. Join the sections with an explicit mapping and limitation. Check that removing the story leaves complete instructions, and that removing the factual section would clearly leave only fiction. Inspect each callback for accidental claims of measured benefit. Read the stopping rule separately to ensure no metaphor weakens it.
\n\nFaulty: “A donor told us the photograph remembered its own date, proving the archive can recover every year.” This fabricates testimony and turns fantasy into a research finding.
\n\nRepair: “Invented parable: a photograph asked the calendar for a date, but the calendar could not supply one. In the fictional archive workflow, record a missing date as unknown; do not guess a year from clothing.” The story now exposes the temptation to invent, while the plain application gives the required action and makes no recovery claim.
\n\nAnimals, magic, a named protagonist, and an explicit final moral are optional. An impossible administrative rule can suffice.
\n\nA purely fictional ending may omit an explicit moral; the local operational use still needs a bounded connection somewhere in its container.
\n\nAttach a moral to an unrelated fantasy. Check: The application must depend on the particular invented mechanism.
Use fictional success as proof of a product, policy, or treatment. Check: Identify the inference boundary between story and evidence.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Invented parable: in a fictional town, every promise becomes a chair. A planner mistakes a room of promised chairs for a staffed welcome. No real-world outcome is implied.
\n\nFiction: In the town where promises became chairs, the planner promised everyone a welcome. By morning the hall was full of seats. When the first guest arrived, nobody was there to greet her. The story offers a distinction, not evidence: a promised resource is not the same thing as responsibility for using it.
\n\nFiction: In a town where promises became chairs, a planner promised everyone a welcome. The hall filled with seats, and no one greeted the first guest. Therefore every real workshop that uses chairs will fail.
\n\nWhy it differs: The story mechanism is present, but the conclusion illegitimately turns fiction into a universal factual prediction.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nRhetorical references explain figurative meaning. This exact speculative-parable contract is a local design.
\n\nAllegory — University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference.
Simile — University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference.
The Lyric Essay — Primary literary editorial statement.
Draftline’s Version history becomes available on 20 October 2026, included on every existing plan at no additional charge. The feature retains versions for 30 days and allows workspace editors to restore them.
\n\nRestoring makes a new current version. It does not delete stored history. The operation therefore changes the current version while preserving the stored record, rather than removing later history as part of the restoration.
\n\nThe interface action is named Version history. Only workspace editors can restore a version; the supplied terms do not extend that permission to everyone who can read a document.
\n\nThe feature cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled. That restriction is separate from the thirty-day retention period. Available version history does not mean every missing file can be recovered.
\n\nBefore restoring, check that the version you need is retained and that you have the workspace-editor role.
" }, { "key": "human-h04", "label": "18F; front-matter author handle alison · Announcing FBOpen: Government opportunities made easier", "path": "excerpts/H04.md", "source": { "title": "Announcing FBOpen: Government opportunities made easier", "author": "18F; front-matter author handle alison", "publicationDate": "2014-03-31", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-03-31-announcing-fbopen-government-opportunities-made-easier.md", "locator": "Opening three paragraphs; link destinations omitted", "rights": "CC0 · 18F staff prose", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/", "relationship": "Launch and intended users precede implementation detail.", "edition": "18F repository snapshot df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5 (2021-12-30)", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "Today we're announcing our first product launch: FBOpen, a set of open-source tools to help small businesses search for opportunities to work with the U.S. government.\n\nOn the surface, fbopen.gsa.gov is a simple, Google-style page where you can search available federal contracts and grants. We’ve used the latest in search technology to make finding opportunities easier and more effective for everybody.\n\nFBOpen is more than a search website, however. For those who want to dig deeper, FBOpen is also an API (documented at http://docs.fbopen.apiary.io) that you can use to build custom query pages and analysis tools. Additionally, the codebase is open-source and available at our GitHub repository, so you can build your own FBOpen server, customize your own version of the API, add your own opportunity listings — the sky's the limit.\n", "id": "V17/human-h04", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "Today we're announcing our first product launch: FBOpen, a set of open-source tools to help small businesses search for opportunities to work with the U.S. government.\n\nOn the surface, fbopen.gsa.gov is a simple, Google-style page where you can search available federal contracts and grants. We’ve used the latest in search technology to make finding opportunities easier and more effective for everybody.\n\nFBOpen is more than a search website, however. For those who want to dig deeper, FBOpen is also an API (documented at http://docs.fbopen.apiary.io) that you can use to build custom query pages and analysis tools. Additionally, the codebase is open-source and available at our GitHub repository, so you can build your own FBOpen server, customize your own version of the API, add your own opportunity listings — the sky's the limit.\n", "sha256": "a481f7af63a0f9af96eb1d9cb15d0654219e1210b7b6d170b678e2f2291170e3", "html": "Today we're announcing our first product launch: FBOpen, a set of open-source tools to help small businesses search for opportunities to work with the U.S. government.
\n\nOn the surface, fbopen.gsa.gov is a simple, Google-style page where you can search available federal contracts and grants. We’ve used the latest in search technology to make finding opportunities easier and more effective for everybody.
\n\nFBOpen is more than a search website, however. For those who want to dig deeper, FBOpen is also an API (documented at http://docs.fbopen.apiary.io) that you can use to build custom query pages and analysis tools. Additionally, the codebase is open-source and available at our GitHub repository, so you can build your own FBOpen server, customize your own version of the API, add your own opportunity listings — the sky's the limit.
" }, { "id": "V17/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# Clearer Notes workshop set for 7 November\n\nThe fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop will take place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It is free and has **12 places**.\n\nAttendees should bring **one paragraph to revise**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nNo location, time zone, trainer credentials or access arrangements have been supplied in the event information. The description provides no evidence of demand or guaranteed revision outcomes.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V17\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Clearer Notes workshop set for 7 November\n\nThe fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop will take place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It is free and has **12 places**.\n\nAttendees should bring **one paragraph to revise**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nNo location, time zone, trainer credentials or access arrangements have been supplied in the event information. The description provides no evidence of demand or guaranteed revision outcomes.\n\n", "sha256": "6c00eb328ca1546e87724f27824c65b79d82eded4adc103b03561a53df509800", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 11.2, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.9057142857142858, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 18, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 19.642857142857142, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 56, "prose_sentences": 5, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 11, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "6c00eb328ca1546e87724f27824c65b79d82eded4adc103b03561a53df509800", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "The fictional Clearer Notes workshop will take place on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. It is free and has 12 places.
\n\nAttendees should bring one paragraph to revise. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nNo location, time zone, trainer credentials or access arrangements have been supplied in the event information. The description provides no evidence of demand or guaranteed revision outcomes.
" }, { "id": "V17/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# New Draftline uploads unavailable\n\n**New uploads are unavailable in Draftline. Existing documents can still be read.**\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.** No repair time has been supplied.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V17\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# New Draftline uploads unavailable\n\n**New uploads are unavailable in Draftline. Existing documents can still be read.**\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.** No repair time has been supplied.\n\n", "sha256": "e3d8022fd976eb1bf5db5285556d7e968aa8004d3baf1161d84bc9d962f08f66", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 7.75, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 45.16129032258065, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 31, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 14, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "e3d8022fd976eb1bf5db5285556d7e968aa8004d3baf1161d84bc9d962f08f66", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable in Draftline. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m. No repair time has been supplied.
" }, { "id": "V17/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# Marlow Library considers six-week tool-lending pilot\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\nMarlow Library is considering a Tool Shelf pilot that would provide free borrowing of 24 tool kits. The six-week proposal requests $2,400 and has not been approved.\n\nThe proposed service would operate on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. The decision before the library is whether to authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. The proposal does not establish a permanent service.\n\nAn optional web reservation form would be offered alongside telephone and walk-up access. The alternative routes are part of the proposed design, rather than an exception requiring borrowers to use the website first.\n\nEvaluation records would include completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. Keeping these categories separate would allow the library to examine operational effort and unsuccessful interactions as well as use. Borrower names would not be published.\n\nNo measured outcomes or savings are available. The number of kits and the requested budget describe inputs; they do not demonstrate demand or benefits. The contents of the kits and the conditions of borrowing also remain unresolved.\n\nThe proposal should therefore be read as a plan for a limited test, not as a report of a successful program. Any account of its results would need to follow the trial and reflect the evidence collected. Authorization, operating details, and a later decision about continuation are distinct steps. None should be inferred merely from the publication of a timetable or this description of the plan.", "sourceMarkdown": "# Marlow Library considers six-week tool-lending pilot\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\nMarlow Library is considering a Tool Shelf pilot that would provide free borrowing of 24 tool kits. The six-week proposal requests $2,400 and has not been approved.\n\nThe proposed service would operate on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. The decision before the library is whether to authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. The proposal does not establish a permanent service.\n\nAn optional web reservation form would be offered alongside telephone and walk-up access. The alternative routes are part of the proposed design, rather than an exception requiring borrowers to use the website first.\n\nEvaluation records would include completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. Keeping these categories separate would allow the library to examine operational effort and unsuccessful interactions as well as use. Borrower names would not be published.\n\nNo measured outcomes or savings are available. The number of kits and the requested budget describe inputs; they do not demonstrate demand or benefits. The contents of the kits and the conditions of borrowing also remain unresolved.\n\nThe proposal should therefore be read as a plan for a limited test, not as a report of a successful program. Any account of its results would need to follow the trial and reflect the evidence collected. Authorization, operating details, and a later decision about continuation are distinct steps. None should be inferred merely from the publication of a timetable or this description of the plan.\n", "sha256": "e535ef2420ab4957c33a8dbc001c0cfee2713b2325a6069bcf7998bd2a080296", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.
\n\nMarlow Library is considering a Tool Shelf pilot that would provide free borrowing of 24 tool kits. The six-week proposal requests $2,400 and has not been approved.
\n\nThe proposed service would operate on Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. The decision before the library is whether to authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. The proposal does not establish a permanent service.
\n\nAn optional web reservation form would be offered alongside telephone and walk-up access. The alternative routes are part of the proposed design, rather than an exception requiring borrowers to use the website first.
\n\nEvaluation records would include completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. Keeping these categories separate would allow the library to examine operational effort and unsuccessful interactions as well as use. Borrower names would not be published.
\n\nNo measured outcomes or savings are available. The number of kits and the requested budget describe inputs; they do not demonstrate demand or benefits. The contents of the kits and the conditions of borrowing also remain unresolved.
\n\nThe proposal should therefore be read as a plan for a limited test, not as a report of a successful program. Any account of its results would need to follow the trial and reflect the evidence collected. Authorization, operating details, and a later decision about continuation are distinct steps. None should be inferred merely from the publication of a timetable or this description of the plan.
" }, { "id": "V17/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\nThe review meeting has moved to Thursday. The scope remains unchanged, and no new delivery deadline has been approved. Participants are asked to confirm the revised meeting time. Any change to the delivery commitment requires a separate decision.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\nThe review meeting has moved to Thursday. The scope remains unchanged, and no new delivery deadline has been approved. Participants are asked to confirm the revised meeting time. Any change to the delivery commitment requires a separate decision.\n", "sha256": "6b468dd5c9e8d39fb86b6a931a7ead7d21fe9be352c524eed9041ef517c8953c", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.
\n\nThe review meeting has moved to Thursday. The scope remains unchanged, and no new delivery deadline has been approved. Participants are asked to confirm the revised meeting time. Any change to the delivery commitment requires a separate decision.
" }, { "id": "V17/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\nA fictional writing session will focus on revising one paragraph. Participants should bring a draft paragraph and a question about its intended reader takeaway. The session will compare possible revisions; it does not promise publication, approval or a measured improvement in reader response.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\nA fictional writing session will focus on revising one paragraph. Participants should bring a draft paragraph and a question about its intended reader takeaway. The session will compare possible revisions; it does not promise publication, approval or a measured improvement in reader response.\n", "sha256": "775832520b72cc82732996a6863b19406e71107efe3fbe7766cd991e4c36583f", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.
\n\nA fictional writing session will focus on revising one paragraph. Participants should bring a draft paragraph and a question about its intended reader takeaway. The session will compare possible revisions; it does not promise publication, approval or a measured improvement in reader response.
" }, { "id": "V17/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V17 · News brief\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\n**Linden Museum proposes one label-comparison session**\n\nLinden Museum proposes a single session to compare two draft labels for each of six replica objects. The session would take place on 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. It has not been approved.\n\nThe proposal requests $900, with participation free. The team must decide whether to authorize the session or request revisions. The proposed date and budget describe the request; they do not establish permission to proceed.\n\nVisitors could read ordinary or large-print copies. An optional audio reading would use the same transcript. Those access routes are part of the proposed arrangement and should remain visible in any account of the session.\n\nThe record would cover which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Visitor names must not be recorded. The proposed observations distinguish preference, misunderstanding, and operational effort; none is a result available at this stage.\n\nAttendance and staffing are unknown. Which label is better and how choices will be analyzed also remain unresolved. The brief does not provide a method for drawing a conclusion from the recorded choices, so no particular analysis should be inferred from the description of what would be collected.\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. The presence of two draft labels per object creates a comparison to consider, but it does not identify a preferred version or show that visitors would learn more from either label.\n\nThe outstanding action is a team decision on the bounded proposal. Authorization or a request for revisions would address whether this session proceeds; neither would by itself supply evidence about its eventual findings.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V17 · News brief\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\n**Linden Museum proposes one label-comparison session**\n\nLinden Museum proposes a single session to compare two draft labels for each of six replica objects. The session would take place on 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. It has not been approved.\n\nThe proposal requests $900, with participation free. The team must decide whether to authorize the session or request revisions. The proposed date and budget describe the request; they do not establish permission to proceed.\n\nVisitors could read ordinary or large-print copies. An optional audio reading would use the same transcript. Those access routes are part of the proposed arrangement and should remain visible in any account of the session.\n\nThe record would cover which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Visitor names must not be recorded. The proposed observations distinguish preference, misunderstanding, and operational effort; none is a result available at this stage.\n\nAttendance and staffing are unknown. Which label is better and how choices will be analyzed also remain unresolved. The brief does not provide a method for drawing a conclusion from the recorded choices, so no particular analysis should be inferred from the description of what would be collected.\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. The presence of two draft labels per object creates a comparison to consider, but it does not identify a preferred version or show that visitors would learn more from either label.\n\nThe outstanding action is a team decision on the bounded proposal. Authorization or a request for revisions would address whether this session proceeds; neither would by itself supply evidence about its eventual findings.\n", "sha256": "782bf95968b2b4e5b4889d30d2df3e4afd0d3e0c946ddaf42e72716f5d5230ed", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.
\n\nLinden Museum proposes one label-comparison session
\n\nLinden Museum proposes a single session to compare two draft labels for each of six replica objects. The session would take place on 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. It has not been approved.
\n\nThe proposal requests $900, with participation free. The team must decide whether to authorize the session or request revisions. The proposed date and budget describe the request; they do not establish permission to proceed.
\n\nVisitors could read ordinary or large-print copies. An optional audio reading would use the same transcript. Those access routes are part of the proposed arrangement and should remain visible in any account of the session.
\n\nThe record would cover which label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Visitor names must not be recorded. The proposed observations distinguish preference, misunderstanding, and operational effort; none is a result available at this stage.
\n\nAttendance and staffing are unknown. Which label is better and how choices will be analyzed also remain unresolved. The brief does not provide a method for drawing a conclusion from the recorded choices, so no particular analysis should be inferred from the description of what would be collected.
\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. The presence of two draft labels per object creates a comparison to consider, but it does not identify a preferred version or show that visitors would learn more from either label.
\n\nThe outstanding action is a team decision on the bounded proposal. Authorization or a request for revisions would address whether this session proceeds; neither would by itself supply evidence about its eventual findings.
" }, { "id": "V17/probe-H01", "key": "probe-H01", "briefId": "H01", "label": "Separate mechanism probe", "markdown": "## Inkport exports working; three earlier requests unresolved\n\nNew exports in the fictional document service Inkport are working as of **10:40**, but **three earlier export requests remain unresolved**. Reading existing documents was unaffected. The cause of the initial failure is not yet known.\n\nExports began failing at **10:00**. The team paused new export requests at **10:12** and restarted the export queue at **10:25**. These are the recorded actions and their sequence; they do not establish the cause of the failure or show that restarting the queue caused recovery.\n\nThe next update is at **11:00**. Current availability and the unresolved earlier requests remain separate parts of the status. Three earlier requests remain unresolved even though new exports are working.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V17\nbrief_id: H01\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\ncohort: separate-heldout-mechanism-probe\n---\n\n\n## Inkport exports working; three earlier requests unresolved\n\nNew exports in the fictional document service Inkport are working as of **10:40**, but **three earlier export requests remain unresolved**. Reading existing documents was unaffected. The cause of the initial failure is not yet known.\n\nExports began failing at **10:00**. The team paused new export requests at **10:12** and restarted the export queue at **10:25**. These are the recorded actions and their sequence; they do not establish the cause of the failure or show that restarting the queue caused recovery.\n\nThe next update is at **11:00**. Current availability and the unresolved earlier requests remain separate parts of the status. Three earlier requests remain unresolved even though new exports are working.\n\n", "sha256": "b373a02eda440ea5164d93ff622a57e5dce0df5fb6d31ba49c6dd1460272016e", "measurement": null, "html": "New exports in the fictional document service Inkport are working as of 10:40, but three earlier export requests remain unresolved. Reading existing documents was unaffected. The cause of the initial failure is not yet known.
\n\nExports began failing at 10:00. The team paused new export requests at 10:12 and restarted the export queue at 10:25. These are the recorded actions and their sequence; they do not establish the cause of the failure or show that restarting the queue caused recovery.
\n\nThe next update is at 11:00. Current availability and the unresolved earlier requests remain separate parts of the status. Three earlier requests remain unresolved even though new exports are working.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V17", "sample_id": "V17/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V17/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "65e96981d6006df1ddffe0e4def87d181bd6faa0cf16e3a6558d9552d8601846", "trimmed_body_sha256": "95a84c3ecc21f4fde2fa0fd9c76866e54d88f46cc3328ddcb91f3e5bec3add1c", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Draftline’s **Version history** becomes available on **20 October 2026**, included on every existing plan at no additional charge.", "start": 55, "end": 185, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public prose and ordinary headings fit neutral professional3, without ceremonial or strongly institutional conventions for5." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Draftline’s **Version history** becomes available on **20 October 2026**, included on every existing plan at no additional charge.", "start": 55, "end": 185, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "No intended comic device appears across the whole piece. The quote illustrates the prevailing serious stance; a quote alone cannot prove absence." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Before restoring, check that the version you need is retained and that you have the workspace-editor role.", "start": 909, "end": 1015, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Matter-of-fact presentation remains restrained; positive capability statements do not themselves establish enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Before restoring, check that the version you need is retained and that you have the workspace-editor role.", "start": 909, "end": 1015, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The relationship is impersonal and task-only; useful information does not itself imply relational care." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "That restriction is separate from the thirty-day retention period.", "start": 764, "end": 830, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace role, retention and restoration require a little product familiarity, but consequences are explained; below several unexplained domain concepts3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "That restriction is separate from the thirty-day retention period.", "start": 764, "end": 830, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Selected distinctions explain the rules, but this shortened piece mostly states conditions rather than building an extended worked model." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://digital.gov/guides/plain-language", "title": "Plain language guide series", "id": "S48" }, { "url": "https://sre.google/sre-book/postmortem-culture/", "title": "Postmortem Culture: Learning from Failure", "id": "S45" } ], "researchLimits": "Plain-language and incident practice constrain status reporting; this is not a journalism standard or a live-incident protocol.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v17-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v17-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V17/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V17/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V17/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V17.svg", "bundleSha256": "5fa29a47396c21350096541837d758fb9a2d54eae26b55aa729fb2b9444aaf5a", "bundleBytes": 79450 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice for a reader scanning for what happened, what is proposed, and what remains to be decided. It suits internal bulletins, factual notices, proposal summaries, and concise community reporting. The lead should remain accurate when quoted alone. Avoid it for an intimate letter or a persuasive speech whose personal stance is central. A news-shaped text is not automatically independently reported journalism; its source and verification boundary must remain clear.
\n\nThe stable voice prioritizes status, attributable facts, and proportion. It stands at a moderate distance from the subject and avoids claiming access to anyone’s thoughts. Tone may be routine, serious, or corrective, but does not become celebratory merely because the proposal is appealing. Genre supplies the inverted pyramid; voice supplies disciplined attention to what can be established. An institutional subject in a sentence does not authorize a fictional spokesperson, an invented quotation, or an implied interview.
\n\nPut the subject, action, and approval status in the headline or first paragraph. Follow with the most consequential operating facts, then access arrangements, evidence limits, and the outstanding decision. Keep one main job per paragraph. Later paragraphs should deepen the lead without reversing it. Transitions generally name the next subject—“The proposed session,” “The record,” “Attendance”—rather than narrating the writer’s reasoning. End with the current next step or remaining uncertainty, not a prediction dressed as a closing flourish. A reader who stops early should not leave with false certainty.
\n\nPrefer subject–verb clauses with the actor close to the action. Use “proposes,” “would,” and “has not been approved” precisely; excessive hedging can be as misleading as unjustified certainty. Combine closely related facts in a medium-length sentence, then use a shorter sentence for a status boundary. Colons can introduce a compact set of recorded items. Avoid semicolon chains that hide the hierarchy. Repetition of the institution’s name or “proposal” is useful when a pronoun could blur the referent. Digressions and rhetorical questions usually delay the news and should be cut.
\n\nUse concrete nouns, exact figures, and verbs that describe rather than applaud. “Requests $900” says more than “announces an exciting initiative.” If an evaluation is needed, attribute it and state the criterion; do not allow praise to masquerade as fact. Imagery and humor are normally absent because they compete with rapid factual orientation. Emotional restraint does not require euphemism. Name a limitation plainly. Preserve the language of a genuine quotation exactly when one is supplied, including any necessary context and attribution.
\n\nUse an informative headline and ordinary paragraphs. A subheading or short list is justified only when it helps readers retrieve several operational terms. Bold should not be needed to distinguish a proposal from an approved event. The plain-text version retains the headline as a line of text and spells out the status. Do not use quotation styling for invented statements, a dateline that implies reporting from a location, or a journalistic byline that claims a real author or publication relationship.
\n\nProtect names, dates, amounts, quantities, exact access routes, privacy rules, source descriptions, and quotations. Separate facts from recommendations; a supplied proposal is the source for what it proposes, not evidence that benefits will occur. This profile can accept decision-first ordering or a documentary fact box. It conflicts with speculative scenes, lyrical suspense, and advocacy that omits countervailing facts. Keep an existing accurate bulletin unchanged when its lead reaches the point and its hierarchy works. Do not pad a short notice merely to imitate the length of a news article.
\n\nExtract the event or proposal, its status, and the reader’s needed action. Draft a headline and lead that remain true without the rest of the piece. Arrange operational details in descending importance. Attribute plans to the proposal and place unknowns beside the claims they limit. Check each sentence for an invented source, implied result, or promotional adjective. Read the first two paragraphs as a standalone excerpt. Then verify the complete piece against every required fact, especially access and privacy details that often disappear during compression.
\n\nFaulty: “Linden Museum launches a successful label study, staff say.” The sentence invents launch, success, and attribution before the reader reaches any qualification.
\n\nRepair: “Linden Museum proposes a single label-comparison session on 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. The session has not been approved, and no results are available.” The lead now identifies the actual status and timing. A later paragraph can explain the requested decision without having to undo a false opening.
\n\nRead the full seed, schedule update, and session invitation. The museum application tests a fresh factual lead. These AI-authored examples draw on synthetic briefs; they are neither independently reported news nor evidence of Kyle’s authorship.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "H04", "title": "Announcing FBOpen: Government opportunities made easier", "author": "18F; front-matter author handle alison", "year": "2014", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-03-31-announcing-fbopen-government-opportunities-made-easier.md", "relationship": "Launch and intended users precede implementation detail.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Government digital-service blog", "publicationDate": "2014-03-31" }, { "id": "M03", "title": "Cloudflare outage caused by bad software deploy (updated)", "author": "John Graham-Cumming", "year": "2019", "url": "https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-outage/", "relationship": "Brief notice prioritizes status, cause and next account.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Service status brief", "publicationDate": "2019-07-02" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "News brief · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V17.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Reuters Journalistic Standards", "url": "https://reutersagency.com/about/standards-values/", "relationship": "Organization-owned professional standards" }, { "title": "Nailing the Nut Graf", "url": "https://www.theopennotebook.com/2014/04/29/nailing-the-nut-graf/", "relationship": "Practitioner craft reporting with examples" }, { "title": "Plain Language Guide Series", "url": "https://digital.gov/guides/plain-language", "relationship": "Government guidance" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A compact account of a development whose lead names the actor, action, and current status, followed by information in decreasing decision relevance.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA verified or explicitly fictional newsworthy change, timing where known, current status, and attributed uncertainty.
\n\nActor/action/status lead → consequential operating facts → context → unknowns and next update.
\n\nPut the development and its status in the lead. Check: A reader stopping after the first sentence must not mistake a proposal for an approved action.
Order remaining facts by relevance to understanding the development. Check: Compare the effect of truncating the final paragraph.
Identify consequential unknowns rather than implying completion. Check: State what remains pending or unverified.
Use this voice for a reader scanning for what happened, what is proposed, and what remains to be decided. It suits internal bulletins, factual notices, proposal summaries, and concise community reporting. The lead should remain accurate when quoted alone. Avoid it for an intimate letter or a persuasive speech whose personal stance is central. A news-shaped text is not automatically independently reported journalism; its source and verification boundary must remain clear.
\n\nThe stable voice prioritizes status, attributable facts, and proportion. It stands at a moderate distance from the subject and avoids claiming access to anyone’s thoughts. Tone may be routine, serious, or corrective, but does not become celebratory merely because the proposal is appealing. Genre supplies the inverted pyramid; voice supplies disciplined attention to what can be established. An institutional subject in a sentence does not authorize a fictional spokesperson, an invented quotation, or an implied interview.
\n\nPut the subject, action, and approval status in the headline or first paragraph. Follow with the most consequential operating facts, then access arrangements, evidence limits, and the outstanding decision. Keep one main job per paragraph. Later paragraphs should deepen the lead without reversing it. Transitions generally name the next subject—“The proposed session,” “The record,” “Attendance”—rather than narrating the writer’s reasoning. End with the current next step or remaining uncertainty, not a prediction dressed as a closing flourish. A reader who stops early should not leave with false certainty.
\n\nPrefer subject–verb clauses with the actor close to the action. Use “proposes,” “would,” and “has not been approved” precisely; excessive hedging can be as misleading as unjustified certainty. Combine closely related facts in a medium-length sentence, then use a shorter sentence for a status boundary. Colons can introduce a compact set of recorded items. Avoid semicolon chains that hide the hierarchy. Repetition of the institution’s name or “proposal” is useful when a pronoun could blur the referent. Digressions and rhetorical questions usually delay the news and should be cut.
\n\nUse concrete nouns, exact figures, and verbs that describe rather than applaud. “Requests $900” says more than “announces an exciting initiative.” If an evaluation is needed, attribute it and state the criterion; do not allow praise to masquerade as fact. Imagery and humor are normally absent because they compete with rapid factual orientation. Emotional restraint does not require euphemism. Name a limitation plainly. Preserve the language of a genuine quotation exactly when one is supplied, including any necessary context and attribution.
\n\nUse an informative headline and ordinary paragraphs. A subheading or short list is justified only when it helps readers retrieve several operational terms. Bold should not be needed to distinguish a proposal from an approved event. The plain-text version retains the headline as a line of text and spells out the status. Do not use quotation styling for invented statements, a dateline that implies reporting from a location, or a journalistic byline that claims a real author or publication relationship.
\n\nProtect names, dates, amounts, quantities, exact access routes, privacy rules, source descriptions, and quotations. Separate facts from recommendations; a supplied proposal is the source for what it proposes, not evidence that benefits will occur. This profile can accept decision-first ordering or a documentary fact box. It conflicts with speculative scenes, lyrical suspense, and advocacy that omits countervailing facts. Keep an existing accurate bulletin unchanged when its lead reaches the point and its hierarchy works. Do not pad a short notice merely to imitate the length of a news article.
\n\nExtract the event or proposal, its status, and the reader’s needed action. Draft a headline and lead that remain true without the rest of the piece. Arrange operational details in descending importance. Attribute plans to the proposal and place unknowns beside the claims they limit. Check each sentence for an invented source, implied result, or promotional adjective. Read the first two paragraphs as a standalone excerpt. Then verify the complete piece against every required fact, especially access and privacy details that often disappear during compression.
\n\nFaulty: “Linden Museum launches a successful label study, staff say.” The sentence invents launch, success, and attribution before the reader reaches any qualification.
\n\nRepair: “Linden Museum proposes a single label-comparison session on 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. The session has not been approved, and no results are available.” The lead now identifies the actual status and timing. A later paragraph can explain the requested decision without having to undo a false opening.
\n\nA news brief may include context or a quotation. Neither a dateline nor a fixed word count is universally required.
\n\nA verified approval belongs in the lead even if an inherited sample used “proposed.” Preserve facts rather than copying its uncertainty.
\n\nUse promotional enthusiasm as the news itself. Check: Remove evaluative adjectives and identify the actual development.
Delay a governing status qualification until after a misleading lead. Check: Check the first-sentence inference independently of later corrections.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional news facts: Linden Library has proposed a Saturday repair café, 10–12, with 16 free places. Approval and staffing are pending; decision due Friday.
\n\nLinden Library has proposed a 16-place repair café; approval and staffing remain pending. The free session would run Saturday from 10 to 12. A decision is due Friday.
\n\nThe idea of repairing things has a long appeal. Saturday offers two hours from 10 to 12, and 16 places could be free. Linden Library has proposed a repair café; approval and staffing are pending, with a decision due Friday.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second eventually supplies the same facts but delays the actual development behind background and speculation-like framing.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nNews standards support sourcing and clarity. The priority-order lead is the local profile contract, not a claim that all journalism uses an inverted pyramid.
\n\nReuters Journalistic Standards — Organization-owned professional standards.
Nailing the Nut Graf — Practitioner craft reporting with examples.
Plain Language Guide Series — Government guidance.
Returning to useful earlier work is a worthwhile aim. I would use Draftline’s Version history for a retained version, but I would not rely on it as protection against every kind of loss.
\n\nThe feature cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled. Versions are retained for 30 days. Those are two separate limits: a retained document version is available within the window; a file deleted before enablement is outside this feature’s recovery capability.
\n\nVersion history becomes available on 20 October 2026, included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Only workspace editors can restore a version. Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history.
\n\nThat distinction is the reason for my support. Earlier content can become current without restoration erasing the stored record. It gives a workspace editor a bounded revision choice.
\n\nLook for Version history in the interface. Before relying on it, check the desired version, the thirty-day retention window and your workspace role.
\n\nMy reservation remains the broader recovery task. If the missing material is a file deleted before enablement, this useful revision capability will not retrieve it.
" }, { "key": "human-l12", "label": "Abraham Lincoln · Letter to Ulysses S. Grant", "path": "excerpts/L12.md", "source": { "title": "Letter to Ulysses S. Grant", "author": "Abraham Lincoln", "publicationDate": "1863-07-13", "url": "https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/vicksburg.htm", "locator": "Quoted letter body beginning “I do not remember”", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/vicksburg.htm", "relationship": "Acknowledges mistaken judgment without defensiveness; retrospective concession, not a fresh dissent.", "edition": "Historical letter as transcribed by the U.S. National Park Service", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "I do not remember that you and I ever met personally. I write this now as a grateful acknowledgement for the almost inestimable service you have done the country. I wish to say a word further. When you first reached the vicinity of Vicksburg, I thought you should do, what you finally did - march the troops across the neck, run the batteries with the transports, and thus go below; and I never had any faith, except a general hope that you knew better than I, that the Yazoo Pass expedition, and the like, could succeed. When you got below, and took Port-Gibson, Grand Gulf, and vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and join Gen. Banks; and when you turned Northward East of the Big Black, I feared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong.\n", "id": "V18/human-l12", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "I do not remember that you and I ever met personally. I write this now as a grateful acknowledgement for the almost inestimable service you have done the country. I wish to say a word further. When you first reached the vicinity of Vicksburg, I thought you should do, what you finally did - march the troops across the neck, run the batteries with the transports, and thus go below; and I never had any faith, except a general hope that you knew better than I, that the Yazoo Pass expedition, and the like, could succeed. When you got below, and took Port-Gibson, Grand Gulf, and vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and join Gen. Banks; and when you turned Northward East of the Big Black, I feared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong.\n", "sha256": "5ac4f51688d21ac0980cfecb2c7d8bbc4b9ba245cf9d5eb20fdd52529f838b70", "html": "I do not remember that you and I ever met personally. I write this now as a grateful acknowledgement for the almost inestimable service you have done the country. I wish to say a word further. When you first reached the vicinity of Vicksburg, I thought you should do, what you finally did - march the troops across the neck, run the batteries with the transports, and thus go below; and I never had any faith, except a general hope that you knew better than I, that the Yazoo Pass expedition, and the like, could succeed. When you got below, and took Port-Gibson, Grand Gulf, and vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and join Gen. Banks; and when you turned Northward East of the Big Black, I feared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong.
" }, { "id": "V18/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# A workshop for one paragraph\n\nI would consider the fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop for its concrete task: bring **one paragraph to revise**. That is a manageable preparation request; I would leave the outcome of the revision open.\n\nThe session is **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It is free and has **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nMy reservation is practical. Location, time zone and access arrangements have not been supplied. Check them before making attendance plans. If the task and arrangements fit your needs, the registration deadline is the next decision to keep in view.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V18\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# A workshop for one paragraph\n\nI would consider the fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop for its concrete task: bring **one paragraph to revise**. That is a manageable preparation request; I would leave the outcome of the revision open.\n\nThe session is **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It is free and has **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nMy reservation is practical. Location, time zone and access arrangements have not been supplied. Check them before making attendance plans. If the task and arrangements fit your needs, the registration deadline is the next decision to keep in view.\n\n", "sha256": "664f1cc4f43575c6a312b54537a99af3f0473c6be99a55ab0da875ad5e7f53fe", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 10.875, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.8405263157894737, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 11.494252873563218, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 32, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 12.64367816091954, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 87, "prose_sentences": 8, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 1, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 11, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "664f1cc4f43575c6a312b54537a99af3f0473c6be99a55ab0da875ad5e7f53fe", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "I would consider the fictional Clearer Notes workshop for its concrete task: bring one paragraph to revise. That is a manageable preparation request; I would leave the outcome of the revision open.
\n\nThe session is 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. It is free and has 12 places. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nMy reservation is practical. Location, time zone and access arrangements have not been supplied. Check them before making attendance plans. If the task and arrangements fit your needs, the registration deadline is the next decision to keep in view.
" }, { "id": "V18/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# Draftline: keep the update time distinct\n\n**New uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read.** The cause is not yet known.\n\nThe next update is at **3 p.m.** That is the time for the next status communication. It does not state when uploads will return.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V18\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Draftline: keep the update time distinct\n\n**New uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read.** The cause is not yet known.\n\nThe next update is at **3 p.m.** That is the time for the next status communication. It does not state when uploads will return.\n\n", "sha256": "3dcf47327323b2e39b1607442cb2444bbe01b69307e0a77c33dcc6c27e8a237a", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 10, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 30, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 40, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 12, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "3dcf47327323b2e39b1607442cb2444bbe01b69307e0a77c33dcc6c27e8a237a", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read. The cause is not yet known.
\n\nThe next update is at 3 p.m. That is the time for the next status communication. It does not state when uploads will return.
" }, { "id": "V18/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# Support the trial without overstating the case\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\nI support the aim behind the Marlow Library Tool Shelf: making tools available for free borrowing. I am not comfortable describing the proposal as a proven way to improve access or save money. We have no measured outcomes yet, and the pilot has not been approved.\n\nI would be more comfortable with a clearly bounded authorization. The present proposal is for six weeks, with 24 tool kits and a requested budget of $2,400. Its proposed desk hours are Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. That scope is specific enough to discuss without committing us to a permanent service.\n\nI would also preserve the alternative access routes. The web reservation form should remain optional, with telephone and walk-up access available. An online process may be helpful without being an appropriate condition of participation.\n\nFor evaluation, the proposed records should cover completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. I would want the final discussion to consider all three rather than lead only with the most favorable count. Borrower names should not be published.\n\nKit contents and loan conditions still need decisions. These are reasonable issues to resolve, not objections to the idea of a trial. My concern is with treating unspecified details, or hoped-for benefits, as settled facts.\n\nThe next decision can therefore stay constructive: authorize this bounded trial with the necessary operating detail, or request revisions. I am asking us to leave the larger claims open. That gives the proposal a fair test and gives us room to change our minds in response to what happens.", "sourceMarkdown": "# Support the trial without overstating the case\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\nI support the aim behind the Marlow Library Tool Shelf: making tools available for free borrowing. I am not comfortable describing the proposal as a proven way to improve access or save money. We have no measured outcomes yet, and the pilot has not been approved.\n\nI would be more comfortable with a clearly bounded authorization. The present proposal is for six weeks, with 24 tool kits and a requested budget of $2,400. Its proposed desk hours are Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. That scope is specific enough to discuss without committing us to a permanent service.\n\nI would also preserve the alternative access routes. The web reservation form should remain optional, with telephone and walk-up access available. An online process may be helpful without being an appropriate condition of participation.\n\nFor evaluation, the proposed records should cover completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. I would want the final discussion to consider all three rather than lead only with the most favorable count. Borrower names should not be published.\n\nKit contents and loan conditions still need decisions. These are reasonable issues to resolve, not objections to the idea of a trial. My concern is with treating unspecified details, or hoped-for benefits, as settled facts.\n\nThe next decision can therefore stay constructive: authorize this bounded trial with the necessary operating detail, or request revisions. I am asking us to leave the larger claims open. That gives the proposal a fair test and gives us room to change our minds in response to what happens.\n", "sha256": "62442ef15d9163369d3d772518c800c3075df13e423bc1fce1bcae5a7aa2e910", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.
\n\nI support the aim behind the Marlow Library Tool Shelf: making tools available for free borrowing. I am not comfortable describing the proposal as a proven way to improve access or save money. We have no measured outcomes yet, and the pilot has not been approved.
\n\nI would be more comfortable with a clearly bounded authorization. The present proposal is for six weeks, with 24 tool kits and a requested budget of $2,400. Its proposed desk hours are Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. That scope is specific enough to discuss without committing us to a permanent service.
\n\nI would also preserve the alternative access routes. The web reservation form should remain optional, with telephone and walk-up access available. An online process may be helpful without being an appropriate condition of participation.
\n\nFor evaluation, the proposed records should cover completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. I would want the final discussion to consider all three rather than lead only with the most favorable count. Borrower names should not be published.
\n\nKit contents and loan conditions still need decisions. These are reasonable issues to resolve, not objections to the idea of a trial. My concern is with treating unspecified details, or hoped-for benefits, as settled facts.
\n\nThe next decision can therefore stay constructive: authorize this bounded trial with the necessary operating detail, or request revisions. I am asking us to leave the larger claims open. That gives the proposal a fair test and gives us room to change our minds in response to what happens.
" }, { "id": "V18/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\nThe review has moved to Thursday; please confirm the revised meeting time. I would keep the delivery date separate: the scope is unchanged, and no new deadline has been approved. Please do not treat agreement on the meeting as agreement on a revised delivery commitment.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\nThe review has moved to Thursday; please confirm the revised meeting time. I would keep the delivery date separate: the scope is unchanged, and no new deadline has been approved. Please do not treat agreement on the meeting as agreement on a revised delivery commitment.\n", "sha256": "0d5da71eacc6303c26414ffcaf16d4affe05f3e19af586175194d9d77a34b225", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.
\n\nThe review has moved to Thursday; please confirm the revised meeting time. I would keep the delivery date separate: the scope is unchanged, and no new deadline has been approved. Please do not treat agreement on the meeting as agreement on a revised delivery commitment.
" }, { "id": "V18/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\nYou are invited to revise one paragraph at the fictional writing session. I support trying alternatives, but I would not promise a finished publication. Bring a draft paragraph and a reader question. That keeps the work focused while leaving the result open.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\nYou are invited to revise one paragraph at the fictional writing session. I support trying alternatives, but I would not promise a finished publication. Bring a draft paragraph and a reader question. That keeps the work focused while leaving the result open.\n", "sha256": "536b58360238e2da20ef9ef833a7540b81a386eec4bf19118c0fca38bf6b77db", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.
\n\nYou are invited to revise one paragraph at the fictional writing session. I support trying alternatives, but I would not promise a finished publication. Bring a draft paragraph and a reader question. That keeps the work focused while leaving the result open.
" }, { "id": "V18/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V18 · Diplomatic dissent\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\nWelcome to the fictional Alder Photo Archive project. I support making the 48 donated photographs easier for the team to catalog, but I would keep that aim separate from any claim that the work is complete or has produced a measured benefit. No scanning has been reported complete, and no preservation or speed benefit has been measured.\n\nI would be firm about the connection to each original. **If a sleeve number is missing, or handling could damage a photograph, stop and ask the archive lead.** Keep originals in their numbered sleeves and match every file to the sleeve number. Continuing in either situation would cross the stated stopping rule.\n\nPlease follow the agreement for this project: scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. The scanner model is not specified here. These instructions describe our fictional project’s workflow; they are not a universal preservation standard.\n\nThe same care applies to wording. Use the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. If a correction is needed, record it in a separate catalog note. Please do not improve the source wording silently. Record a missing date as unknown rather than guessing a year from clothing; neither actual dates nor donor biographies are supplied here.\n\nThe viewing copies must remain internal until the rights review is complete. I cannot support treating a ready JPEG as permission to publish it. Rights clearance remains unresolved, and no completion date has been promised.\n\nYou can move the agreed work forward within those limits. At either specified stopping condition, stop and ask the archive lead. A clear pause is a valid part of this workflow, not an agreement to invent the missing information.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V18 · Diplomatic dissent\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\nWelcome to the fictional Alder Photo Archive project. I support making the 48 donated photographs easier for the team to catalog, but I would keep that aim separate from any claim that the work is complete or has produced a measured benefit. No scanning has been reported complete, and no preservation or speed benefit has been measured.\n\nI would be firm about the connection to each original. **If a sleeve number is missing, or handling could damage a photograph, stop and ask the archive lead.** Keep originals in their numbered sleeves and match every file to the sleeve number. Continuing in either situation would cross the stated stopping rule.\n\nPlease follow the agreement for this project: scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. The scanner model is not specified here. These instructions describe our fictional project’s workflow; they are not a universal preservation standard.\n\nThe same care applies to wording. Use the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. If a correction is needed, record it in a separate catalog note. Please do not improve the source wording silently. Record a missing date as unknown rather than guessing a year from clothing; neither actual dates nor donor biographies are supplied here.\n\nThe viewing copies must remain internal until the rights review is complete. I cannot support treating a ready JPEG as permission to publish it. Rights clearance remains unresolved, and no completion date has been promised.\n\nYou can move the agreed work forward within those limits. At either specified stopping condition, stop and ask the archive lead. A clear pause is a valid part of this workflow, not an agreement to invent the missing information.\n", "sha256": "462ac824a794b37e969537298550b44f62fcc73a4620807b1f7958ee7d26f40b", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.
\n\nWelcome to the fictional Alder Photo Archive project. I support making the 48 donated photographs easier for the team to catalog, but I would keep that aim separate from any claim that the work is complete or has produced a measured benefit. No scanning has been reported complete, and no preservation or speed benefit has been measured.
\n\nI would be firm about the connection to each original. If a sleeve number is missing, or handling could damage a photograph, stop and ask the archive lead. Keep originals in their numbered sleeves and match every file to the sleeve number. Continuing in either situation would cross the stated stopping rule.
\n\nPlease follow the agreement for this project: scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. The scanner model is not specified here. These instructions describe our fictional project’s workflow; they are not a universal preservation standard.
\n\nThe same care applies to wording. Use the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. If a correction is needed, record it in a separate catalog note. Please do not improve the source wording silently. Record a missing date as unknown rather than guessing a year from clothing; neither actual dates nor donor biographies are supplied here.
\n\nThe viewing copies must remain internal until the rights review is complete. I cannot support treating a ready JPEG as permission to publish it. Rights clearance remains unresolved, and no completion date has been promised.
\n\nYou can move the agreed work forward within those limits. At either specified stopping condition, stop and ask the archive lead. A clear pause is a valid part of this workflow, not an agreement to invent the missing information.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V18", "sample_id": "V18/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V18/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "b0552eed21e0ca09a749caa14b7c31f147957f785d38c1730842782b73efdaf5", "trimmed_body_sha256": "354ddf790c28ba0dc69df37e7d5599028be812bf4932c7996a67d0b2038d70da", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "My reservation remains the broader recovery task.", "start": 1093, "end": 1142, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public prose and ordinary headings fit neutral professional3, without ceremonial or strongly institutional conventions for5." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "My reservation remains the broader recovery task.", "start": 1093, "end": 1142, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "No intended comic device appears across the whole piece. The quote illustrates the prevailing serious stance; a quote alone cannot prove absence." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "I would use Draftline’s **Version history** for a retained version, but I would not rely on it as protection against every kind of loss.", "start": 89, "end": 225, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Rhetorical movement or reader-directed engagement adds some energy, below overt encouragement3 or excitement5." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Before relying on it, check the desired version, the thirty-day retention window and your workspace role.", "start": 986, "end": 1091, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Practical decision support shows modest reader regard, between task-only1 and explicit acknowledgment3." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Earlier content can become current without restoration erasing the stored record.", "start": 801, "end": 882, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace role, retention and restoration require a little product familiarity, but consequences are explained; below several unexplained domain concepts3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Earlier content can become current without restoration erasing the stored record.", "start": 801, "end": 882, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Several connected distinctions explain operation, permissions and recovery boundaries; exceeds selected reasons3 without a fully worked example sequence for5." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://styleguide.mailchimp.com/voice-and-tone/", "title": "Voice and Tone", "id": "S18" }, { "url": "https://developers.google.com/style/tone", "title": "Tone", "id": "S20" } ], "researchLimits": "Brand and technical-tone guidance do not establish one culturally universal way to disagree.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v18-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v18-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V18/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V18/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V18/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V18.svg", "bundleSha256": "9a9f0489ba7c1b55ce94d2f8b4a65279e04a4af34e3dd9a77bdf9a98a71d05bc", "bundleBytes": 79518 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice when a working relationship matters and a boundary must still be unmistakable. It suits scope objections, project correspondence, meeting responses, and a request to revise a proposal. The reader should know exactly what is supported, what is disputed, and what would allow progress. Avoid it when a direct emergency instruction is required or when a concession would falsely imply that harmful conduct is negotiable.
\n\nThe stable voice preserves collaboration through specificity, not automatic agreement. Its stance is willing to participate within stated limits. Narrative distance is close enough for “I recommend” or “I cannot support,” but does not require personal history or emotional confession. Tone can be warm, firm, or restrained according to the stakes. A constructive colleague persona determines how the argument is framed; it must not invent Kyle’s job, authority, past conflict, or private feelings. In demonstrations, first-person positions belong to the fictional speaker.
\n\nBegin with a real shared aim that the brief supports. State the reservation early and name the exact claim or action at issue. Explain why that boundary matters, then offer a workable way forward within the given facts. Finish with the response or decision needed. One paragraph should not spend several sentences praising the idea before revealing the objection. Transitions such as “My concern is,” “Within that limit,” and “Please confirm” connect the relationship to an actionable route. Do not end by quietly withdrawing the boundary.
\n\nUse measured concessions with a clear main clause: “The description is useful, but its date is still unknown.” Avoid strings of “perhaps,” “just,” and “a little,” which can make a firm requirement sound optional. Conditional sentences can define the supported path, but conditions already required by the brief remain requirements. Repeat the key distinction once if it prevents ambiguity. Full stops give the objection its own space; semicolons can connect concern and consequence. Keep parentheses for secondary context, never the core reservation. Digression into motives usually weakens the case.
\n\nName behaviors, records, and claims rather than assigning character traits. “This wording implies rights clearance” is more useful than “The team is careless.” Select concrete alternatives instead of vague appeals to caution. Imagery and humor are usually slight or absent because readers may interpret them as mockery or evasion. Emotional intensity should show the seriousness of the boundary without predicting anyone’s reaction. Warmth comes from a usable next step and respect for the other person’s agency, not flattery or a claim that everyone agrees.
\n\nUse letter-like paragraphs, optionally with a brief subject line. One emphasized limit can help, but write the limit fully so it survives without bold. A short pair of alternatives is useful when the recipient must choose. Avoid color-coded “good” and “bad” passages, theatrical blockquotes, and all-caps warnings. The plain-text version preserves the reservation, supported route, and requested response as separate sentences. A reader should not need layout to discover whether a statement is an objection or a suggestion.
\n\nProtect existing agreements, dates, scope, names, technical instructions, quotations, and approval status. Politeness must not turn a settled Thursday review into a merely proposed one or invent the writer’s availability. Do not attribute motives to the recipient. This voice pairs with decision-first structure, a personal letter, or criteria-led review. It conflicts with sarcasm, accusatory manifestos, and excessive suspense. Use the no-change path when the original already states a precise concern respectfully and offers a feasible response; softening it further may damage the meaning.
\n\nWrite the boundary in one unambiguous sentence before composing the opening. Identify the shared aim and the specific fact that motivates the objection. Offer the narrowest workable alternative that the task authorizes. Add the request for a response. Then compare every concession with the brief: no concession may cancel a rule, and no alternative may add an unauthorized promise. Read only the first and last sentences to check that the piece begins constructively and ends with the same boundary intact.
\n\nFaulty: “I’m sure it is probably fine to publish the viewing copies now; perhaps we can check rights later.” The sentence invents permission and treats the actual restriction as optional.
\n\nRepair: “I support preparing the viewing copies, but they must remain internal until the rights review is complete. Please keep the JPEG files within the team while the rights review remains incomplete.” The shared aim survives, the limit is explicit, and the next action works within the fictional project’s agreement.
\n\nThe full seed, schedule update, and invitation show constructive boundaries at different lengths. The archive application transfers dissent into volunteer guidance. These are AI-authored synthetic examples, not statements of Kyle’s commitments or an actual team’s disagreement.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "M05", "title": "Maker’s Schedule, Manager’s Schedule", "author": "Paul Graham", "year": "2009", "url": "https://paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html", "relationship": "Explains conflicting needs and proposes an accommodation.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Conversational explanatory essay", "publicationDate": "2009-07" }, { "id": "L12", "title": "Letter to Ulysses S. Grant", "author": "Abraham Lincoln", "year": "1863", "url": "https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/vicksburg.htm", "relationship": "Acknowledges mistaken judgment without defensiveness; retrospective concession, not a fresh dissent.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Professional personal correspondence", "publicationDate": "1863-07-13" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Diplomatic dissent · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V18.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Counterargument", "url": "https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/counterargument", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" }, { "title": "Brand voice: Above all, simple and human", "url": "https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/style-guide/brand-voice-above-all-simple-human", "relationship": "Organization-owned house style" }, { "title": "Stylistic Editing", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/stylistic-editing/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" } ], "formats": [], "html": "Respectful disagreement that names the exact reservation early, explains its basis, and preserves the boundary while pursuing a genuinely shared or compatible aim.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA real position or request to contest, a supported reason, and only those shared aims and alternatives actually available.
\n\nSupported common aim → precise reservation → reason → feasible way forward or stop → retained boundary.
\n\nName the disagreement early enough to be unmistakable. Check: A reader must not infer acceptance from the opening.
Explain the reservation in terms of the proposal or its consequences. Check: Identify the object of disagreement without attributing hidden motives.
Keep the final position consistent with the stated boundary. Check: Check whether the closing accidentally authorizes what the body rejects.
Use this voice when a working relationship matters and a boundary must still be unmistakable. It suits scope objections, project correspondence, meeting responses, and a request to revise a proposal. The reader should know exactly what is supported, what is disputed, and what would allow progress. Avoid it when a direct emergency instruction is required or when a concession would falsely imply that harmful conduct is negotiable.
\n\nThe stable voice preserves collaboration through specificity, not automatic agreement. Its stance is willing to participate within stated limits. Narrative distance is close enough for “I recommend” or “I cannot support,” but does not require personal history or emotional confession. Tone can be warm, firm, or restrained according to the stakes. A constructive colleague persona determines how the argument is framed; it must not invent Kyle’s job, authority, past conflict, or private feelings. In demonstrations, first-person positions belong to the fictional speaker.
\n\nBegin with a real shared aim that the brief supports. State the reservation early and name the exact claim or action at issue. Explain why that boundary matters, then offer a workable way forward within the given facts. Finish with the response or decision needed. One paragraph should not spend several sentences praising the idea before revealing the objection. Transitions such as “My concern is,” “Within that limit,” and “Please confirm” connect the relationship to an actionable route. Do not end by quietly withdrawing the boundary.
\n\nUse measured concessions with a clear main clause: “The description is useful, but its date is still unknown.” Avoid strings of “perhaps,” “just,” and “a little,” which can make a firm requirement sound optional. Conditional sentences can define the supported path, but conditions already required by the brief remain requirements. Repeat the key distinction once if it prevents ambiguity. Full stops give the objection its own space; semicolons can connect concern and consequence. Keep parentheses for secondary context, never the core reservation. Digression into motives usually weakens the case.
\n\nName behaviors, records, and claims rather than assigning character traits. “This wording implies rights clearance” is more useful than “The team is careless.” Select concrete alternatives instead of vague appeals to caution. Imagery and humor are usually slight or absent because readers may interpret them as mockery or evasion. Emotional intensity should show the seriousness of the boundary without predicting anyone’s reaction. Warmth comes from a usable next step and respect for the other person’s agency, not flattery or a claim that everyone agrees.
\n\nUse letter-like paragraphs, optionally with a brief subject line. One emphasized limit can help, but write the limit fully so it survives without bold. A short pair of alternatives is useful when the recipient must choose. Avoid color-coded “good” and “bad” passages, theatrical blockquotes, and all-caps warnings. The plain-text version preserves the reservation, supported route, and requested response as separate sentences. A reader should not need layout to discover whether a statement is an objection or a suggestion.
\n\nProtect existing agreements, dates, scope, names, technical instructions, quotations, and approval status. Politeness must not turn a settled Thursday review into a merely proposed one or invent the writer’s availability. Do not attribute motives to the recipient. This voice pairs with decision-first structure, a personal letter, or criteria-led review. It conflicts with sarcasm, accusatory manifestos, and excessive suspense. Use the no-change path when the original already states a precise concern respectfully and offers a feasible response; softening it further may damage the meaning.
\n\nWrite the boundary in one unambiguous sentence before composing the opening. Identify the shared aim and the specific fact that motivates the objection. Offer the narrowest workable alternative that the task authorizes. Add the request for a response. Then compare every concession with the brief: no concession may cancel a rule, and no alternative may add an unauthorized promise. Read only the first and last sentences to check that the piece begins constructively and ends with the same boundary intact.
\n\nFaulty: “I’m sure it is probably fine to publish the viewing copies now; perhaps we can check rights later.” The sentence invents permission and treats the actual restriction as optional.
\n\nRepair: “I support preparing the viewing copies, but they must remain internal until the rights review is complete. Please keep the JPEG files within the team while the rights review remains incomplete.” The shared aim survives, the limit is explicit, and the next action works within the fictional project’s agreement.
\n\nDirectness is compatible with diplomacy. A praise–criticism–praise sandwich is not required.
\n\nNo common aim is supplied: begin directly with the reservation. Manufactured agreement is less diplomatic than an honest limit.
\n\nBury dissent in praise or euphemism. Check: Ask a reviewer to state the actual position.
Invent a shared aim or viable compromise. Check: Trace claims of agreement and alternatives to the brief.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional position: writer supports exploring a repair café but will not recommend approval until staffing is confirmed. Confirmation may be sought before Friday.
\n\nI support exploring the repair café, but I do not recommend approval while staffing is unconfirmed. The proposal needs someone able to run it. Please seek that confirmation before Friday; until then, my recommendation remains to defer.
\n\nThe repair café is an interesting proposal. Staffing is unconfirmed, and confirmation may be sought before Friday. There are many positive aspects. We should think carefully about approval.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second preserves contextual facts but never states the writer’s actual reservation or retained boundary.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nArgument and respectful-tone guidance support the approach. No organization defines this exact diplomatic-dissent profile.
\n\nCounterargument — University teaching guidance.
Brand voice: Above all, simple and human — Organization-owned house style.
Stylistic Editing — Professional association standards.
Choose the version. Draftline’s interface action is Version history. It becomes available on 20 October 2026, included on every existing plan at no additional charge.
\n\nCheck the role. Only workspace editors can restore a version. Reading a document alone does not give you that permission.
\n\nKnow the result. Restoring makes a new current version. It does not delete stored history. Earlier content becomes current; the stored record remains.
\n\nCheck the window. Versions are retained for 30 days. Your restoration choice depends on the available retained version.
\n\nKnow the boundary. The feature cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled. A stored version and a previously deleted file are different recovery tasks.
\n\nChoose a retained version. Check the role and the window. Rely on the capability within those limits. A new current version is a useful result; universal recovery is more than this feature offers.
" }, { "key": "human-h02", "label": "18F; front-matter author handle eric · Working in public from day one", "path": "excerpts/H02.md", "source": { "title": "Working in public from day one", "author": "18F; front-matter author handle eric", "publicationDate": "2014-07-31", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-07-31-working-in-public-from-day-1.md", "locator": "Opening through main recommendation", "rights": "CC0 · 18F staff prose", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/", "relationship": "A declared principle accumulates practical commitments.", "edition": "18F repository snapshot df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5 (2021-12-30)", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "In the wide world of software, maybe you've heard someone say this, or maybe you've said it yourself: *\"I'll open source it after I clean up the code; it's a mess right now.\"*\n\nOr: *\"I think there are some passwords in there; I'll get around to cleaning it out at some point.\"*\n\nOr simply: *\"No way, it's just too embarrassing.\"*\n\nThese feelings are totally natural, but keep a lot of good work closed that could easily have been open. The trick to avoiding this is simple: **open source your code from day one**. Don't wait for a milestone, don't wait for it to be stable — do it from the first commit.\n\nHere are a few reasons why you should feel good about working in the open from the moment your shovel goes in the ground:\n", "id": "V19/human-h02", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "In the wide world of software, maybe you've heard someone say this, or maybe you've said it yourself: *\"I'll open source it after I clean up the code; it's a mess right now.\"*\n\nOr: *\"I think there are some passwords in there; I'll get around to cleaning it out at some point.\"*\n\nOr simply: *\"No way, it's just too embarrassing.\"*\n\nThese feelings are totally natural, but keep a lot of good work closed that could easily have been open. The trick to avoiding this is simple: **open source your code from day one**. Don't wait for a milestone, don't wait for it to be stable — do it from the first commit.\n\nHere are a few reasons why you should feel good about working in the open from the moment your shovel goes in the ground:\n", "sha256": "57e183aca13bf848e3115fa19891da084f13ede59aef066ee79998e89e3978d6", "html": "In the wide world of software, maybe you've heard someone say this, or maybe you've said it yourself: "I'll open source it after I clean up the code; it's a mess right now."
\n\nOr: "I think there are some passwords in there; I'll get around to cleaning it out at some point."
\n\nOr simply: "No way, it's just too embarrassing."
\n\nThese feelings are totally natural, but keep a lot of good work closed that could easily have been open. The trick to avoiding this is simple: open source your code from day one. Don't wait for a milestone, don't wait for it to be stable — do it from the first commit.
\n\nHere are a few reasons why you should feel good about working in the open from the moment your shovel goes in the ground:
" }, { "id": "V19/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# Bring a paragraph. Check the plans.\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise** to the fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop.\n\nPlan for **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** The session is **free**, with **12 places**.\n\nRegister by the stated closing date: **5 November**.\n\nCheck the arrangements: no location, time zone or access details are supplied here. Verify them before attendance.\n\nBring the paragraph. Check the arrangements. Decide whether this revision task fits the work you want to do.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V19\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Bring a paragraph. Check the plans.\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise** to the fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop.\n\nPlan for **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** The session is **free**, with **12 places**.\n\nRegister by the stated closing date: **5 November**.\n\nCheck the arrangements: no location, time zone or access details are supplied here. Verify them before attendance.\n\nBring the paragraph. Check the arrangements. Decide whether this revision task fits the work you want to do.\n\n", "sha256": "b9b6a1d8c5e5a930b2d1fd173dcbccc28973b2769d4db25d235ce86f531d55ea", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 8, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.8373333333333333, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 15.625, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 11, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 18.75, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 64, "prose_sentences": 8, "prose_paragraphs": 5, "reader_address_events": 1, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 12, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "b9b6a1d8c5e5a930b2d1fd173dcbccc28973b2769d4db25d235ce86f531d55ea", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Bring one paragraph to revise to the fictional Clearer Notes workshop.
\n\nPlan for 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. The session is free, with 12 places.
\n\nRegister by the stated closing date: 5 November.
\n\nCheck the arrangements: no location, time zone or access details are supplied here. Verify them before attendance.
\n\nBring the paragraph. Check the arrangements. Decide whether this revision task fits the work you want to do.
" }, { "id": "V19/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# Draftline: current status\n\n**New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.**\n\nThe cause is not yet known.\n\nThe next update is at **3 p.m.** It is an update commitment, not a repair promise.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V19\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Draftline: current status\n\n**New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.**\n\nThe cause is not yet known.\n\nThe next update is at **3 p.m.** It is an update commitment, not a repair promise.\n\n", "sha256": "983d09613a2a611edf455a6cb6a46b277428087e992de8a205b9a7a13ebb7ddc", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 8, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 10, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 37.5, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 32, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 12, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "983d09613a2a611edf455a6cb6a46b277428087e992de8a205b9a7a13ebb7ddc", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known.
\n\nThe next update is at 3 p.m. It is an update commitment, not a repair promise.
" }, { "id": "V19/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# Make the invitation usable\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\nA shelf should not be the end of the plan.\n\nMake the route to it part of the plan. Make the unsuccessful attempt part of the record. Make the person who does not use the website visible in the design without making their name public.\n\nThat is the standard I propose for the Marlow Library Tool Shelf. It is a proposed six-week pilot, not an approved service and not a finished success story.\n\nThe commitments under consideration are concrete: 24 tool kits, a requested budget of $2,400, and free borrowing. Proposed hours are Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November through 12 December 2026. The web reservation form would be optional. Telephone and walk-up routes would remain available.\n\nCount completed loans. Count staff time. Record failed borrowing attempts. Do not let a convenient success total erase the effort behind it or the people who could not complete the process. Do not publish borrower names.\n\nAnd do not give hope the status of evidence. No outcomes or savings have been measured. The kit contents and borrowing conditions still require decisions. A clear proposal can admit those gaps without abandoning its purpose.\n\nThe action now is specific: authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. Not permanent expansion. Not applause for benefits we have not observed. Permission to try, with a record capable of telling us that something needs to change.\n\n**Make the invitation usable.** Then find out whether it was. The second sentence matters as much as the first.", "sourceMarkdown": "# Make the invitation usable\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\nA shelf should not be the end of the plan.\n\nMake the route to it part of the plan. Make the unsuccessful attempt part of the record. Make the person who does not use the website visible in the design without making their name public.\n\nThat is the standard I propose for the Marlow Library Tool Shelf. It is a proposed six-week pilot, not an approved service and not a finished success story.\n\nThe commitments under consideration are concrete: 24 tool kits, a requested budget of $2,400, and free borrowing. Proposed hours are Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November through 12 December 2026. The web reservation form would be optional. Telephone and walk-up routes would remain available.\n\nCount completed loans. Count staff time. Record failed borrowing attempts. Do not let a convenient success total erase the effort behind it or the people who could not complete the process. Do not publish borrower names.\n\nAnd do not give hope the status of evidence. No outcomes or savings have been measured. The kit contents and borrowing conditions still require decisions. A clear proposal can admit those gaps without abandoning its purpose.\n\nThe action now is specific: authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. Not permanent expansion. Not applause for benefits we have not observed. Permission to try, with a record capable of telling us that something needs to change.\n\n**Make the invitation usable.** Then find out whether it was. The second sentence matters as much as the first.\n", "sha256": "40d6e89a0b0f2e70ac6ca0724abdf442e88265f2fb8834993ac885d99d0aa141", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.
\n\nA shelf should not be the end of the plan.
\n\nMake the route to it part of the plan. Make the unsuccessful attempt part of the record. Make the person who does not use the website visible in the design without making their name public.
\n\nThat is the standard I propose for the Marlow Library Tool Shelf. It is a proposed six-week pilot, not an approved service and not a finished success story.
\n\nThe commitments under consideration are concrete: 24 tool kits, a requested budget of $2,400, and free borrowing. Proposed hours are Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November through 12 December 2026. The web reservation form would be optional. Telephone and walk-up routes would remain available.
\n\nCount completed loans. Count staff time. Record failed borrowing attempts. Do not let a convenient success total erase the effort behind it or the people who could not complete the process. Do not publish borrower names.
\n\nAnd do not give hope the status of evidence. No outcomes or savings have been measured. The kit contents and borrowing conditions still require decisions. A clear proposal can admit those gaps without abandoning its purpose.
\n\nThe action now is specific: authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. Not permanent expansion. Not applause for benefits we have not observed. Permission to try, with a record capable of telling us that something needs to change.
\n\nMake the invitation usable. Then find out whether it was. The second sentence matters as much as the first.
" }, { "id": "V19/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\nMove the meeting; keep the commitments clear. The review has moved to Thursday. The scope is unchanged. No new delivery deadline has been approved. Confirm the revised meeting time, and make any delivery decision explicitly. One calendar change should not become an invisible agreement.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\nMove the meeting; keep the commitments clear. The review has moved to Thursday. The scope is unchanged. No new delivery deadline has been approved. Confirm the revised meeting time, and make any delivery decision explicitly. One calendar change should not become an invisible agreement.\n", "sha256": "2b677b2cbea744da7285f095917ea44da9a163430b659b8ffcac27e1d85dc4f5", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.
\n\nMove the meeting; keep the commitments clear. The review has moved to Thursday. The scope is unchanged. No new delivery deadline has been approved. Confirm the revised meeting time, and make any delivery decision explicitly. One calendar change should not become an invisible agreement.
" }, { "id": "V19/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\nBring the imperfect paragraph. Bring the question behind it. Leave the promise of perfection outside this fictional writing session. We are here to try, compare and revise—not to call every change an improvement before anyone has read it.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\nBring the imperfect paragraph. Bring the question behind it. Leave the promise of perfection outside this fictional writing session. We are here to try, compare and revise—not to call every change an improvement before anyone has read it.\n", "sha256": "e3df452f49236d58f4a23bdfd70bf288273a3d82f8854d99a8d0d6019dcbf06b", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.
\n\nBring the imperfect paragraph. Bring the question behind it. Leave the promise of perfection outside this fictional writing session. We are here to try, compare and revise—not to call every change an improvement before anyone has read it.
" }, { "id": "V19/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V19 · Purposeful manifesto\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\nMake the comparison possible to inspect.\n\nGive each of six replica objects its two draft labels. Keep the question open long enough for a comparison to take place. Do not turn the presence of alternatives into a claim that one has already won.\n\nThat is the standard I propose for Linden Museum’s single label-comparison session. The session has not been approved. Its proposed date is 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. The request is $900, and participation would be free. Those are the terms under consideration, not an authorization.\n\nKeep the words reachable. Visitors could read ordinary or large-print copies; an optional audio reading would carry the same transcript. Keep all three routes in the plan. A choice about how to encounter the words should not quietly become a different set of words to compare.\n\nRecord which label visitors choose. Record what they misunderstand. Record staff time. Do not record visitor names. The record needs the observations specified in the proposal, not a collection of identities.\n\nKeep uncertainty in public view. Attendance is unknown. Staffing remains unresolved. How the choices will be analyzed is unknown, and which label is better has not been established. A proposal should be able to carry those gaps without covering them in confident language.\n\nThere are no results. No learning benefit has been demonstrated. That boundary belongs in the argument itself, where it can constrain what we ask the team to believe.\n\nNow make the decision equally clear: authorize the session or request revisions. I favor requesting the staffing and analysis details before authorization. The commitment worth making is to a bounded, inspectable comparison. Its findings must remain unwritten until there is evidence to write them from.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V19 · Purposeful manifesto\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\nMake the comparison possible to inspect.\n\nGive each of six replica objects its two draft labels. Keep the question open long enough for a comparison to take place. Do not turn the presence of alternatives into a claim that one has already won.\n\nThat is the standard I propose for Linden Museum’s single label-comparison session. The session has not been approved. Its proposed date is 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. The request is $900, and participation would be free. Those are the terms under consideration, not an authorization.\n\nKeep the words reachable. Visitors could read ordinary or large-print copies; an optional audio reading would carry the same transcript. Keep all three routes in the plan. A choice about how to encounter the words should not quietly become a different set of words to compare.\n\nRecord which label visitors choose. Record what they misunderstand. Record staff time. Do not record visitor names. The record needs the observations specified in the proposal, not a collection of identities.\n\nKeep uncertainty in public view. Attendance is unknown. Staffing remains unresolved. How the choices will be analyzed is unknown, and which label is better has not been established. A proposal should be able to carry those gaps without covering them in confident language.\n\nThere are no results. No learning benefit has been demonstrated. That boundary belongs in the argument itself, where it can constrain what we ask the team to believe.\n\nNow make the decision equally clear: authorize the session or request revisions. I favor requesting the staffing and analysis details before authorization. The commitment worth making is to a bounded, inspectable comparison. Its findings must remain unwritten until there is evidence to write them from.\n", "sha256": "b1ee9d66d14a47320c7880423bbce1ee0590bd876440937b4f597f48d396482c", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.
\n\nMake the comparison possible to inspect.
\n\nGive each of six replica objects its two draft labels. Keep the question open long enough for a comparison to take place. Do not turn the presence of alternatives into a claim that one has already won.
\n\nThat is the standard I propose for Linden Museum’s single label-comparison session. The session has not been approved. Its proposed date is 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. The request is $900, and participation would be free. Those are the terms under consideration, not an authorization.
\n\nKeep the words reachable. Visitors could read ordinary or large-print copies; an optional audio reading would carry the same transcript. Keep all three routes in the plan. A choice about how to encounter the words should not quietly become a different set of words to compare.
\n\nRecord which label visitors choose. Record what they misunderstand. Record staff time. Do not record visitor names. The record needs the observations specified in the proposal, not a collection of identities.
\n\nKeep uncertainty in public view. Attendance is unknown. Staffing remains unresolved. How the choices will be analyzed is unknown, and which label is better has not been established. A proposal should be able to carry those gaps without covering them in confident language.
\n\nThere are no results. No learning benefit has been demonstrated. That boundary belongs in the argument itself, where it can constrain what we ask the team to believe.
\n\nNow make the decision equally clear: authorize the session or request revisions. I favor requesting the staffing and analysis details before authorization. The commitment worth making is to a bounded, inspectable comparison. Its findings must remain unwritten until there is evidence to write them from.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V19", "sample_id": "V19/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V19/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "a861b55c090fe69a04860dacc454b14d4cb0eaae42960947326f4ac7d5911c26", "trimmed_body_sha256": "b7d682d2c55f1145f85c289982edce00a5d53e5a58a90adaec82fb156f51c5fe", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**Check the role.** Only **workspace editors** can restore a version.", "start": 220, "end": 289, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public prose and ordinary headings fit neutral professional3, without ceremonial or strongly institutional conventions for5." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**Check the role.** Only **workspace editors** can restore a version.", "start": 220, "end": 289, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "No intended comic device appears across the whole piece. The quote illustrates the prevailing serious stance; a quote alone cannot prove absence." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Choose a retained version. Check the role and the window. Rely on the capability within those limits.", "start": 809, "end": 910, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Rhetorical movement or reader-directed engagement adds some energy, below overt encouragement3 or excitement5." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Choose a retained version. Check the role and the window. Rely on the capability within those limits.", "start": 809, "end": 910, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Practical decision support shows modest reader regard, between task-only1 and explicit acknowledgment3." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "A stored version and a previously deleted file are different recovery tasks.", "start": 731, "end": 807, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace role, retention and restoration require a little product familiarity, but consequences are explained; below several unexplained domain concepts3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "A stored version and a previously deleted file are different recovery tasks.", "start": 731, "end": 807, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Selected distinctions explain the rules, but this shortened piece mostly states conditions rather than building an extended worked model." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://styleguide.mailchimp.com/voice-and-tone/", "title": "Voice and Tone", "id": "S18" }, { "url": "https://aclanthology.org/2021.acl-long.185/", "title": "Style is NOT a single variable: Case Studies for Cross-Stylistic Language Understanding", "id": "S12" } ], "researchLimits": "Brand commitments and stylistic composition inform the overlay; they do not validate a manifesto’s persuasive effect.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v19-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v19-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V19/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V19/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V19/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V19.svg", "bundleSha256": "90924e47f3943ab2c5b41ab2b9d68d88cf7790fc3a0bcfdc8c156955d83e5338", "bundleBytes": 79429 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice when the reader needs a clear statement of principles tied to concrete commitments. It suits a short advocacy essay, project standard, opening statement, or call for a bounded decision. Its force comes from what the writer is prepared to require, not from invented urgency. Avoid it for neutral reporting, delicate one-to-one repair, or detailed instructions whose sequence would be obscured by rhetorical emphasis.
\n\nThe stable voice insists that a stated value become an inspectable action. Its stance is openly evaluative: the speaker argues for a standard and owns that argument. Tone may be resolute, hopeful, or indignant when the evidence warrants it. Narrative distance is public and direct, with little interior reflection. A constructed advocate is not proof of membership in a movement, professional authority, or a personal struggle. “We” requires a defined or fictional group; it must not recruit Kyle into commitments he has not made.
\n\nOpen with a principle whose practical meaning can be explained. Develop it through specific commitments, then let a repeated grammatical form accumulate those commitments. Put factual limits inside the argument, where they constrain what is demanded. End with a bounded ask. Short paragraphs can isolate the principle or a decisive limit, while a longer paragraph carries dates, quantities, and operating terms. A repeated ending should gain meaning from the intervening facts. Do not finish with a bigger promise than the evidence supports.
\n\nUse parallel clauses with genuine parallel roles: “Record the choice. Record the misunderstanding. Record the staff time.” Vary the pace with an explanatory sentence so the text does not become a wall of commands. Repeat a verb when the repetition establishes responsibility; do not repeat three near-synonyms merely to sound emphatic. Periods give declarations weight. Colons can turn a principle toward its concrete terms. Exclamation marks rarely add useful force. Parenthetical asides and long digressions usually interrupt the cumulative movement; place required qualifications in direct sentences.
\n\nFavor verbs that describe action and nouns that name what is at stake. “Keep visitor names out of the record” is more exact than “honor dignity” on its own. Imagery may supply a unifying frame, but a metaphor cannot establish that harm occurred or that a proposal will succeed. Humor is uncommon and should not turn participants into targets. Emotional intensity may be high, but factual certainty remains evidence-dependent. An insistence on honest uncertainty can be as forceful as an insistence on action.
\n\nUse short lines or short paragraphs at genuine turns in the argument. Bold only a small number of earned claims, and avoid all-caps slogans. Meaning should survive when lines wrap on a phone or styling is removed. The plain-text version keeps repeated words and full stops; it does not depend on typography to signal a qualification. Do not convert the whole piece into a poster if the reader needs operational detail. A complete factual paragraph is part of the voice’s discipline, not a failure of energy.
\n\nProtect all dates, amounts, access routes, privacy rules, quotations, and approval conditions. Advocacy may recommend a standard but cannot claim universal agreement, demonstrated benefits, or a completed event. Do not erase a limitation because it weakens a slogan. This voice combines with decision-first framing and a concise spoken delivery. It clashes with neutral news attribution, tentative notebook wandering, and a personal apology. Leave strong purposeful prose unchanged when its repetitions carry distinct commitments and its ask stays bounded; more emphasis can make an already clear argument less credible.
\n\nChoose one principle and write the concrete behavior that would express it. List the nonnegotiable facts, then draft a factual paragraph that preserves them. Select a repeated verb or phrase only after the commitments are clear. Arrange the statements so each adds responsibility rather than volume. State what is unknown and what has not been authorized. End with the actual choice. Remove any sentence that implies urgency, consensus, or success without support, then check that the piece still has a reason to act.
\n\nFaulty: “Approve the session today. Everyone knows these labels will transform learning.” The demand invents a deadline, consensus, and a demonstrated benefit.
\n\nRepair: “Make the comparison inspectable. Keep the six replica objects and two draft labels per object in the plan. Authorize the proposed session or request revisions. If authorized, record choices, misunderstandings, and staff time without visitor names.” The force now comes from explicit commitments. The revised passage demands a responsible decision without pretending the result is already known.
\n\nThe full seed, update, and invitation show purposeful repetition. The museum application argues from a new factual brief. All are AI-authored demonstrations of a rhetorical method, not proof of shared values, public support, or Kyle’s approval.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "H02", "title": "Working in public from day one", "author": "18F; front-matter author handle eric", "year": "2014", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-07-31-working-in-public-from-day-1.md", "relationship": "A declared principle accumulates practical commitments.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Government digital-service blog", "publicationDate": "2014-07-31" }, { "id": "L23", "title": "Useful Work versus Useless Toil", "author": "William Morris", "year": "1884", "url": "https://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1884/useful.htm", "relationship": "Repetition and a criterion build conviction; absolute condemnation exceeds the guide’s limits.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Political lecture / manifesto", "publicationDate": "1884" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Purposeful manifesto · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V19.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Anaphora", "url": "https://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/A/anaphora.htm", "relationship": "University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference" }, { "title": "IAP2 Core Values for Public Participation", "url": "https://www.iap2.org/page/corevalues", "relationship": "Professional association participation principles" }, { "title": "Fundamentals of Editing", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/fundamentals-editing/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A public declaration of principles made concrete through commitments and limits. Its cumulative force comes from repeated obligations, not borrowed certainty or imaginary consensus.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA real or explicitly fictional speaker’s values, commitments within their authority, and relevant constraints.
\n\nGoverning principle → concrete commitments → cumulative parallel structure → constraints within the promise → bounded call.
\n\nState a principle that actually governs the subsequent commitments. Check: Link each commitment to the declared value.
Convert values into actions within the speaker’s authority. Check: Replace an abstract noun with the action promised; identify its owner.
Include conditions and limits inside the declaration. Check: A promise must not become unlimited through rhetorical repetition.
Use this voice when the reader needs a clear statement of principles tied to concrete commitments. It suits a short advocacy essay, project standard, opening statement, or call for a bounded decision. Its force comes from what the writer is prepared to require, not from invented urgency. Avoid it for neutral reporting, delicate one-to-one repair, or detailed instructions whose sequence would be obscured by rhetorical emphasis.
\n\nThe stable voice insists that a stated value become an inspectable action. Its stance is openly evaluative: the speaker argues for a standard and owns that argument. Tone may be resolute, hopeful, or indignant when the evidence warrants it. Narrative distance is public and direct, with little interior reflection. A constructed advocate is not proof of membership in a movement, professional authority, or a personal struggle. “We” requires a defined or fictional group; it must not recruit Kyle into commitments he has not made.
\n\nOpen with a principle whose practical meaning can be explained. Develop it through specific commitments, then let a repeated grammatical form accumulate those commitments. Put factual limits inside the argument, where they constrain what is demanded. End with a bounded ask. Short paragraphs can isolate the principle or a decisive limit, while a longer paragraph carries dates, quantities, and operating terms. A repeated ending should gain meaning from the intervening facts. Do not finish with a bigger promise than the evidence supports.
\n\nUse parallel clauses with genuine parallel roles: “Record the choice. Record the misunderstanding. Record the staff time.” Vary the pace with an explanatory sentence so the text does not become a wall of commands. Repeat a verb when the repetition establishes responsibility; do not repeat three near-synonyms merely to sound emphatic. Periods give declarations weight. Colons can turn a principle toward its concrete terms. Exclamation marks rarely add useful force. Parenthetical asides and long digressions usually interrupt the cumulative movement; place required qualifications in direct sentences.
\n\nFavor verbs that describe action and nouns that name what is at stake. “Keep visitor names out of the record” is more exact than “honor dignity” on its own. Imagery may supply a unifying frame, but a metaphor cannot establish that harm occurred or that a proposal will succeed. Humor is uncommon and should not turn participants into targets. Emotional intensity may be high, but factual certainty remains evidence-dependent. An insistence on honest uncertainty can be as forceful as an insistence on action.
\n\nUse short lines or short paragraphs at genuine turns in the argument. Bold only a small number of earned claims, and avoid all-caps slogans. Meaning should survive when lines wrap on a phone or styling is removed. The plain-text version keeps repeated words and full stops; it does not depend on typography to signal a qualification. Do not convert the whole piece into a poster if the reader needs operational detail. A complete factual paragraph is part of the voice’s discipline, not a failure of energy.
\n\nProtect all dates, amounts, access routes, privacy rules, quotations, and approval conditions. Advocacy may recommend a standard but cannot claim universal agreement, demonstrated benefits, or a completed event. Do not erase a limitation because it weakens a slogan. This voice combines with decision-first framing and a concise spoken delivery. It clashes with neutral news attribution, tentative notebook wandering, and a personal apology. Leave strong purposeful prose unchanged when its repetitions carry distinct commitments and its ask stays bounded; more emphasis can make an already clear argument less credible.
\n\nChoose one principle and write the concrete behavior that would express it. List the nonnegotiable facts, then draft a factual paragraph that preserves them. Select a repeated verb or phrase only after the commitments are clear. Arrange the statements so each adds responsibility rather than volume. State what is unknown and what has not been authorized. End with the actual choice. Remove any sentence that implies urgency, consensus, or success without support, then check that the piece still has a reason to act.
\n\nFaulty: “Approve the session today. Everyone knows these labels will transform learning.” The demand invents a deadline, consensus, and a demonstrated benefit.
\n\nRepair: “Make the comparison inspectable. Keep the six replica objects and two draft labels per object in the plan. Authorize the proposed session or request revisions. If authorized, record choices, misunderstandings, and staff time without visitor names.” The force now comes from explicit commitments. The revised passage demands a responsible decision without pretending the result is already known.
\n\nParallelism is a preferred cumulative device, not a requirement that every sentence begin identically. Restraint can carry conviction.
\n\nA manifesto may dissent from consensus. Broad agreement is neither necessary nor evidence that its claims are true.
\n\nClaim consensus, inevitability, or authority absent from the brief. Check: Audit “we all,” “will always,” and institutional promises.
Use repeated abstractions instead of commitments. Check: Remove the refrain and identify what the speaker is undertaking.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional draft commitments for a research team: label observations separately from interpretations; preserve relevant contrary cases; do not claim findings before data collection. Not an adopted policy.
\n\nProposed statement: Our reports should make their evidence inspectable. We will label observations separately from interpretations. We will retain relevant contrary cases. We will not announce findings before collecting data. These commitments govern what we claim, not whether every study will succeed.
\n\nProposed statement: Evidence matters. Clarity matters. Research matters. Observations differ from interpretations, contrary cases may matter, and findings require data. We believe in excellence.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second states related values and facts but does not turn them into bounded commitments.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nRhetorical and participation sources inform the mechanism and its limits. This is a local manifesto specification, not a universal political genre law.
\n\nAnaphora — University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference.
IAP2 Core Values for Public Participation — Professional association participation principles.
Fundamentals of Editing — Professional association standards.
Hello,
\n\nI wanted to put the main terms of Draftline’s Version history in one place, especially the distinction between restoring a version and deleting its later history.
\n\nThe feature becomes available on 20 October 2026. It is included on every existing plan at no additional charge, and versions are retained for 30 days. The interface action is named Version history.
\n\nOnly workspace editors can restore a version. When they do, restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. That changes what is current without making the restoration an erasure of the record.
\n\nThere is a limit I want you to have in view. The feature cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled. That is separate from the retention window, and it matters if the thing someone wants back is a deleted file rather than a stored version.
\n\nBefore relying on the feature for a particular task, check the version needed, the available window and the role required. This note does not offer a broader backup guarantee or a workaround for the deleted-file restriction.
\n\nI hope this helps you decide whether restoration fits your task. The useful starting point is the actual task, with the limits still in view.
" }, { "key": "human-l12", "label": "Abraham Lincoln · Letter to Ulysses S. Grant", "path": "excerpts/L12.md", "source": { "title": "Letter to Ulysses S. Grant", "author": "Abraham Lincoln", "publicationDate": "1863-07-13", "url": "https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/vicksburg.htm", "locator": "Quoted letter body beginning “I do not remember”", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/vicksburg.htm", "relationship": "Relationship, acknowledgment, judgment and closing remain connected.", "edition": "Historical letter as transcribed by the U.S. National Park Service", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "I do not remember that you and I ever met personally. I write this now as a grateful acknowledgement for the almost inestimable service you have done the country. I wish to say a word further. When you first reached the vicinity of Vicksburg, I thought you should do, what you finally did - march the troops across the neck, run the batteries with the transports, and thus go below; and I never had any faith, except a general hope that you knew better than I, that the Yazoo Pass expedition, and the like, could succeed. When you got below, and took Port-Gibson, Grand Gulf, and vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and join Gen. Banks; and when you turned Northward East of the Big Black, I feared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong.\n", "id": "V20/human-l12", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "I do not remember that you and I ever met personally. I write this now as a grateful acknowledgement for the almost inestimable service you have done the country. I wish to say a word further. When you first reached the vicinity of Vicksburg, I thought you should do, what you finally did - march the troops across the neck, run the batteries with the transports, and thus go below; and I never had any faith, except a general hope that you knew better than I, that the Yazoo Pass expedition, and the like, could succeed. When you got below, and took Port-Gibson, Grand Gulf, and vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and join Gen. Banks; and when you turned Northward East of the Big Black, I feared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong.\n", "sha256": "5ac4f51688d21ac0980cfecb2c7d8bbc4b9ba245cf9d5eb20fdd52529f838b70", "html": "I do not remember that you and I ever met personally. I write this now as a grateful acknowledgement for the almost inestimable service you have done the country. I wish to say a word further. When you first reached the vicinity of Vicksburg, I thought you should do, what you finally did - march the troops across the neck, run the batteries with the transports, and thus go below; and I never had any faith, except a general hope that you knew better than I, that the Yazoo Pass expedition, and the like, could succeed. When you got below, and took Port-Gibson, Grand Gulf, and vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and join Gen. Banks; and when you turned Northward East of the Big Black, I feared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong.
" }, { "id": "V20/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# An invitation to Clearer Notes\n\nHello,\n\nThe fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop is on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It is free and has **12 places**. If you attend, bring **one paragraph to revise**.\n\nRegistration closes on **5 November**. I do not have a location, time zone or access details to add here, so please check those before making plans.\n\nThe invitation is to spend the session on a concrete revision task, without a promised outcome. If that is work you want to make room for, keep the registration deadline beside the paragraph you choose.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V20\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# An invitation to Clearer Notes\n\nHello,\n\nThe fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop is on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It is free and has **12 places**. If you attend, bring **one paragraph to revise**.\n\nRegistration closes on **5 November**. I do not have a location, time zone or access details to add here, so please check those before making plans.\n\nThe invitation is to spend the session on a concrete revision task, without a promised outcome. If that is work you want to make room for, keep the registration deadline beside the paragraph you choose.\n\n", "sha256": "2973baf0ee3590d837013fcc619983e5d92a28f2dbfddba26adc1decd1b962cd", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 12.142857142857142, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.8705555555555555, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 35.294117647058826, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 24.5, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 12.941176470588236, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 85, "prose_sentences": 7, "prose_paragraphs": 4, "reader_address_events": 3, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 11, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "2973baf0ee3590d837013fcc619983e5d92a28f2dbfddba26adc1decd1b962cd", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Hello,
\n\nThe fictional Clearer Notes workshop is on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. It is free and has 12 places. If you attend, bring one paragraph to revise.
\n\nRegistration closes on 5 November. I do not have a location, time zone or access details to add here, so please check those before making plans.
\n\nThe invitation is to spend the session on a concrete revision task, without a promised outcome. If that is work you want to make room for, keep the registration deadline beside the paragraph you choose.
" }, { "id": "V20/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# A Draftline status note\n\nHello,\n\n**New uploads are unavailable. You can still read existing documents.** The cause is not yet known.\n\nThe next update is at **3 p.m.** A repair time is not given in this update.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V20\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# A Draftline status note\n\nHello,\n\n**New uploads are unavailable. You can still read existing documents.** The cause is not yet known.\n\nThe next update is at **3 p.m.** A repair time is not given in this update.\n\n", "sha256": "c91a3d1447d9ca8b0864bb2b136cf37da2ad82f592cdf660c2004b676f6a5d6e", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 6.6, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 30.303030303030305, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 16, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 36.36363636363637, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 33, "prose_sentences": 5, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 1, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 12, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "c91a3d1447d9ca8b0864bb2b136cf37da2ad82f592cdf660c2004b676f6a5d6e", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Hello,
\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. You can still read existing documents. The cause is not yet known.
\n\nThe next update is at 3 p.m. A repair time is not given in this update.
" }, { "id": "V20/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\nHello,\n\nI think the Marlow Library Tool Shelf is worth considering as a trial. What interests me is the ordinary usefulness of being able to borrow something rather than needing to own it. That is my reason for looking at the proposal, not evidence that the service will succeed.\n\nThe plan requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits. Borrowing would be free, with the desk open on Saturdays from 10 a.m. to noon, 7 November–12 December 2026. It would be a six-week pilot. It has not been approved.\n\nI would like the web reservation form to stay optional. Telephone and walk-up access belong beside it. Otherwise we risk writing a welcoming description of a service whose actual entrance is narrower than the description suggests.\n\nI also want the record to include the less flattering parts. Completed loans are useful to count, but so are staff time and failed borrowing attempts. Borrower names should not be published. We can learn about an interaction without turning the person into a public example.\n\nThere are no measured outcomes or savings yet. The contents of the kits and the loan conditions still need to be decided. I would rather say that now than let a polished document make the proposal look more settled than it is.\n\nThe question is whether to authorize this bounded trial or ask for revisions. I am not asking for a permanent commitment. I am asking for a careful decision about trying something, with enough openness to learn that part of the idea needs changing.\n\nThank you for considering it.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\nHello,\n\nI think the Marlow Library Tool Shelf is worth considering as a trial. What interests me is the ordinary usefulness of being able to borrow something rather than needing to own it. That is my reason for looking at the proposal, not evidence that the service will succeed.\n\nThe plan requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits. Borrowing would be free, with the desk open on Saturdays from 10 a.m. to noon, 7 November–12 December 2026. It would be a six-week pilot. It has not been approved.\n\nI would like the web reservation form to stay optional. Telephone and walk-up access belong beside it. Otherwise we risk writing a welcoming description of a service whose actual entrance is narrower than the description suggests.\n\nI also want the record to include the less flattering parts. Completed loans are useful to count, but so are staff time and failed borrowing attempts. Borrower names should not be published. We can learn about an interaction without turning the person into a public example.\n\nThere are no measured outcomes or savings yet. The contents of the kits and the loan conditions still need to be decided. I would rather say that now than let a polished document make the proposal look more settled than it is.\n\nThe question is whether to authorize this bounded trial or ask for revisions. I am not asking for a permanent commitment. I am asking for a careful decision about trying something, with enough openness to learn that part of the idea needs changing.\n\nThank you for considering it.\n", "sha256": "0e4bbb106bc44a53155f8368caf5192f2fc85afa26c709a81606dcd7c4230edb", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.
\n\nHello,
\n\nI think the Marlow Library Tool Shelf is worth considering as a trial. What interests me is the ordinary usefulness of being able to borrow something rather than needing to own it. That is my reason for looking at the proposal, not evidence that the service will succeed.
\n\nThe plan requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits. Borrowing would be free, with the desk open on Saturdays from 10 a.m. to noon, 7 November–12 December 2026. It would be a six-week pilot. It has not been approved.
\n\nI would like the web reservation form to stay optional. Telephone and walk-up access belong beside it. Otherwise we risk writing a welcoming description of a service whose actual entrance is narrower than the description suggests.
\n\nI also want the record to include the less flattering parts. Completed loans are useful to count, but so are staff time and failed borrowing attempts. Borrower names should not be published. We can learn about an interaction without turning the person into a public example.
\n\nThere are no measured outcomes or savings yet. The contents of the kits and the loan conditions still need to be decided. I would rather say that now than let a polished document make the proposal look more settled than it is.
\n\nThe question is whether to authorize this bounded trial or ask for revisions. I am not asking for a permanent commitment. I am asking for a careful decision about trying something, with enough openness to learn that part of the idea needs changing.
\n\nThank you for considering it.
" }, { "id": "V20/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\nHi, the review has moved to Thursday. The scope is unchanged, and we have not approved a new delivery deadline. Please let me know whether the new meeting time works for you. I’d rather settle that clearly than let the schedule change imply more than it does.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\nHi, the review has moved to Thursday. The scope is unchanged, and we have not approved a new delivery deadline. Please let me know whether the new meeting time works for you. I’d rather settle that clearly than let the schedule change imply more than it does.\n", "sha256": "33df7602d084cf3766187a767191474df8fea435c17db2bdff948d5eccf14953", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.
\n\nHi, the review has moved to Thursday. The scope is unchanged, and we have not approved a new delivery deadline. Please let me know whether the new meeting time works for you. I’d rather settle that clearly than let the schedule change imply more than it does.
" }, { "id": "V20/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\nYou are welcome to bring an unfinished paragraph to the fictional writing session. Bring a question about what you want the reader to understand. I think that is a useful place to begin: something you care about saying, without having to pretend the wording is settled. We can try alternatives; the result is still open.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\nYou are welcome to bring an unfinished paragraph to the fictional writing session. Bring a question about what you want the reader to understand. I think that is a useful place to begin: something you care about saying, without having to pretend the wording is settled. We can try alternatives; the result is still open.\n", "sha256": "d10094df85e737bda9c348fced4d310096fddfc9e25de8ae4ffb46fcc7077508", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.
\n\nYou are welcome to bring an unfinished paragraph to the fictional writing session. Bring a question about what you want the reader to understand. I think that is a useful place to begin: something you care about saying, without having to pretend the wording is settled. We can try alternatives; the result is still open.
" }, { "id": "V20/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V20 · Personal letter\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\nHello,\n\nAs you begin with the fictional Alder Photo Archive, I want to make the agreed workflow clear. There are 48 donated photographs to catalog. No scanning has been reported complete, and no preservation or speed benefit has been measured. I would rather keep that starting point visible than let a set of instructions sound like a report of finished work.\n\nOne instruction deserves its own paragraph. If a sleeve number is missing, or if handling could damage a photograph, stop and ask the archive lead. Please use that pause when it is needed.\n\nFor this project, scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. The scanner model is not specified here. Please keep the originals in their numbered sleeves and match each file to the sleeve number. That matching instruction is part of the work, not something to reconstruct later from a likely guess.\n\nKeep the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Put corrections in a separate catalog note. I think that separation matters: someone reading the record should be able to distinguish the supplied wording from a later correction.\n\nIf a date is missing, record it as unknown. Do not guess a year from clothing. The actual dates and donor biographies are not established in this brief, and there is no need to supply a story to make the catalog entry feel complete.\n\nThe viewing copies must remain internal until the rights review is complete. Rights clearance is unresolved, and no completion date has been promised.\n\nThese are the fictional project’s agreed terms, rather than a universal preservation standard. Thank you for keeping the wording, the files, and the handling limits together as you follow them.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V20 · Personal letter\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\nHello,\n\nAs you begin with the fictional Alder Photo Archive, I want to make the agreed workflow clear. There are 48 donated photographs to catalog. No scanning has been reported complete, and no preservation or speed benefit has been measured. I would rather keep that starting point visible than let a set of instructions sound like a report of finished work.\n\nOne instruction deserves its own paragraph. If a sleeve number is missing, or if handling could damage a photograph, stop and ask the archive lead. Please use that pause when it is needed.\n\nFor this project, scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. The scanner model is not specified here. Please keep the originals in their numbered sleeves and match each file to the sleeve number. That matching instruction is part of the work, not something to reconstruct later from a likely guess.\n\nKeep the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Put corrections in a separate catalog note. I think that separation matters: someone reading the record should be able to distinguish the supplied wording from a later correction.\n\nIf a date is missing, record it as unknown. Do not guess a year from clothing. The actual dates and donor biographies are not established in this brief, and there is no need to supply a story to make the catalog entry feel complete.\n\nThe viewing copies must remain internal until the rights review is complete. Rights clearance is unresolved, and no completion date has been promised.\n\nThese are the fictional project’s agreed terms, rather than a universal preservation standard. Thank you for keeping the wording, the files, and the handling limits together as you follow them.\n", "sha256": "b051b655e65235ef62591abf1267d5a62b48ae42e4000c9b6c7430311ada99b1", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.
\n\nHello,
\n\nAs you begin with the fictional Alder Photo Archive, I want to make the agreed workflow clear. There are 48 donated photographs to catalog. No scanning has been reported complete, and no preservation or speed benefit has been measured. I would rather keep that starting point visible than let a set of instructions sound like a report of finished work.
\n\nOne instruction deserves its own paragraph. If a sleeve number is missing, or if handling could damage a photograph, stop and ask the archive lead. Please use that pause when it is needed.
\n\nFor this project, scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. The scanner model is not specified here. Please keep the originals in their numbered sleeves and match each file to the sleeve number. That matching instruction is part of the work, not something to reconstruct later from a likely guess.
\n\nKeep the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Put corrections in a separate catalog note. I think that separation matters: someone reading the record should be able to distinguish the supplied wording from a later correction.
\n\nIf a date is missing, record it as unknown. Do not guess a year from clothing. The actual dates and donor biographies are not established in this brief, and there is no need to supply a story to make the catalog entry feel complete.
\n\nThe viewing copies must remain internal until the rights review is complete. Rights clearance is unresolved, and no completion date has been promised.
\n\nThese are the fictional project’s agreed terms, rather than a universal preservation standard. Thank you for keeping the wording, the files, and the handling limits together as you follow them.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V20", "sample_id": "V20/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V20/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "7f3d82fc1ffffeed35dcad59281d632815668c0c1b8a9c93e19852d82e5abee3", "trimmed_body_sha256": "3a80bdf1950bcedfbec8d4b43f235d122e16957335e31a9df8687a6bce9cf412", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Hello,", "start": 44, "end": 50, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Conversational phrasing, spoken turns or a personal note sit below neutral professional3; the text remains edited." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Hello,", "start": 44, "end": 50, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "No intended comic device appears across the whole piece. The quote illustrates the prevailing serious stance; a quote alone cannot prove absence." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "I hope this helps you decide whether restoration fits your task.", "start": 1140, "end": 1204, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Rhetorical movement or reader-directed engagement adds some energy, below overt encouragement3 or excitement5." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "I hope this helps you decide whether restoration fits your task.", "start": 1140, "end": 1204, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The opening or personal ending acknowledges the reader’s purpose and offers respectful help; it lacks strong personal care for5." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "That changes what is current without making the restoration an erasure of the record.", "start": 578, "end": 663, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace role, retention and restoration require a little product familiarity, but consequences are explained; below several unexplained domain concepts3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "That changes what is current without making the restoration an erasure of the record.", "start": 578, "end": 663, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Several connected distinctions explain operation, permissions and recovery boundaries; exceeds selected reasons3 without a fully worked example sequence for5." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://oralhistory.org/principles-and-best-practices-revised-2018/", "title": "OHA Principles and Best Practices", "id": "S49" }, { "url": "https://styleguide.mailchimp.com/voice-and-tone/", "title": "Voice and Tone", "id": "S18" } ], "researchLimits": "Oral-history respect informs testimony boundaries, not an assessment of a private author’s identity or letter style.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v20-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v20-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V20/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V20/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V20/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V20.svg", "bundleSha256": "6e9f42b7aef3157814bc2134dcad08cb7023c85775773b9faa37b92389c3f500", "bundleBytes": 79917 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice for one reader or a small named group when the writer’s judgment and relationship matter. It suits an invitation, thoughtful project note, recommendation, or explanation accompanying practical instructions. It can be warm without being intimate. Avoid it for public news reporting, a reference manual, or a message that must be issued in an institution’s impersonal voice. Personal form does not authorize personal facts that the source has not supplied.
\n\nThe stable voice takes responsibility for a judgment and leaves room for the recipient’s response. Its stance is direct and reflective, with close conversational distance. Tone can be appreciative, concerned, or matter-of-fact without changing the basic relationship. “I think” marks a judgment, while “I remember” would assert a past experience and requires evidence. A fictional correspondent can model the form if explicitly labeled; it must not be confused with Kyle writing to a real colleague or with a letter already sent.
\n\nBegin with a salutation appropriate to the supplied relationship and reach the reason for writing quickly. State the personal judgment, give the practical facts, explain one genuine concern, and close with a specific request or understated expression of thanks. Let each paragraph answer the recipient’s next likely question. Transitions such as “What concerns me” and “For now” can sound natural when they actually change the subject or time frame. Avoid a grand ending that repeats the whole letter. The recipient should know what to do next.
\n\nMix straightforward short sentences with a few longer sentences that follow a thought into its reason. Contractions are available, not compulsory. One parenthetical aside can acknowledge a small complication; do not place essential instructions inside it. Use commas for ordinary phrasing and a dash only when the interruption sounds natural in context. Repetition of “I” is acceptable when it distinguishes judgment from fact, but vary openings enough to keep the focus on the reader’s task. Digression needs a clear return and must not create invented shared history.
\n\nPrefer the words the recipient needs over a polished display of personality. Concrete detail makes care visible: a sleeve number, an unchanged master, a question left open. Emotion should name the present stance without manufacturing confession, gratitude, or attachment. Humor can be a small aside if the relationship supports it; never presume a private joke. Imagery should be occasional and easy to understand. Avoid stock intimacy such as “as we both know” unless the shared knowledge is established. Warmth can come simply from an honest explanation and a manageable ask.
\n\nUse a salutation, ordinary paragraphs, and a close when the medium calls for them. Heavy headings usually interrupt the letter; a short list is acceptable if it prevents operational errors. Do not invent a sender’s name, title, signature, or contact details. Plain text is the natural fallback: preserve paragraph boundaries and spell out any emphasis. If a demonstration needs provenance, place a clear label outside the letter so the recipient-facing prose remains usable without misrepresenting who authored or sent it.
\n\nProtect names, dates, numbers, technical terms, source descriptions, quotations, and existing commitments. First-person preference may interpret the brief but cannot create permission, progress, or personal experience. Do not imply that a message has been sent merely because it is written. This voice combines with diplomatic dissent and restrained reflection. It conflicts with anonymous institutional authority, a dense documentary montage, or a slogan-driven manifesto. Retain an existing letter unchanged when its voice is specific, its ask is clear, and its claims are supported; polishing every sentence can erase its useful ease.
\n\nIdentify the actual or fictional relationship and the recipient’s needed response. Write the core message in plain language before adding a greeting. Include all practical facts, then add the writer’s reason for caring only where the source authorizes it or as a clearly fictional present judgment. Inspect every autobiographical verb and every use of “we.” Remove invented intimacy. Check that the concern and next step are explicit. Read the close without the body: it should complete the relationship rather than make a new promise or introduce a new issue.
\n\nFaulty: “You remember when we rescued your grandmother’s photographs; these scans will preserve those memories forever.” It invents shared history, family relationships, and a preservation guarantee.
\n\nRepair: “I want the catalog to keep each photograph connected to the information supplied with it. Please retain the donor’s description verbatim in its own field and place corrections in a separate catalog note.” The letter keeps a present, accountable concern and a concrete instruction without fabricating a bond or an outcome.
\n\nThe full seed, schedule note, and invitation show the relationship at different lengths. The archive letter is a new-topic application. Every example is AI-authored and fictional; none represents Kyle’s experience, correspondence, or endorsement.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "L12", "title": "Letter to Ulysses S. Grant", "author": "Abraham Lincoln", "year": "1863", "url": "https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/vicksburg.htm", "relationship": "Relationship, acknowledgment, judgment and closing remain connected.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Professional personal correspondence", "publicationDate": "1863-07-13" }, { "id": "L24", "title": "Letter to Grace Bedell", "author": "Abraham Lincoln", "year": "1860", "url": "https://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/25339", "relationship": "A short letter answers its recipient without a false promise.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Personal correspondence", "publicationDate": "1860-10-19" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Personal letter · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V20.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Stylistic Editing", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/stylistic-editing/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" }, { "title": "OHA Statement on Ethics", "url": "https://oralhistory.org/oha-statement-on-ethics/", "relationship": "Professional association ethics guidance" }, { "title": "Brand voice: Above all, simple and human", "url": "https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/style-guide/brand-voice-above-all-simple-human", "relationship": "Organization-owned house style" } ], "formats": [], "html": "Correspondence shaped by an actual particular relationship and a reason for addressing this recipient, while keeping memory, feeling, and requests truthful.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nKnown recipient context, the sender’s authorized perspective, and a present reason for writing; no invented history.
\n\nAddressed relationship → present reason → particular concern or memory → grounded details → personal request or closing.
\n\nMake clear why this message is addressed to this recipient. Check: Replace the recipient with a stranger and identify what meaningful context changes.
Keep the perspective owned by the actual or explicitly fictional sender. Check: Check first-person memory and feeling claims against permission and context.
Connect the closing to the reason for writing. Check: The final request or sentiment must grow from the particular correspondence.
Use this voice for one reader or a small named group when the writer’s judgment and relationship matter. It suits an invitation, thoughtful project note, recommendation, or explanation accompanying practical instructions. It can be warm without being intimate. Avoid it for public news reporting, a reference manual, or a message that must be issued in an institution’s impersonal voice. Personal form does not authorize personal facts that the source has not supplied.
\n\nThe stable voice takes responsibility for a judgment and leaves room for the recipient’s response. Its stance is direct and reflective, with close conversational distance. Tone can be appreciative, concerned, or matter-of-fact without changing the basic relationship. “I think” marks a judgment, while “I remember” would assert a past experience and requires evidence. A fictional correspondent can model the form if explicitly labeled; it must not be confused with Kyle writing to a real colleague or with a letter already sent.
\n\nBegin with a salutation appropriate to the supplied relationship and reach the reason for writing quickly. State the personal judgment, give the practical facts, explain one genuine concern, and close with a specific request or understated expression of thanks. Let each paragraph answer the recipient’s next likely question. Transitions such as “What concerns me” and “For now” can sound natural when they actually change the subject or time frame. Avoid a grand ending that repeats the whole letter. The recipient should know what to do next.
\n\nMix straightforward short sentences with a few longer sentences that follow a thought into its reason. Contractions are available, not compulsory. One parenthetical aside can acknowledge a small complication; do not place essential instructions inside it. Use commas for ordinary phrasing and a dash only when the interruption sounds natural in context. Repetition of “I” is acceptable when it distinguishes judgment from fact, but vary openings enough to keep the focus on the reader’s task. Digression needs a clear return and must not create invented shared history.
\n\nPrefer the words the recipient needs over a polished display of personality. Concrete detail makes care visible: a sleeve number, an unchanged master, a question left open. Emotion should name the present stance without manufacturing confession, gratitude, or attachment. Humor can be a small aside if the relationship supports it; never presume a private joke. Imagery should be occasional and easy to understand. Avoid stock intimacy such as “as we both know” unless the shared knowledge is established. Warmth can come simply from an honest explanation and a manageable ask.
\n\nUse a salutation, ordinary paragraphs, and a close when the medium calls for them. Heavy headings usually interrupt the letter; a short list is acceptable if it prevents operational errors. Do not invent a sender’s name, title, signature, or contact details. Plain text is the natural fallback: preserve paragraph boundaries and spell out any emphasis. If a demonstration needs provenance, place a clear label outside the letter so the recipient-facing prose remains usable without misrepresenting who authored or sent it.
\n\nProtect names, dates, numbers, technical terms, source descriptions, quotations, and existing commitments. First-person preference may interpret the brief but cannot create permission, progress, or personal experience. Do not imply that a message has been sent merely because it is written. This voice combines with diplomatic dissent and restrained reflection. It conflicts with anonymous institutional authority, a dense documentary montage, or a slogan-driven manifesto. Retain an existing letter unchanged when its voice is specific, its ask is clear, and its claims are supported; polishing every sentence can erase its useful ease.
\n\nIdentify the actual or fictional relationship and the recipient’s needed response. Write the core message in plain language before adding a greeting. Include all practical facts, then add the writer’s reason for caring only where the source authorizes it or as a clearly fictional present judgment. Inspect every autobiographical verb and every use of “we.” Remove invented intimacy. Check that the concern and next step are explicit. Read the close without the body: it should complete the relationship rather than make a new promise or introduce a new issue.
\n\nFaulty: “You remember when we rescued your grandmother’s photographs; these scans will preserve those memories forever.” It invents shared history, family relationships, and a preservation guarantee.
\n\nRepair: “I want the catalog to keep each photograph connected to the information supplied with it. Please retain the donor’s description verbatim in its own field and place corrections in a separate catalog note.” The letter keeps a present, accountable concern and a concrete instruction without fabricating a bond or an outcome.
\n\nA personal letter need not be sentimental or long. A practical, restrained note can still be particular.
\n\nA recipient’s name may be private or omitted. Particularity depends on the real relation, not on exposing personal information.
\n\nInvent shared memories to make the letter feel authentic. Check: Check every “remember when” against supplied context.
Use a salutation as the sole evidence of a personal relationship. Check: Strip greeting and signature: the addressed relation should remain meaningful.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Entirely fictional correspondence facts: Mira loaned the sender a notebook; sender is returning it Tuesday; no additional shared history is supplied.
\n\nMira, I am returning the notebook you lent me on Tuesday. I wanted to write to you rather than leave its return unexplained: it is your notebook, and you trusted me with it. Please tell me where you would like me to leave it.
\n\nDear Mira, item status: notebook on loan from recipient. Scheduled return: Tuesday. Delivery-location response requested. Regards.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second retains the transaction but replaces particular addressed correspondence with an inventory record.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nNo universal governing body for personal letters was located. Editorial fidelity and testimony ethics provide limits, not a mandatory greeting formula.
\n\nStylistic Editing — Professional association standards.
OHA Statement on Ethics — Professional association ethics guidance.
Brand voice: Above all, simple and human — Organization-owned house style.
Original explanatory records assembled from the supplied fictional brief; these are not retrieved documents or customer quotations.
\n\n20 October 2026. Draftline’s Version history becomes available. It is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. The interface action is named Version history.
\n\nWorkspace editors only. This is the role permitted to restore a version. The feature description does not equate the ability to read a document with permission to restore it.
\n\nA new current version. That is what restoration makes. It does not delete stored history. These two statements describe the action together; neither should replace the other.
\n\n30 days. This is the stated period for keeping versions. It is a bounded window, not a claim that a complete record will remain indefinitely.
\n\nFiles deleted before enablement cannot be recovered by this feature. This limit is separate from the thirty-day retention rule. A previously deleted file is not made recoverable merely by describing another document’s stored versions.
\n\nRead the records together before deciding whether the feature fits a task. The availability record supplies a date, the permission record supplies a role, and the operation record supplies an effect. None of them supplies a backup guarantee, implementation detail or customer outcome.
" }, { "key": "human-l25", "label": "Ida B. Wells · Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases", "path": "excerpts/L25.md", "source": { "title": "Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases", "author": "Ida B. Wells", "publicationDate": "1892", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/14975/pg14975-images.html", "locator": "Self-Help, final paragraphs: sentence opening paragraphaboutVicksburg murderaccusations", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14975", "relationship": "Attributed public records are juxtaposed with the author’s argument.", "edition": "1892", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "Ida B. Wells, Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases, 1892, Self-Help; transcription via Project Gutenberg 14975, corroborated by Encyclopedia Virginia.", "note": "A bounded evidence admission from anti-lynching journalism; historical racial violence is the source context. This short passage is not the complete investigation movement." }, "markdown": "We strongly believe in the innocence of these murdered men, but we have no proof.\n", "id": "V21/human-l25", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "We strongly believe in the innocence of these murdered men, but we have no proof.\n", "sha256": "51038d249336ea77e1659cdf71cee4090f181967a015bbd927c5c6f5d4ccb4c1", "html": "We strongly believe in the innocence of these murdered men, but we have no proof.
" }, { "key": "human-l22", "label": "R. M. Leonard (editor; preface author) · The Book-lovers’ Anthology — Preface", "path": "excerpts/L22.md", "source": { "title": "The Book-lovers’ Anthology — Preface", "author": "R. M. Leonard (editor; preface author)", "publicationDate": "1911", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46609/46609-h/46609-h.htm", "locator": "Preface, two non-adjacent paragraphs on exclusions and grouping; omission explicitly marked.", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46609", "relationship": "A declared editorial frame groups many voices; literary anthology is not a missing-record decision dossier.", "edition": "1911", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "Scores of poems have been prefixed to volumes or addressed in apology to possible readers, but these, and colophons, interesting though they may be, do not fit in with my scheme.\n\n[One intervening paragraph and one short paragraph omitted.]\n\nThe passages will be found grouped more or less according to subjects, though the dividing lines are fine, and chronological order within the limits of the groups has been a secondary consideration.\n", "id": "V21/human-l22", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "Scores of poems have been prefixed to volumes or addressed in apology to possible readers, but these, and colophons, interesting though they may be, do not fit in with my scheme.\n\n[One intervening paragraph and one short paragraph omitted.]\n\nThe passages will be found grouped more or less according to subjects, though the dividing lines are fine, and chronological order within the limits of the groups has been a secondary consideration.\n", "sha256": "4c7b6f5eb64a3861c960a58df959f9e75b8bcb0499b8d6b50ed6e86338b43434", "html": "Scores of poems have been prefixed to volumes or addressed in apology to possible readers, but these, and colophons, interesting though they may be, do not fit in with my scheme.
\n\n[One intervening paragraph and one short paragraph omitted.]
\n\nThe passages will be found grouped more or less according to subjects, though the dividing lines are fine, and chronological order within the limits of the groups has been a secondary consideration.
" }, { "id": "V21/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# Clearer Notes · an invitation record\n\n*Compiled from the supplied fictional event brief; not a collection of independently sourced documents.*\n\n**Calendar record:** **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**\n\n**Admission record:** Free; **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\n**Preparation record:** Bring **one paragraph to revise**.\n\n**Open-logistics record:** Location, time zone and access arrangements have not been supplied.\n\nThe event is **Clearer Notes**. These records define the invitation’s known terms. They do not document demand, participant results or a guaranteed revision outcome.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V21\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Clearer Notes · an invitation record\n\n*Compiled from the supplied fictional event brief; not a collection of independently sourced documents.*\n\n**Calendar record:** **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**\n\n**Admission record:** Free; **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\n**Preparation record:** Bring **one paragraph to revise**.\n\n**Open-logistics record:** Location, time zone and access arrangements have not been supplied.\n\nThe event is **Clearer Notes**. These records define the invitation’s known terms. They do not document demand, participant results or a guaranteed revision outcome.\n\n", "sha256": "51c91e7331676983f09402cb365d62f795d94fbe521e695079e7ac9c242aa349", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 7.888888888888889, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.8881818181818186, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 10.5, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 47.88732394366197, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 71, "prose_sentences": 9, "prose_paragraphs": 6, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 1, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 34, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "51c91e7331676983f09402cb365d62f795d94fbe521e695079e7ac9c242aa349", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Compiled from the supplied fictional event brief; not a collection of independently sourced documents.
\n\nCalendar record: 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.
\n\nAdmission record: Free; 12 places. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nPreparation record: Bring one paragraph to revise.
\n\nOpen-logistics record: Location, time zone and access arrangements have not been supplied.
\n\nThe event is Clearer Notes. These records define the invitation’s known terms. They do not document demand, participant results or a guaranteed revision outcome.
" }, { "id": "V21/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# Draftline · incident record\n\n**Service state:** New uploads are unavailable.\n\n**Remaining access:** Existing documents can still be read.\n\n**Cause:** Not yet known.\n\n**Next communication:** An update at **3 p.m.** This is not a repair deadline.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V21\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n\n\n# Draftline · incident record\n\n**Service state:** New uploads are unavailable.\n\n**Remaining access:** Existing documents can still be read.\n\n**Cause:** Not yet known.\n\n**Next communication:** An update at **3 p.m.** This is not a repair deadline.\n\n", "sha256": "32bb18f48f909d940dbf9b6534c68e212ed4d3e47d73e43c2da84c7e0b2ab4a8", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 7.75, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 7, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 29.032258064516128, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 31, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 4, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "32bb18f48f909d940dbf9b6534c68e212ed4d3e47d73e43c2da84c7e0b2ab4a8", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Service state: New uploads are unavailable.
\n\nRemaining access: Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nCause: Not yet known.
\n\nNext communication: An update at 3 p.m. This is not a repair deadline.
" }, { "id": "V21/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# A service, before the story\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\n## Record A · Status\n\nMarlow Library Tool Shelf. Proposed six-week pilot. Not approved. This page arranges a fictional proposal into records; it does not reproduce minutes, interviews, or an actual archive.\n\n## Record B · What is requested\n\n| Proposed item | Specification |\n|---|---|\n| Inventory | 24 tool kits |\n| Budget | $2,400 requested |\n| Borrowing | Free |\n| Period | 7 November–12 December 2026 |\n| Desk | Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon |\n\nThe kit contents and loan conditions have not been settled. The neatness of the table should not imply otherwise.\n\n## Record C · Three ways to ask\n\nOptional web reservation form. Telephone. Walk-up. These are parallel routes in the proposal, not a primary route and two favors granted when it fails. Their usefulness would need to be examined in operation.\n\n## Record D · What would be counted\n\nCompleted loans; staff time; failed borrowing attempts. A record of completed transactions cannot stand in for the whole experience. Public reporting would exclude borrower names.\n\n## Record E · What is absent\n\nNo measured outcomes. No demonstrated savings. No approval. These are absences in the evidence, not inconvenient words to remove for a more persuasive page. The proposal can offer a test without offering a result.\n\n## Record F · The next entry\n\nA decision: authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. Its wording should state what was actually authorized and what remains unresolved. Only later could records from a trial replace some of the open questions here. Until then, this is a proposal arranged for scrutiny, not a success story waiting for a photograph.", "sourceMarkdown": "# A service, before the story\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\n## Record A · Status\n\nMarlow Library Tool Shelf. Proposed six-week pilot. Not approved. This page arranges a fictional proposal into records; it does not reproduce minutes, interviews, or an actual archive.\n\n## Record B · What is requested\n\n| Proposed item | Specification |\n|---|---|\n| Inventory | 24 tool kits |\n| Budget | $2,400 requested |\n| Borrowing | Free |\n| Period | 7 November–12 December 2026 |\n| Desk | Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon |\n\nThe kit contents and loan conditions have not been settled. The neatness of the table should not imply otherwise.\n\n## Record C · Three ways to ask\n\nOptional web reservation form. Telephone. Walk-up. These are parallel routes in the proposal, not a primary route and two favors granted when it fails. Their usefulness would need to be examined in operation.\n\n## Record D · What would be counted\n\nCompleted loans; staff time; failed borrowing attempts. A record of completed transactions cannot stand in for the whole experience. Public reporting would exclude borrower names.\n\n## Record E · What is absent\n\nNo measured outcomes. No demonstrated savings. No approval. These are absences in the evidence, not inconvenient words to remove for a more persuasive page. The proposal can offer a test without offering a result.\n\n## Record F · The next entry\n\nA decision: authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. Its wording should state what was actually authorized and what remains unresolved. Only later could records from a trial replace some of the open questions here. Until then, this is a proposal arranged for scrutiny, not a success story waiting for a photograph.\n", "sha256": "f11d508cd95e176dad0758323d05dd365bf16bb8e45285629381a663bb2653ec", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.
\n\nMarlow Library Tool Shelf. Proposed six-week pilot. Not approved. This page arranges a fictional proposal into records; it does not reproduce minutes, interviews, or an actual archive.
\n\n| Proposed item | Specification |
|---|---|
| Inventory | 24 tool kits |
| Budget | $2,400 requested |
| Borrowing | Free |
| Period | 7 November–12 December 2026 |
| Desk | Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon |
The kit contents and loan conditions have not been settled. The neatness of the table should not imply otherwise.
\n\nOptional web reservation form. Telephone. Walk-up. These are parallel routes in the proposal, not a primary route and two favors granted when it fails. Their usefulness would need to be examined in operation.
\n\nCompleted loans; staff time; failed borrowing attempts. A record of completed transactions cannot stand in for the whole experience. Public reporting would exclude borrower names.
\n\nNo measured outcomes. No demonstrated savings. No approval. These are absences in the evidence, not inconvenient words to remove for a more persuasive page. The proposal can offer a test without offering a result.
\n\nA decision: authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. Its wording should state what was actually authorized and what remains unresolved. Only later could records from a trial replace some of the open questions here. Until then, this is a proposal arranged for scrutiny, not a success story waiting for a photograph.
" }, { "id": "V21/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\nCalendar record: review moved to Thursday.\n\nScope record: unchanged.\n\nAuthorization record: no new delivery deadline approved.\n\nRequested response: confirm the meeting time. These records describe different decisions; they should not be collapsed into a single implied schedule approval.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\nCalendar record: review moved to Thursday.\n\nScope record: unchanged.\n\nAuthorization record: no new delivery deadline approved.\n\nRequested response: confirm the meeting time. These records describe different decisions; they should not be collapsed into a single implied schedule approval.\n", "sha256": "39e093ac22ebded89a744ea8428c7f3b500aaf20d85dd5436030a3adda5636e6", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.
\n\nCalendar record: review moved to Thursday.
\n\nScope record: unchanged.
\n\nAuthorization record: no new delivery deadline approved.
\n\nRequested response: confirm the meeting time. These records describe different decisions; they should not be collapsed into a single implied schedule approval.
" }, { "id": "V21/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\nFictional session record. Input: one unfinished paragraph. Question: what should its reader understand? Work: compare revisions. Outcome: not known in advance. The invitation is to practice with the actual draft, not to supply an impressive result for a promotional story.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\nFictional session record. Input: one unfinished paragraph. Question: what should its reader understand? Work: compare revisions. Outcome: not known in advance. The invitation is to practice with the actual draft, not to supply an impressive result for a promotional story.\n", "sha256": "7ce7f7ae88333e878bee068ad9b8900bd9ef60cb89a195bd539dc9b19275a4f6", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.
\n\nFictional session record. Input: one unfinished paragraph. Question: what should its reader understand? Work: compare revisions. Outcome: not known in advance. The invitation is to practice with the actual draft, not to supply an impressive result for a promotional story.
" }, { "id": "V21/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V21 · Documentary collage\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\n**Record A · What this page is**\n\nAn arrangement of a fictional brief, not reproduced minutes or visitor testimony. Linden Museum proposes a single label-comparison session. It has not been approved.\n\n**Record B · Terms under consideration**\n\n| Field | Proposed term |\n|---|---|\n| Session | 16 March 2027, 2–4 p.m. |\n| Objects | Six replicas |\n| Comparison | Two draft labels for each object |\n| Request | $900 |\n| Participation | Free |\n\nThe table records the proposal’s terms. Its completed cells do not mean that the session is authorized or its staffing is settled.\n\n**Record C · Routes to the wording**\n\nOrdinary copies. Large-print copies. An optional audio reading with the same transcript. These are proposed ways for visitors to encounter the labels; the audio route does not introduce a different text.\n\n**Record D · What would be collected**\n\nWhich label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Do not record visitor names. A choice, a misunderstanding, and time spent are distinct entries in the proposed record, not interchangeable signs of success.\n\n**Record E · What is not available**\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. Attendance is unknown. Which label is better is unknown. Staffing and the method for analyzing choices remain unresolved. These gaps are part of the decision material, not missing archival pages that this demonstration can reconstruct.\n\n**Record F · The next entry requires a decision**\n\nThe team must authorize the session or request revisions. An actual decision would need to state which of those actions was taken. This page cannot supply it. Until then, the record ends with a proposal and its open questions, rather than a fictional authorization made to complete the sequence.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V21 · Documentary collage\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\n**Record A · What this page is**\n\nAn arrangement of a fictional brief, not reproduced minutes or visitor testimony. Linden Museum proposes a single label-comparison session. It has not been approved.\n\n**Record B · Terms under consideration**\n\n| Field | Proposed term |\n|---|---|\n| Session | 16 March 2027, 2–4 p.m. |\n| Objects | Six replicas |\n| Comparison | Two draft labels for each object |\n| Request | $900 |\n| Participation | Free |\n\nThe table records the proposal’s terms. Its completed cells do not mean that the session is authorized or its staffing is settled.\n\n**Record C · Routes to the wording**\n\nOrdinary copies. Large-print copies. An optional audio reading with the same transcript. These are proposed ways for visitors to encounter the labels; the audio route does not introduce a different text.\n\n**Record D · What would be collected**\n\nWhich label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Do not record visitor names. A choice, a misunderstanding, and time spent are distinct entries in the proposed record, not interchangeable signs of success.\n\n**Record E · What is not available**\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. Attendance is unknown. Which label is better is unknown. Staffing and the method for analyzing choices remain unresolved. These gaps are part of the decision material, not missing archival pages that this demonstration can reconstruct.\n\n**Record F · The next entry requires a decision**\n\nThe team must authorize the session or request revisions. An actual decision would need to state which of those actions was taken. This page cannot supply it. Until then, the record ends with a proposal and its open questions, rather than a fictional authorization made to complete the sequence.\n", "sha256": "bfedfc3a544460ac584b2533638226d07eb69a0c8c7569500ab652594ed2c72c", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.
\n\nRecord A · What this page is
\n\nAn arrangement of a fictional brief, not reproduced minutes or visitor testimony. Linden Museum proposes a single label-comparison session. It has not been approved.
\n\nRecord B · Terms under consideration
\n\n| Field | Proposed term |
|---|---|
| Session | 16 March 2027, 2–4 p.m. |
| Objects | Six replicas |
| Comparison | Two draft labels for each object |
| Request | $900 |
| Participation | Free |
The table records the proposal’s terms. Its completed cells do not mean that the session is authorized or its staffing is settled.
\n\nRecord C · Routes to the wording
\n\nOrdinary copies. Large-print copies. An optional audio reading with the same transcript. These are proposed ways for visitors to encounter the labels; the audio route does not introduce a different text.
\n\nRecord D · What would be collected
\n\nWhich label visitors choose, what they misunderstand, and staff time. Do not record visitor names. A choice, a misunderstanding, and time spent are distinct entries in the proposed record, not interchangeable signs of success.
\n\nRecord E · What is not available
\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. Attendance is unknown. Which label is better is unknown. Staffing and the method for analyzing choices remain unresolved. These gaps are part of the decision material, not missing archival pages that this demonstration can reconstruct.
\n\nRecord F · The next entry requires a decision
\n\nThe team must authorize the session or request revisions. An actual decision would need to state which of those actions was taken. This page cannot supply it. Until then, the record ends with a proposal and its open questions, rather than a fictional authorization made to complete the sequence.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V21", "sample_id": "V21/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V21/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "ce9bf4663d313e049afecfb207d4328026f47d94e387f24be37a572d172e8d49", "trimmed_body_sha256": "dd8ca61273c8eaf9001ec396a6f26e8bb93ac16ed69df49eba14961f73069e66", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "## Availability record", "start": 176, "end": 198, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Institutional/reference conventions and labeled scope support level4; the language is not ceremonial enough for5." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Read the records together before deciding whether the feature fits a task.", "start": 1220, "end": 1294, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "No intended comic device was found across the full sample. The quoted passage illustrates the prevailing factual or reflective stance." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Read the records together before deciding whether the feature fits a task.", "start": 1220, "end": 1294, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Delivery is matter-of-fact and restrained across the sample; positive subject matter alone does not raise the rating." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Read the records together before deciding whether the feature fits a task.", "start": 1220, "end": 1294, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The relationship remains impersonal and task-only; no direct personal or emotional acknowledgment appears." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**Workspace editors only.** This is the role permitted to restore a version.", "start": 409, "end": 485, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace-editor, retention and restore concepts require a little product-role familiarity, but the consequences are explained in ordinary language. This is below the few-unexplained-domain-concepts level3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**Files deleted before enablement cannot be recovered by this feature.** This limit is separate from the thirty-day retention rule.", "start": 980, "end": 1111, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The full sample repeatedly explains distinctions among operation, permissions, retained versions and prior deletion; this exceeds selected reasons3 but lacks a fully worked concrete example/definition sequence sufficient for5." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session", "title": "Analyse a research session", "id": "S46" }, { "url": "https://oralhistory.org/principles-and-best-practices-revised-2018/", "title": "OHA Principles and Best Practices", "id": "S49" } ], "researchLimits": "Research and oral-history guidance constrain records; they do not establish documentary origin or authorize new testimony.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v21-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v21-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V21/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V21/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V21/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V21.svg", "bundleSha256": "64e0cd7f07d67d3ecd05f3618e15b61f9c355dba6ca9575164f664f247a0d547", "bundleBytes": 80216 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice when readers need to compare kinds of information: status, proposed terms, available records, and conspicuous gaps. It suits an evidence brief, an exhibition-style explanation, or a proposal arranged for scrutiny. The adjacency of records carries part of the argument. Avoid it when a single chronological procedure is essential or when the visual form could make constructed material look like an authentic archive.
\n\nThe stable voice is editorial: it selects, labels, and places records in a meaningful order. Its stance is explicit about provenance and careful about absence. Narrative distance is relatively far from individual experience, with short interpretive notes where needed. Tone can be sober or quietly pointed. Documentary form does not establish documentary origin. Synthetic records must be identified as an arrangement of a fictional brief; genuine quotations, interviews, and minutes require actual sources and cannot be invented to complete the visual pattern.
\n\nBegin with a status record that tells the reader what this collection is. Follow with operational terms, access or process notes, the proposed evidence, what is missing, and the requested next entry. Each record should have its own job. A dense factual table beside a short “No results” record can reveal the difference between a well-specified plan and an outcome. Explain that relationship where it matters; adjacency alone should not force the reader to infer the conclusion. End with the actual decision, not a decorative empty space.
\n\nUse compact fragments within a labeled record when their meaning is clear: “Status: proposed. Approval: absent.” Switch to complete sentences for interpretation and caveats. Colons connect field names with values; semicolons can group parallel record items. Repetition of labels builds navigability, while the prose within them can vary in length. Quotation marks belong to exact supplied speech or explicitly invented dialogue, not to paraphrases made to look archival. Digression is rare: if a note cannot be assigned a meaningful record role, it probably interrupts the collection.
\n\nChoose the plain language of records, then allow one concise editorial observation to expose a tension. “No results recorded” is stronger than an invented moving testimonial. Absence can carry emotional weight, but distinguish “not supplied” from “does not exist” and “not measured” from “failed.” Avoid antique diction, fabricated file stamps, and ornamental citations that imply authority. Humor should be restrained and directed at a contradiction in the arrangement, never at people whose stories are missing. Detail must be attributable or openly synthetic.
\n\nUse visible record labels and, when useful, a small two-column table with a real header. Meaning must not depend on spatial adjacency alone. In plain text, convert each row to “Field: value” and preserve the record sequence and interpretive notes. Label unknowns with words rather than blank cells or color. Do not insert fake signatures, handwritten annotations, accession identifiers, timestamps, or document scans. A constructed record label is a navigation aid, not evidence that an archive issued a document.
\n\nProtect all supplied text in quotations, source-description fields, citations, and technical tokens. Keep paraphrase separate from verbatim material, and distinguish absent evidence from negative findings. This voice pairs with news-like status summaries or a decision-first final record. It conflicts with seamless personal memoir and a fictional parable unless the boundary is unmistakable. If an existing table and short explanation already make the evidence legible, keep them. Do not break every sentence into a “record” merely to produce the appearance of archival depth.
\n\nInventory the material actually supplied and classify each item as fact, quotation, proposal, interpretation, or unknown. Choose a small sequence of record roles. Place the approval status first and the needed action last. Draft factual records without embellishment, then add only the interpretation needed to connect them. Confirm that a missing record is described accurately and is not a fabricated document. Inspect a plain-text export for lost labels, ambiguous blank values, and broken table relationships. Finally read each record alone to see whether excerpts preserve their provenance.
\n\nFaulty: “Visitor testimony: ‘The new label changed my life.’ Results file: overwhelming success.” Both records fabricate evidence while the documentary labels make the invention look sourced.
\n\nRepair: “Evidence status: no results are available and no learning benefit has been demonstrated. Proposed record: label choices, misunderstandings, and staff time; no visitor names.” The arrangement now exposes the gap honestly and identifies what the fictional session would record. It can support a decision without manufacturing a witness.
\n\nThe full seed arranges a proposal into labeled records. The update and invitation show compact versions. The museum application tests a new record set. All are AI-authored synthetic constructions, not reproduced archives, interviews, or approved minutes.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "L25", "title": "Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases", "author": "Ida B. Wells", "year": "1892", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/14975/pg14975-images.html", "relationship": "Attributed public records are juxtaposed with the author’s argument.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Investigative pamphlet / documentary polemic", "publicationDate": "1892" }, { "id": "L22", "title": "The Book-lovers’ Anthology — Preface", "author": "R. M. Leonard (editor; preface author)", "year": "1911", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46609/46609-h/46609-h.htm", "relationship": "A declared editorial frame groups many voices; literary anthology is not a missing-record decision dossier.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Anthology editorial preface", "publicationDate": "1911" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Documentary collage · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V21.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Reuters Journalistic Standards", "url": "https://reutersagency.com/about/standards-values/", "relationship": "Organization-owned professional standards" }, { "title": "OHA Statement on Ethics", "url": "https://oralhistory.org/oha-statement-on-ethics/", "relationship": "Professional association ethics guidance" }, { "title": "Analyse a research session", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session", "relationship": "Government practitioner guidance" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A meaning-bearing arrangement of distinct documentary fragments whose source classes and gaps remain visible. Juxtaposition invites inference without pretending the arrangement proves more than its records.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nActual records, authorized extracts, or explicitly fictional documentary pieces; provenance and missing links.
\n\nLabeled fragments → contrast or juxtaposition → visible gaps → bounded synthesis or next record needed.
\n\nKeep at least two fragments or record classes visibly distinct. Check: A reviewer must identify the type and source status of each piece.
Let their juxtaposition produce a specific question or bounded relation. Check: Explain what is learned from placing these records together.
Expose a missing connection when the records do not establish it. Check: No editorial bridge may masquerade as an additional document.
Use this voice when readers need to compare kinds of information: status, proposed terms, available records, and conspicuous gaps. It suits an evidence brief, an exhibition-style explanation, or a proposal arranged for scrutiny. The adjacency of records carries part of the argument. Avoid it when a single chronological procedure is essential or when the visual form could make constructed material look like an authentic archive.
\n\nThe stable voice is editorial: it selects, labels, and places records in a meaningful order. Its stance is explicit about provenance and careful about absence. Narrative distance is relatively far from individual experience, with short interpretive notes where needed. Tone can be sober or quietly pointed. Documentary form does not establish documentary origin. Synthetic records must be identified as an arrangement of a fictional brief; genuine quotations, interviews, and minutes require actual sources and cannot be invented to complete the visual pattern.
\n\nBegin with a status record that tells the reader what this collection is. Follow with operational terms, access or process notes, the proposed evidence, what is missing, and the requested next entry. Each record should have its own job. A dense factual table beside a short “No results” record can reveal the difference between a well-specified plan and an outcome. Explain that relationship where it matters; adjacency alone should not force the reader to infer the conclusion. End with the actual decision, not a decorative empty space.
\n\nUse compact fragments within a labeled record when their meaning is clear: “Status: proposed. Approval: absent.” Switch to complete sentences for interpretation and caveats. Colons connect field names with values; semicolons can group parallel record items. Repetition of labels builds navigability, while the prose within them can vary in length. Quotation marks belong to exact supplied speech or explicitly invented dialogue, not to paraphrases made to look archival. Digression is rare: if a note cannot be assigned a meaningful record role, it probably interrupts the collection.
\n\nChoose the plain language of records, then allow one concise editorial observation to expose a tension. “No results recorded” is stronger than an invented moving testimonial. Absence can carry emotional weight, but distinguish “not supplied” from “does not exist” and “not measured” from “failed.” Avoid antique diction, fabricated file stamps, and ornamental citations that imply authority. Humor should be restrained and directed at a contradiction in the arrangement, never at people whose stories are missing. Detail must be attributable or openly synthetic.
\n\nUse visible record labels and, when useful, a small two-column table with a real header. Meaning must not depend on spatial adjacency alone. In plain text, convert each row to “Field: value” and preserve the record sequence and interpretive notes. Label unknowns with words rather than blank cells or color. Do not insert fake signatures, handwritten annotations, accession identifiers, timestamps, or document scans. A constructed record label is a navigation aid, not evidence that an archive issued a document.
\n\nProtect all supplied text in quotations, source-description fields, citations, and technical tokens. Keep paraphrase separate from verbatim material, and distinguish absent evidence from negative findings. This voice pairs with news-like status summaries or a decision-first final record. It conflicts with seamless personal memoir and a fictional parable unless the boundary is unmistakable. If an existing table and short explanation already make the evidence legible, keep them. Do not break every sentence into a “record” merely to produce the appearance of archival depth.
\n\nInventory the material actually supplied and classify each item as fact, quotation, proposal, interpretation, or unknown. Choose a small sequence of record roles. Place the approval status first and the needed action last. Draft factual records without embellishment, then add only the interpretation needed to connect them. Confirm that a missing record is described accurately and is not a fabricated document. Inspect a plain-text export for lost labels, ambiguous blank values, and broken table relationships. Finally read each record alone to see whether excerpts preserve their provenance.
\n\nFaulty: “Visitor testimony: ‘The new label changed my life.’ Results file: overwhelming success.” Both records fabricate evidence while the documentary labels make the invention look sourced.
\n\nRepair: “Evidence status: no results are available and no learning benefit has been demonstrated. Proposed record: label choices, misunderstandings, and staff time; no visitor names.” The arrangement now exposes the gap honestly and identifies what the fictional session would record. It can support a decision without manufacturing a witness.
\n\nFragments can be long or short, and a collage can be chronological. Uneven typography is not the definition.
\n\nA single record can be annotated, but it cannot demonstrate a multi-fragment collage merely by being split into arbitrary sentences.
\n\nInvent an authentic-looking quotation or document. Check: Verify provenance independently of layout and quotation marks.
Blend observations and interpretation into one unlabeled evidentiary voice. Check: Annotate records versus the editor’s inference.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Synthetic documentary set: project proposal says “16 places”; staffing record says “unconfirmed”; approval record says “pending.” These are invented test records.
\n\nSynthetic records.\nProposal: “16 places.”\nStaffing record: “Unconfirmed.”\nApproval record: “Pending.”\nEditorial note: Capacity is specified; responsibility is not confirmed. The next needed record is a staffing decision, not another capacity claim.
\n\nSynthetic records say that there are 16 proposed places, staffing is unconfirmed, and approval is pending. Everything belongs together in one smooth story about planning.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second preserves facts but erases the visibly differentiated documentary structure and its evidential question.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nProfessional sourcing guidance supports record integrity. The collage structure and membership criteria are local.
\n\nReuters Journalistic Standards — Organization-owned professional standards.
OHA Statement on Ethics — Professional association ethics guidance.
Analyse a research session — Government practitioner guidance.
The criterion for Draftline’s Version history is its fit for the recovery task at hand. It offers a useful revision choice when you need an earlier retained document version; it does not offer universal recovery.
\n\nIts strongest feature for that task is the restoration operation. Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. You can make earlier content current without restoration erasing the stored record.
\n\nThe feature becomes available on 20 October 2026, included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Versions are retained for 30 days. Only workspace editors can restore a version. The interface action is called Version history.
\n\nThe reservation concerns a different kind of loss. This feature cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled. The thirty-day retention rule does not substitute for that limit; they constrain different situations.
\n\nFor a workspace editor with the needed version still retained, the operation fits the revision task. For recovery of a file deleted before enablement, it does not. Judge the feature against the material you need to recover, your role and the available history.
" }, { "key": "human-l19", "label": "Francis Bacon · Of Studies, in The Essays or Counsels, Civil and Moral", "path": "excerpts/L19.md", "source": { "title": "Of Studies, in The Essays or Counsels, Civil and Moral", "author": "Francis Bacon", "publicationDate": "1625", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/575/pg575-images.html", "locator": "Of Studies, first paragraph.", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/575", "relationship": "Evaluates studying against three criteria: delight, ornament, and ability.", "edition": "1625", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "STUDIES serve for delight, for ornament, and for ability. Their chief use for delight, is in privateness and retiring; for ornament, is in discourse; and for ability, is in the judgment, and disposition of business. For expert men can execute, and perhaps judge of particulars, one by one; but the general counsels, and the plots and marshalling of affairs, come best, from those that are learned.\n", "id": "V22/human-l19", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "STUDIES serve for delight, for ornament, and for ability. Their chief use for delight, is in privateness and retiring; for ornament, is in discourse; and for ability, is in the judgment, and disposition of business. For expert men can execute, and perhaps judge of particulars, one by one; but the general counsels, and the plots and marshalling of affairs, come best, from those that are learned.\n", "sha256": "8d6f76fdf9910186fb2b495d18c74c81e895902660f7601add9da04c90333b73", "html": "STUDIES serve for delight, for ornament, and for ability. Their chief use for delight, is in privateness and retiring; for ornament, is in discourse; and for ability, is in the judgment, and disposition of business. For expert men can execute, and perhaps judge of particulars, one by one; but the general counsels, and the plots and marshalling of affairs, come best, from those that are learned.
" }, { "id": "V22/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# Judge the invitation by its actual task\n\nThe useful feature of the fictional **Clearer Notes** invitation is its narrow preparation request: bring **one paragraph to revise**. That gives a prospective attendee something concrete to assess, without claiming a guaranteed improvement.\n\nThe workshop is **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**, free, with **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nIts weakness as planning information is the absence of location, time zone and access details. Those need checking before attendance.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V22\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Judge the invitation by its actual task\n\nThe useful feature of the fictional **Clearer Notes** invitation is its narrow preparation request: bring **one paragraph to revise**. That gives a prospective attendee something concrete to assess, without claiming a guaranteed improvement.\n\nThe workshop is **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**, free, with **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nIts weakness as planning information is the absence of location, time zone and access details. Those need checking before attendance.\n\n", "sha256": "97b3ee55233b2084190e2ce1d3d9a93fa97c53f8b8ffbb6e4ebe70366ab5adfc", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 11, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.8741176470588238, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 20, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 16.666666666666668, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 66, "prose_sentences": 6, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 11, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "97b3ee55233b2084190e2ce1d3d9a93fa97c53f8b8ffbb6e4ebe70366ab5adfc", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "The useful feature of the fictional Clearer Notes invitation is its narrow preparation request: bring one paragraph to revise. That gives a prospective attendee something concrete to assess, without claiming a guaranteed improvement.
\n\nThe workshop is 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m., free, with 12 places. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nIts weakness as planning information is the absence of location, time zone and access details. Those need checking before attendance.
" }, { "id": "V22/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# Draftline: a bounded status account\n\n**New uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read.** The cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\nThe useful distinction is between an update commitment and a restoration deadline. Only the former is supplied.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V22\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Draftline: a bounded status account\n\n**New uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read.** The cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\nThe useful distinction is between an update commitment and a restoration deadline. Only the former is supplied.\n\n", "sha256": "4a73eed06f982943d189f47fdff1a4b63a05a110e4b8b7272c854f9cc550055b", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 8, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 30, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 40, "prose_sentences": 5, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 12, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "4a73eed06f982943d189f47fdff1a4b63a05a110e4b8b7272c854f9cc550055b", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read. The cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
\n\nThe useful distinction is between an update commitment and a restoration deadline. Only the former is supplied.
" }, { "id": "V22/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# The proposal’s best feature is its boundary\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\nThe strongest part of the Marlow Library Tool Shelf proposal is not the image of a well-stocked shelf. It is the decision to frame the service as a six-week trial. A limited proposal gives the library a way to investigate an appealing idea without pretending its value is already known.\n\nThe requested budget is $2,400 for 24 tool kits, with free borrowing. Proposed hours are Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. The pilot has not been approved. These facts provide a useful frame, although the kit contents and loan conditions still need attention.\n\nMy second criterion is whether the arrangement recognizes different ways of approaching the service. The optional web reservation form is therefore a strength only in combination with telephone and walk-up access. The form by itself would be a narrower proposition. Its visual polish would not settle the question of usability.\n\nThe evaluation plan should be judged by a similar standard. Completed loans matter, but staff time and failed borrowing attempts also belong in the record. A report that considers all three would be more informative than a cheerful transaction total. Borrower names should remain outside public reporting.\n\nNo measured outcomes or savings are available. That limit is appropriate to a proposal. It would become a flaw only if the writing concealed it and began to praise an effect the service had not demonstrated.\n\nOn those criteria, I favor considering authorization of the bounded trial, with revisions where operating details are missing. The point is not to make the proposal sound less ambitious. It is to make its ambition answerable to what the library eventually learns.", "sourceMarkdown": "# The proposal’s best feature is its boundary\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\nThe strongest part of the Marlow Library Tool Shelf proposal is not the image of a well-stocked shelf. It is the decision to frame the service as a six-week trial. A limited proposal gives the library a way to investigate an appealing idea without pretending its value is already known.\n\nThe requested budget is $2,400 for 24 tool kits, with free borrowing. Proposed hours are Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. The pilot has not been approved. These facts provide a useful frame, although the kit contents and loan conditions still need attention.\n\nMy second criterion is whether the arrangement recognizes different ways of approaching the service. The optional web reservation form is therefore a strength only in combination with telephone and walk-up access. The form by itself would be a narrower proposition. Its visual polish would not settle the question of usability.\n\nThe evaluation plan should be judged by a similar standard. Completed loans matter, but staff time and failed borrowing attempts also belong in the record. A report that considers all three would be more informative than a cheerful transaction total. Borrower names should remain outside public reporting.\n\nNo measured outcomes or savings are available. That limit is appropriate to a proposal. It would become a flaw only if the writing concealed it and began to praise an effect the service had not demonstrated.\n\nOn those criteria, I favor considering authorization of the bounded trial, with revisions where operating details are missing. The point is not to make the proposal sound less ambitious. It is to make its ambition answerable to what the library eventually learns.\n", "sha256": "71a92e15d7d9354b894e5816327f302aa8e114e6bf699bc1a0874e53ea34c392", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.
\n\nThe strongest part of the Marlow Library Tool Shelf proposal is not the image of a well-stocked shelf. It is the decision to frame the service as a six-week trial. A limited proposal gives the library a way to investigate an appealing idea without pretending its value is already known.
\n\nThe requested budget is $2,400 for 24 tool kits, with free borrowing. Proposed hours are Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. The pilot has not been approved. These facts provide a useful frame, although the kit contents and loan conditions still need attention.
\n\nMy second criterion is whether the arrangement recognizes different ways of approaching the service. The optional web reservation form is therefore a strength only in combination with telephone and walk-up access. The form by itself would be a narrower proposition. Its visual polish would not settle the question of usability.
\n\nThe evaluation plan should be judged by a similar standard. Completed loans matter, but staff time and failed borrowing attempts also belong in the record. A report that considers all three would be more informative than a cheerful transaction total. Borrower names should remain outside public reporting.
\n\nNo measured outcomes or savings are available. That limit is appropriate to a proposal. It would become a flaw only if the writing concealed it and began to praise an effect the service had not demonstrated.
\n\nOn those criteria, I favor considering authorization of the bounded trial, with revisions where operating details are missing. The point is not to make the proposal sound less ambitious. It is to make its ambition answerable to what the library eventually learns.
" }, { "id": "V22/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\nThe revised meeting date is clear: Thursday. The update is less clear only if it is allowed to imply a new delivery commitment. The scope remains unchanged and no new deadline is approved. Confirm the meeting time, then address any delivery change on its own terms.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\nThe revised meeting date is clear: Thursday. The update is less clear only if it is allowed to imply a new delivery commitment. The scope remains unchanged and no new deadline is approved. Confirm the meeting time, then address any delivery change on its own terms.\n", "sha256": "c0e9f5d00b4b80acbd917784ab8ce000857f5c89f4eaaa4a1e7626f41a1a3477", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.
\n\nThe revised meeting date is clear: Thursday. The update is less clear only if it is allowed to imply a new delivery commitment. The scope remains unchanged and no new deadline is approved. Confirm the meeting time, then address any delivery change on its own terms.
" }, { "id": "V22/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\nA useful feature of the fictional writing session is its scale: one paragraph, one intended reader takeaway, and room to compare alternatives. Bring a draft paragraph and a question about that takeaway; we will compare revisions of the paragraph. Its value would depend on the attention paid to the draft, not on an advance promise that every revision will be better.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\nA useful feature of the fictional writing session is its scale: one paragraph, one intended reader takeaway, and room to compare alternatives. Bring a draft paragraph and a question about that takeaway; we will compare revisions of the paragraph. Its value would depend on the attention paid to the draft, not on an advance promise that every revision will be better.\n", "sha256": "b501b045caf34915260ce6c7d85cda024ed7ea747c2b398c2bb5b1e97b630234", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.
\n\nA useful feature of the fictional writing session is its scale: one paragraph, one intended reader takeaway, and room to compare alternatives. Bring a draft paragraph and a question about that takeaway; we will compare revisions of the paragraph. Its value would depend on the attention paid to the draft, not on an advance promise that every revision will be better.
" }, { "id": "V22/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V22 · Reflective critic\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\nThe strongest feature of the fictional Alder Photo Archive workflow is its insistence on keeping different kinds of information distinguishable. For new volunteers cataloging the 48 donated photographs, that is a useful criterion for judging each step: can a later reader tell what came from the original, what the donor supplied, and what a cataloger corrected?\n\nBegin with the physical connection. Keep originals in their numbered sleeves and match each file to the sleeve number. If a number is missing, stop and ask the archive lead. Apply the same stopping rule if handling could damage a photograph. Traceability would be a weak principle if the workflow encouraged guessing precisely where the connection becomes uncertain.\n\nFor this project, scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. Follow those agreed settings; the scanner model is unspecified. This is an assessment of a fictional project’s workflow, not a universal preservation recommendation.\n\nThe description rule is consistent with the same criterion. Use the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field, and put corrections in a separate catalog note. Record a missing date as unknown. Do not guess a year from clothing. Actual dates and donor biographies remain unknown in the brief.\n\nA second criterion is clarity about permitted use. The viewing copies remain internal until the rights review is complete. Rights clearance is unresolved, and no completion date has been promised. Having a viewing copy does not satisfy that restriction by itself.\n\nNo scanning has been reported complete, and no preservation or speed benefit has been measured. I support following the agreed workflow because its distinctions are explicit. That judgment concerns the design of the instructions; it does not establish an outcome. Keep the distinctions intact, and stop at the two handling limits rather than treating continuity of work as the highest priority.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V22 · Reflective critic\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\nThe strongest feature of the fictional Alder Photo Archive workflow is its insistence on keeping different kinds of information distinguishable. For new volunteers cataloging the 48 donated photographs, that is a useful criterion for judging each step: can a later reader tell what came from the original, what the donor supplied, and what a cataloger corrected?\n\nBegin with the physical connection. Keep originals in their numbered sleeves and match each file to the sleeve number. If a number is missing, stop and ask the archive lead. Apply the same stopping rule if handling could damage a photograph. Traceability would be a weak principle if the workflow encouraged guessing precisely where the connection becomes uncertain.\n\nFor this project, scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. Follow those agreed settings; the scanner model is unspecified. This is an assessment of a fictional project’s workflow, not a universal preservation recommendation.\n\nThe description rule is consistent with the same criterion. Use the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field, and put corrections in a separate catalog note. Record a missing date as unknown. Do not guess a year from clothing. Actual dates and donor biographies remain unknown in the brief.\n\nA second criterion is clarity about permitted use. The viewing copies remain internal until the rights review is complete. Rights clearance is unresolved, and no completion date has been promised. Having a viewing copy does not satisfy that restriction by itself.\n\nNo scanning has been reported complete, and no preservation or speed benefit has been measured. I support following the agreed workflow because its distinctions are explicit. That judgment concerns the design of the instructions; it does not establish an outcome. Keep the distinctions intact, and stop at the two handling limits rather than treating continuity of work as the highest priority.\n", "sha256": "27906c338a46dbe3461f5346ae51494623de88e89339016d2e6ca781b2b4de2d", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.
\n\nThe strongest feature of the fictional Alder Photo Archive workflow is its insistence on keeping different kinds of information distinguishable. For new volunteers cataloging the 48 donated photographs, that is a useful criterion for judging each step: can a later reader tell what came from the original, what the donor supplied, and what a cataloger corrected?
\n\nBegin with the physical connection. Keep originals in their numbered sleeves and match each file to the sleeve number. If a number is missing, stop and ask the archive lead. Apply the same stopping rule if handling could damage a photograph. Traceability would be a weak principle if the workflow encouraged guessing precisely where the connection becomes uncertain.
\n\nFor this project, scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. Follow those agreed settings; the scanner model is unspecified. This is an assessment of a fictional project’s workflow, not a universal preservation recommendation.
\n\nThe description rule is consistent with the same criterion. Use the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field, and put corrections in a separate catalog note. Record a missing date as unknown. Do not guess a year from clothing. Actual dates and donor biographies remain unknown in the brief.
\n\nA second criterion is clarity about permitted use. The viewing copies remain internal until the rights review is complete. Rights clearance is unresolved, and no completion date has been promised. Having a viewing copy does not satisfy that restriction by itself.
\n\nNo scanning has been reported complete, and no preservation or speed benefit has been measured. I support following the agreed workflow because its distinctions are explicit. That judgment concerns the design of the instructions; it does not establish an outcome. Keep the distinctions intact, and stop at the two handling limits rather than treating continuity of work as the highest priority.
" }, { "id": "V22/probe-H04", "key": "probe-H04", "briefId": "H04", "label": "Separate mechanism probe", "markdown": "## A focused selection, with limited grounds for judgment\n\nFor the fictional Workshop Briefings digest, I favor selecting **Sign-in options** and **Shift roles** by the criterion of **relevance to planning a volunteer sign-in process**. Their strength is that they describe choices directly involved in that process.\n\nSign-in options lists a paper sheet and a shared spreadsheet. It gives the reader alternatives to consider, although it reports **no comparison results**. Shift roles defines a greeter who receives volunteers and a recorder who enters attendance. It makes the role distinction concrete, although it reports **no staffing trial**. Description supports planning here; it does not establish superiority or successful staffing.\n\n**Poster colors** lists three poster colors and gives no sign-in procedure. Omitting it from the main digest follows the stated criterion, rather than judging its value for another purpose.\n\nThe selection covers only these three supplied items and is **not exhaustive**. Its recommendation is bounded by both its reader criterion and the available evidence.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V22\nbrief_id: H04\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\ncohort: separate-heldout-mechanism-probe\n---\n\n\n## A focused selection, with limited grounds for judgment\n\nFor the fictional Workshop Briefings digest, I favor selecting **Sign-in options** and **Shift roles** by the criterion of **relevance to planning a volunteer sign-in process**. Their strength is that they describe choices directly involved in that process.\n\nSign-in options lists a paper sheet and a shared spreadsheet. It gives the reader alternatives to consider, although it reports **no comparison results**. Shift roles defines a greeter who receives volunteers and a recorder who enters attendance. It makes the role distinction concrete, although it reports **no staffing trial**. Description supports planning here; it does not establish superiority or successful staffing.\n\n**Poster colors** lists three poster colors and gives no sign-in procedure. Omitting it from the main digest follows the stated criterion, rather than judging its value for another purpose.\n\nThe selection covers only these three supplied items and is **not exhaustive**. Its recommendation is bounded by both its reader criterion and the available evidence.\n\n", "sha256": "9ce726e719c493c844f78059f76e4756f3de9badc2cca7cc7abb133b13bc6699", "measurement": null, "html": "For the fictional Workshop Briefings digest, I favor selecting Sign-in options and Shift roles by the criterion of relevance to planning a volunteer sign-in process. Their strength is that they describe choices directly involved in that process.
\n\nSign-in options lists a paper sheet and a shared spreadsheet. It gives the reader alternatives to consider, although it reports no comparison results. Shift roles defines a greeter who receives volunteers and a recorder who enters attendance. It makes the role distinction concrete, although it reports no staffing trial. Description supports planning here; it does not establish superiority or successful staffing.
\n\nPoster colors lists three poster colors and gives no sign-in procedure. Omitting it from the main digest follows the stated criterion, rather than judging its value for another purpose.
\n\nThe selection covers only these three supplied items and is not exhaustive. Its recommendation is bounded by both its reader criterion and the available evidence.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V22", "sample_id": "V22/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V22/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "11b97ed5de9b14ae75a3c91df245223fbba42cd2b5dee5e64d68af4da3ca8fa0", "trimmed_body_sha256": "f28ed5c18619433680562a43c78c18ad8a7eab7a0737e6790055cfdff6574b9f", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The criterion for Draftline’s **Version history** is its fit for the recovery task at hand.", "start": 46, "end": 137, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public prose and ordinary headings fit neutral professional3, without ceremonial or strongly institutional conventions for5." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The criterion for Draftline’s **Version history** is its fit for the recovery task at hand.", "start": 46, "end": 137, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "No intended comic device appears across the whole piece. The quote illustrates the prevailing serious stance; a quote alone cannot prove absence." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Judge the feature against the material you need to recover, your role and the available history.", "start": 1134, "end": 1230, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Matter-of-fact presentation remains restrained; positive capability statements do not themselves establish enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Judge the feature against the material you need to recover, your role and the available history.", "start": 1134, "end": 1230, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Practical decision support shows modest reader regard, between task-only1 and explicit acknowledgment3." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The thirty-day retention rule does not substitute for that limit; they constrain different situations.", "start": 866, "end": 968, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace role, retention and restoration require a little product familiarity, but consequences are explained; below several unexplained domain concepts3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The thirty-day retention rule does not substitute for that limit; they constrain different situations.", "start": 866, "end": 968, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Several connected distinctions explain operation, permissions and recovery boundaries; exceeds selected reasons3 without a fully worked example sequence for5." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/explanation/", "title": "Explanation", "id": "S42" }, { "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session", "title": "Analyse a research session", "id": "S46" } ], "researchLimits": "Explanation and analysis guidance support reasoning discipline, not a universal quality rubric.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v22-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v22-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V22/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V22/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V22/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V22.svg", "bundleSha256": "74219402d801f400bec5ded83ffba52144b2de4b3edbb2af5aba6cc911e1b31c", "bundleBytes": 79625 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice when the reader needs to understand a judgment rather than merely receive a verdict. It suits a proposal review, design critique, reflective assessment, or explanation of why a workflow deserves support with limits. The writer must be able to name the criteria. Avoid it for an immediate instruction with no evaluative question, or where the assignment requires neutral reporting without a recommendation.
\n\nThe stable voice examines the relationship between a claimed strength and the standard used to judge it. Its stance is evaluative, revisable, and proportionate. Narrative distance is moderate: “I favor” can own a judgment, but extended personal confession is unnecessary. Tone can be appreciative or skeptical without altering the method. A reviewer persona does not confer expertise, institutional standing, or experience. Claims about a work’s design must be distinguished from measured claims about its effects on readers or participants.
\n\nOpen with a judgment specific enough to be tested. State the criterion behind it, point to a concrete strength, examine a reservation, and finish with a recommendation whose scope matches the evidence. Give each paragraph a criterion or a step in the reasoning. Transitions should expose the logic: “By that standard,” “The limitation is,” or “This supports.” Avoid an all-purpose praise paragraph followed by an unrelated list of complaints. The ending tells the reader what the assessment licenses and what remains unresolved.
\n\nUse medium-length sentences that connect an observation to its reason. A concessive clause can preserve a real strength while making a limit precise: “The field is clearly separated, although its contents still need verification.” Short sentences mark a consequential boundary. Colons introduce criteria or evidence; semicolons can balance related assessments. Repetition of the criterion’s key term is useful because it lets the reader track consistency. Parenthetical qualifications must not hide decisive objections. A digression is warranted only when it explains a standard the reader otherwise could not assess.
\n\nPrefer exact evaluations—“traceable,” “bounded,” “ambiguous about approval”—over broad praise such as “excellent” or “innovative.” Describe the feature and its consequence before stating whether it is a strength. Imagery can supply an entry point, but the analysis must stand without it. Humor is optional and subdued. Emotional intensity stays moderate because the reasoning should carry the judgment. Avoid assuming how users felt or what donors intended. A design can make room for a benefit without having demonstrated that benefit.
\n\nUse an informative title and coherent essay paragraphs. A compact criteria list can help a long review, but numeric scores require a defined rubric and actual assessment; decorative ratings add false precision. Use emphasis to identify a criterion only if necessary. Plain text retains the criterion words, causal connections, and paragraph order. Do not use a visually positive layout to bury a serious reservation. The recommendation should be understandable without stars, color, or a summary badge.
\n\nProtect names, numbers, quoted wording, technical settings, source fields, and approval conditions. A criterion is a declared evaluative choice, not a universal law. Do not turn a well-designed process into proof of preservation, learning, speed, or satisfaction. This voice pairs well with diplomatic dissent or a braided reflection whose strands resolve into criteria. It conflicts with a neutral news brief and with unconditional advocacy. Keep an existing review unchanged if its judgment is specific, its criteria are visible, and its conclusion does not outrun the evidence. More caveats are not automatically more rigorous.
\n\nWrite the decision the reader needs to make. Choose the few criteria relevant to that decision and explain why they apply. Locate a supplied feature for each criterion; if none exists, mark the gap rather than invent evidence. Draft the strongest supported judgment, then test it against the most consequential limitation. Check whether the recommendation changes accordingly. Remove praise that could describe any project. Read the conclusion against the opening: both should evaluate the same object, with the same scope and degree of certainty.
\n\nFaulty: “The archive workflow is outstanding because TIFF is the best format, and volunteers will work faster.” This asserts an unexplained universal preference and an unmeasured speed benefit.
\n\nRepair: “By the criterion of traceability, the workflow has a clear strength: each file must match the original’s sleeve number. That design choice does not establish a measured preservation or speed benefit. Volunteers should follow the agreed 600 dpi, unchanged TIFF master, and JPEG viewing-copy workflow while those outcomes remain unmeasured.” The criterion is visible and the conclusion stays within the fictional agreement.
\n\nRead the full seed, schedule assessment, and invitation. The archive application evaluates a new workflow while instructing volunteers. These AI-authored demonstrations show reasoned judgment; they are not expert certification, audience research, or Kyle’s personal assessment.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "M05", "title": "Maker’s Schedule, Manager’s Schedule", "author": "Paul Graham", "year": "2009", "url": "https://paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html", "relationship": "Judges a working arrangement against a criterion, not a discrete cultural work.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Conversational explanatory essay", "publicationDate": "2009-07" }, { "id": "M07", "title": "The Greatest Science Books of 2016", "author": "Maria Popova", "year": "2016", "url": "https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/12/07/best-science-books-2016/", "relationship": "Book introductions evaluate selections; superlatives and curation overlap exceed restrained single-work criticism.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Editorial book curation", "publicationDate": "2016-12-07" }, { "id": "L19", "title": "Of Studies, in The Essays or Counsels, Civil and Moral", "author": "Francis Bacon", "year": "1625", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/575/pg575-images.html", "relationship": "Evaluates studying against three criteria: delight, ornament, and ability.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Aphoristic essay", "publicationDate": "1625" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Reflective critic · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V22.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Book Reviews", "url": "https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/book-reviews/", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" }, { "title": "Counterargument", "url": "https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/counterargument", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" }, { "title": "Stylistic Editing", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/stylistic-editing/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" } ], "formats": [], "html": "An evaluative account that makes its criterion inspectable, tests an artifact against it, and offers a proportionate judgment rather than a taste claim disguised as fact.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nAn actual or explicitly fictional artifact, review criterion, supporting details, and limits on the reviewer’s knowledge.
\n\nJudgment or question → criterion → concrete strength → relevant reservation → proportionate recommendation.
\n\nState or clearly reveal the criterion of evaluation. Check: A reader must know what “good” means in this review.
Tie the judgment to details of the actual object. Check: For every evaluative claim, identify the supporting feature.
Make the recommendation proportionate to strengths and consequential limits. Check: The recommendation must follow the stated criterion, not a new unstated one.
Use this voice when the reader needs to understand a judgment rather than merely receive a verdict. It suits a proposal review, design critique, reflective assessment, or explanation of why a workflow deserves support with limits. The writer must be able to name the criteria. Avoid it for an immediate instruction with no evaluative question, or where the assignment requires neutral reporting without a recommendation.
\n\nThe stable voice examines the relationship between a claimed strength and the standard used to judge it. Its stance is evaluative, revisable, and proportionate. Narrative distance is moderate: “I favor” can own a judgment, but extended personal confession is unnecessary. Tone can be appreciative or skeptical without altering the method. A reviewer persona does not confer expertise, institutional standing, or experience. Claims about a work’s design must be distinguished from measured claims about its effects on readers or participants.
\n\nOpen with a judgment specific enough to be tested. State the criterion behind it, point to a concrete strength, examine a reservation, and finish with a recommendation whose scope matches the evidence. Give each paragraph a criterion or a step in the reasoning. Transitions should expose the logic: “By that standard,” “The limitation is,” or “This supports.” Avoid an all-purpose praise paragraph followed by an unrelated list of complaints. The ending tells the reader what the assessment licenses and what remains unresolved.
\n\nUse medium-length sentences that connect an observation to its reason. A concessive clause can preserve a real strength while making a limit precise: “The field is clearly separated, although its contents still need verification.” Short sentences mark a consequential boundary. Colons introduce criteria or evidence; semicolons can balance related assessments. Repetition of the criterion’s key term is useful because it lets the reader track consistency. Parenthetical qualifications must not hide decisive objections. A digression is warranted only when it explains a standard the reader otherwise could not assess.
\n\nPrefer exact evaluations—“traceable,” “bounded,” “ambiguous about approval”—over broad praise such as “excellent” or “innovative.” Describe the feature and its consequence before stating whether it is a strength. Imagery can supply an entry point, but the analysis must stand without it. Humor is optional and subdued. Emotional intensity stays moderate because the reasoning should carry the judgment. Avoid assuming how users felt or what donors intended. A design can make room for a benefit without having demonstrated that benefit.
\n\nUse an informative title and coherent essay paragraphs. A compact criteria list can help a long review, but numeric scores require a defined rubric and actual assessment; decorative ratings add false precision. Use emphasis to identify a criterion only if necessary. Plain text retains the criterion words, causal connections, and paragraph order. Do not use a visually positive layout to bury a serious reservation. The recommendation should be understandable without stars, color, or a summary badge.
\n\nProtect names, numbers, quoted wording, technical settings, source fields, and approval conditions. A criterion is a declared evaluative choice, not a universal law. Do not turn a well-designed process into proof of preservation, learning, speed, or satisfaction. This voice pairs well with diplomatic dissent or a braided reflection whose strands resolve into criteria. It conflicts with a neutral news brief and with unconditional advocacy. Keep an existing review unchanged if its judgment is specific, its criteria are visible, and its conclusion does not outrun the evidence. More caveats are not automatically more rigorous.
\n\nWrite the decision the reader needs to make. Choose the few criteria relevant to that decision and explain why they apply. Locate a supplied feature for each criterion; if none exists, mark the gap rather than invent evidence. Draft the strongest supported judgment, then test it against the most consequential limitation. Check whether the recommendation changes accordingly. Remove praise that could describe any project. Read the conclusion against the opening: both should evaluate the same object, with the same scope and degree of certainty.
\n\nFaulty: “The archive workflow is outstanding because TIFF is the best format, and volunteers will work faster.” This asserts an unexplained universal preference and an unmeasured speed benefit.
\n\nRepair: “By the criterion of traceability, the workflow has a clear strength: each file must match the original’s sleeve number. That design choice does not establish a measured preservation or speed benefit. Volunteers should follow the agreed 600 dpi, unchanged TIFF master, and JPEG viewing-copy workflow while those outcomes remain unmeasured.” The criterion is visible and the conclusion stays within the fictional agreement.
\n\nFirst-person response is acceptable if marked as response. A numerical score is optional and needs a meaningful scale.
\n\nA fully supported positive review can pass without a manufactured criticism; the relevant limit may be the scope of what was assessed.
\n\nSubstitute plot or feature summary for assessment. Check: Identify where the account evaluates rather than merely lists.
Require a token negative even when no supported reservation exists. Check: A balanced method is not a mandatory equal count of praise and criticism.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional review object: an invitation states the workshop fee and time but omits who arranges travel. Criterion: readers can identify attendance costs and logistics.
\n\nThe invitation is useful but incomplete as an attendance guide. It states the fee and time, which support planning. It does not say who arranges travel, so readers cannot yet identify all the logistics. I would add that responsibility before treating the invitation as ready.
\n\nThe invitation states the fee and time. It omits who arranges travel. Invitations can be good or bad. This one has some information.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second reports features but offers no applied criterion or reasoned assessment.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nUNC provides directly relevant prewritten contrasting reviews. The local sequence is one usable structure, not the only legitimate critical form.
\n\nBook Reviews — University teaching guidance.
Counterargument — University teaching guidance.
Stylistic Editing — Professional association standards.
“Restore” sounds like undoing the present. Draftline’s Version history does something more specific: restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history.
\n\nThat is a small distinction with a practical job. Earlier content can become current while the later record remains.
\n\nThe feature becomes available on 20 October 2026. Every existing plan includes it at no additional charge. Versions are retained for 30 days, and only workspace editors can restore them. The interface action is named Version history.
\n\nThen comes the boundary that the tidy metaphor cannot handle: the feature cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled. A stored version and an already deleted file are different tasks. Calling both “getting something back” does not make them the same operation.
\n\nSo begin with the thing you need, not the reassuring verb. Check the version, the retention window and the role. Restoration changes the current version while leaving stored history intact.
\n\nGoing back is still a new move: use a retained version to change what is current, within the role and retention limits. A previously deleted file requires a different recovery task that this feature does not provide.
" }, { "key": "human-h06", "label": "18F; front-matter author handle aaron · 29 minutes", "path": "excerpts/H06.md", "source": { "title": "29 minutes", "author": "18F; front-matter author handle aaron", "publicationDate": "2014-03-21", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-03-21-29-minutes.md", "locator": "Opening through bounded interpretation; link destinations omitted", "rights": "CC0 · 18F staff prose", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/", "relationship": "A compact event produces a conversational observation and ending.", "edition": "18F repository snapshot df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5 (2021-12-30)", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "I want to relate a great little thing that happened here at 18th and F yesterday.\n\nAt 11am yesterday morning, members of the GSA.gov team, Sarah Hyder and Patrick Son, met with Hillary Hartley, Alison Rowland, and me to talk about how to integrate FBOpen into GSA's mobile website, m.gsa.gov, on its How To Sell to the Government\" page.\n\nAt 11:29am, we had working code up and running on their staging server.\n\nWe get so used to things taking multiple meetings, multiple days/weeks/months, and lots of back and forth. A couple stars aligned to make this one easy, but bottom line: it took 29 minutes to go from “How could we do this?” to a working code integration that went live the same afternoon.\n", "id": "V23/human-h06", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "I want to relate a great little thing that happened here at 18th and F yesterday.\n\nAt 11am yesterday morning, members of the GSA.gov team, Sarah Hyder and Patrick Son, met with Hillary Hartley, Alison Rowland, and me to talk about how to integrate FBOpen into GSA's mobile website, m.gsa.gov, on its How To Sell to the Government\" page.\n\nAt 11:29am, we had working code up and running on their staging server.\n\nWe get so used to things taking multiple meetings, multiple days/weeks/months, and lots of back and forth. A couple stars aligned to make this one easy, but bottom line: it took 29 minutes to go from “How could we do this?” to a working code integration that went live the same afternoon.\n", "sha256": "086697678cb133b60fd8cc9bdb2e543fa4d347fce78b2b5822445848c66bd355", "html": "I want to relate a great little thing that happened here at 18th and F yesterday.
\n\nAt 11am yesterday morning, members of the GSA.gov team, Sarah Hyder and Patrick Son, met with Hillary Hartley, Alison Rowland, and me to talk about how to integrate FBOpen into GSA's mobile website, m.gsa.gov, on its How To Sell to the Government" page.
\n\nAt 11:29am, we had working code up and running on their staging server.
\n\nWe get so used to things taking multiple meetings, multiple days/weeks/months, and lots of back and forth. A couple stars aligned to make this one easy, but bottom line: it took 29 minutes to go from “How could we do this?” to a working code integration that went live the same afternoon.
" }, { "key": "human-l07", "label": "G. K. Chesterton · A Piece of Chalk (in Tremendous Trifles)", "path": "excerpts/L07.md", "source": { "title": "A Piece of Chalk (in Tremendous Trifles)", "author": "G. K. Chesterton", "publicationDate": "1909", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8092", "locator": "Essay opening", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8092", "relationship": "Concrete opening and earned turn; full essay is longer than a micro-essay.", "edition": "Tremendous Trifles collection 1909; essay first appeared earlier; retrieved PG version reports update 2022-04-27", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "I remember one splendid morning, all blue and silver, in the summer holidays when I reluctantly tore myself away from the task of doing nothing in particular, and put on a hat of some sort and picked up a walking-stick, and put six very bright-coloured chalks in my pocket. I then went into the kitchen (which, along with the rest of the house, belonged to a very square and sensible old woman in a Sussex village), and asked the owner and occupant of the kitchen if she had any brown paper. She had a great deal; in fact, she had too much; and she mistook the purpose and the rationale of the existence of brown paper.\n", "id": "V23/human-l07", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "I remember one splendid morning, all blue and silver, in the summer holidays when I reluctantly tore myself away from the task of doing nothing in particular, and put on a hat of some sort and picked up a walking-stick, and put six very bright-coloured chalks in my pocket. I then went into the kitchen (which, along with the rest of the house, belonged to a very square and sensible old woman in a Sussex village), and asked the owner and occupant of the kitchen if she had any brown paper. She had a great deal; in fact, she had too much; and she mistook the purpose and the rationale of the existence of brown paper.\n", "sha256": "1a1c70a3b60f0ec3f2dbf2e841789624ddcb827324aceb164d931e9b79065f33", "html": "I remember one splendid morning, all blue and silver, in the summer holidays when I reluctantly tore myself away from the task of doing nothing in particular, and put on a hat of some sort and picked up a walking-stick, and put six very bright-coloured chalks in my pocket. I then went into the kitchen (which, along with the rest of the house, belonged to a very square and sensible old woman in a Sussex village), and asked the owner and occupant of the kitchen if she had any brown paper. She had a great deal; in fact, she had too much; and she mistook the purpose and the rationale of the existence of brown paper.
" }, { "id": "V23/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# One paragraph is a real task\n\nIt is easy to make “work on my writing” too large to begin. The fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop gives it a smaller shape: bring **one paragraph to revise**.\n\nThe session is **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It is free, with **12 places**; registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nNo location, time zone or access details are supplied here, so check them before making plans. Nor is a particular result promised. The invitation names the work, and that is enough to let you decide whether to make room for it.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V23\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# One paragraph is a real task\n\nIt is easy to make “work on my writing” too large to begin. The fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop gives it a smaller shape: bring **one paragraph to revise**.\n\nThe session is **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It is free, with **12 places**; registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nNo location, time zone or access details are supplied here, so check them before making plans. Nor is a particular result promised. The invitation names the work, and that is enough to let you decide whether to make room for it.\n\n", "sha256": "9dd41c4ab206cb0f5b322fd70d0e3953fa2f8b7a5947e1665f3e6b76e1bccfb3", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 14, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.8828571428571427, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 11.904761904761905, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 28, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 13.095238095238095, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 84, "prose_sentences": 6, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 1, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 11, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "9dd41c4ab206cb0f5b322fd70d0e3953fa2f8b7a5947e1665f3e6b76e1bccfb3", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "It is easy to make “work on my writing” too large to begin. The fictional Clearer Notes workshop gives it a smaller shape: bring one paragraph to revise.
\n\nThe session is 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. It is free, with 12 places; registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nNo location, time zone or access details are supplied here, so check them before making plans. Nor is a particular result promised. The invitation names the work, and that is enough to let you decide whether to make room for it.
" }, { "id": "V23/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# Draftline: separate the two facts\n\n**New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.** Adding new material and reading existing material are different states here.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.** A time for the next account is not a time promised for the repair.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V23\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Draftline: separate the two facts\n\n**New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.** Adding new material and reading existing material are different states here.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.** A time for the next account is not a time promised for the repair.\n\n", "sha256": "86531b1b983723c44be81289ac9d7b3f1e4b93de4a682b6c4bbe2108764fdd53", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 9.6, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 25, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 48, "prose_sentences": 5, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 12, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "86531b1b983723c44be81289ac9d7b3f1e4b93de4a682b6c4bbe2108764fdd53", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read. Adding new material and reading existing material are different states here.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m. A time for the next account is not a time promised for the repair.
" }, { "id": "V23/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# a shelf is not the whole service\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\nowning the tools is one part.\n\nletting people actually borrow them is the interesting part.\n\nThat’s why the Marlow Library Tool Shelf proposal is worth looking at as a trial. Not a victory lap. It hasn’t been approved.\n\nThe proposed frame: six weeks, 24 tool kits, $2,400 requested, free borrowing. Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. Those are planned terms, not a signal that you can turn up and borrow something now.\n\nHere’s the detail I wouldn’t bury: the web reservation form is optional. People would also have telephone and walk-up routes. A nice online experience is useful. It still shouldn’t become the price of admission to a free service.\n\nAnd the evaluation needs the awkward bits, too.\n\nCompleted loans. Staff time. Failed borrowing attempts.\n\nEspecially the last one. If we only count the people who finished, the report could miss the people the process lost. That doesn’t tell us what the problem will be; it tells us to leave room to notice it. Borrower names stay out of public reporting.\n\nNo outcomes or savings have been measured. Kit contents and loan conditions still need decisions. I’d keep those gaps visible rather than polish them away.\n\nSo the ask is pretty ordinary: authorize the bounded trial, or say what needs revising first. We can be interested in an idea without pretending it already worked.\n\nlet the trial happen before we write its success story.", "sourceMarkdown": "# a shelf is not the whole service\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\nowning the tools is one part.\n\nletting people actually borrow them is the interesting part.\n\nThat’s why the Marlow Library Tool Shelf proposal is worth looking at as a trial. Not a victory lap. It hasn’t been approved.\n\nThe proposed frame: six weeks, 24 tool kits, $2,400 requested, free borrowing. Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. Those are planned terms, not a signal that you can turn up and borrow something now.\n\nHere’s the detail I wouldn’t bury: the web reservation form is optional. People would also have telephone and walk-up routes. A nice online experience is useful. It still shouldn’t become the price of admission to a free service.\n\nAnd the evaluation needs the awkward bits, too.\n\nCompleted loans. Staff time. Failed borrowing attempts.\n\nEspecially the last one. If we only count the people who finished, the report could miss the people the process lost. That doesn’t tell us what the problem will be; it tells us to leave room to notice it. Borrower names stay out of public reporting.\n\nNo outcomes or savings have been measured. Kit contents and loan conditions still need decisions. I’d keep those gaps visible rather than polish them away.\n\nSo the ask is pretty ordinary: authorize the bounded trial, or say what needs revising first. We can be interested in an idea without pretending it already worked.\n\nlet the trial happen before we write its success story.\n", "sha256": "7391daf167e8023479e0289b6bfff044f90e283d291f1f871775d9e04a0fa04c", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.
\n\nowning the tools is one part.
\n\nletting people actually borrow them is the interesting part.
\n\nThat’s why the Marlow Library Tool Shelf proposal is worth looking at as a trial. Not a victory lap. It hasn’t been approved.
\n\nThe proposed frame: six weeks, 24 tool kits, $2,400 requested, free borrowing. Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026. Those are planned terms, not a signal that you can turn up and borrow something now.
\n\nHere’s the detail I wouldn’t bury: the web reservation form is optional. People would also have telephone and walk-up routes. A nice online experience is useful. It still shouldn’t become the price of admission to a free service.
\n\nAnd the evaluation needs the awkward bits, too.
\n\nCompleted loans. Staff time. Failed borrowing attempts.
\n\nEspecially the last one. If we only count the people who finished, the report could miss the people the process lost. That doesn’t tell us what the problem will be; it tells us to leave room to notice it. Borrower names stay out of public reporting.
\n\nNo outcomes or savings have been measured. Kit contents and loan conditions still need decisions. I’d keep those gaps visible rather than polish them away.
\n\nSo the ask is pretty ordinary: authorize the bounded trial, or say what needs revising first. We can be interested in an idea without pretending it already worked.
\n\nlet the trial happen before we write its success story.
" }, { "id": "V23/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\nsmall calendar update: the review is Thursday now.\n\nScope: still the same.\nDelivery deadline: no new one approved.\n\nCan you confirm the meeting time works? Moving the conversation is not the same thing as moving the commitment. Worth keeping those apart.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\nsmall calendar update: the review is Thursday now.\n\nScope: still the same.\nDelivery deadline: no new one approved.\n\nCan you confirm the meeting time works? Moving the conversation is not the same thing as moving the commitment. Worth keeping those apart.\n", "sha256": "3da62264fb37c64a5246ff393782e138aba72ea8dc4d51604dba2e1825214e45", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.
\n\nsmall calendar update: the review is Thursday now.
\n\nScope: still the same.\nDelivery deadline: no new one approved.
\n\nCan you confirm the meeting time works? Moving the conversation is not the same thing as moving the commitment. Worth keeping those apart.
" }, { "id": "V23/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\nbring the paragraph that almost works.\n\nThe fictional writing session is for trying a few versions, not proving you can arrive with a perfect draft. Bring the reader’s question too. Sometimes that changes the sentence more than another pass with a thesaurus.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\nbring the paragraph that almost works.\n\nThe fictional writing session is for trying a few versions, not proving you can arrive with a perfect draft. Bring the reader’s question too. Sometimes that changes the sentence more than another pass with a thesaurus.\n", "sha256": "bd0a6b16cba53b729d9d805d73a20d8c272943d592b3d7ffce387bc06428ca07", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.
\n\nbring the paragraph that almost works.
\n\nThe fictional writing session is for trying a few versions, not proving you can arrive with a perfect draft. Bring the reader’s question too. Sometimes that changes the sentence more than another pass with a thesaurus.
" }, { "id": "V23/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V23 · Conversational micro-essay\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\ntwo labels can give us something to compare.\n\nthey can’t give us the answer in advance.\n\nThat’s the useful starting point for Linden Museum’s proposal: one label-comparison session, with six replica objects and two draft labels for each. The session hasn’t been approved. We’re looking at a decision to make, not a result to announce.\n\nThe proposed date is 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. The request is $900, and participation would be free. A tidy line of practical details can make a plan feel settled. These details still belong to a proposal.\n\nHere’s a detail I’d keep close to the comparison itself: visitors could read ordinary or large-print copies, and an optional audio reading would have the same transcript. The route to the wording can vary without quietly swapping in different wording.\n\nThen there’s the record.\n\nWhich label did visitors choose? What did they misunderstand? How much staff time did the session take? Those are the things to record. Visitor names are not: do not record them.\n\nWe still don’t know attendance, staffing, or how the choices will be analyzed. We don’t know which label is better. Those gaps won’t disappear because the proposal reads smoothly.\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. I’d leave that sentence in the same size type as the appealing parts.\n\nThe team needs to authorize the session or request revisions. My preference is to request the staffing and analysis details before authorization. That gives the decision something concrete to work on.\n\nkeep the comparison open long enough to find out something. right now, the answer is still missing.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V23 · Conversational micro-essay\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.*\n\ntwo labels can give us something to compare.\n\nthey can’t give us the answer in advance.\n\nThat’s the useful starting point for Linden Museum’s proposal: one label-comparison session, with six replica objects and two draft labels for each. The session hasn’t been approved. We’re looking at a decision to make, not a result to announce.\n\nThe proposed date is 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. The request is $900, and participation would be free. A tidy line of practical details can make a plan feel settled. These details still belong to a proposal.\n\nHere’s a detail I’d keep close to the comparison itself: visitors could read ordinary or large-print copies, and an optional audio reading would have the same transcript. The route to the wording can vary without quietly swapping in different wording.\n\nThen there’s the record.\n\nWhich label did visitors choose? What did they misunderstand? How much staff time did the session take? Those are the things to record. Visitor names are not: do not record them.\n\nWe still don’t know attendance, staffing, or how the choices will be analyzed. We don’t know which label is better. Those gaps won’t disappear because the proposal reads smoothly.\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. I’d leave that sentence in the same size type as the appealing parts.\n\nThe team needs to authorize the session or request revisions. My preference is to request the staffing and analysis details before authorization. That gives the decision something concrete to work on.\n\nkeep the comparison open long enough to find out something. right now, the answer is still missing.\n", "sha256": "7aff444df90b792ba4a49524ecf55742f94cdaa54cca811c21fe2348154ccb6e", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B01 · synthetic facts.
\n\ntwo labels can give us something to compare.
\n\nthey can’t give us the answer in advance.
\n\nThat’s the useful starting point for Linden Museum’s proposal: one label-comparison session, with six replica objects and two draft labels for each. The session hasn’t been approved. We’re looking at a decision to make, not a result to announce.
\n\nThe proposed date is 16 March 2027, from 2–4 p.m. The request is $900, and participation would be free. A tidy line of practical details can make a plan feel settled. These details still belong to a proposal.
\n\nHere’s a detail I’d keep close to the comparison itself: visitors could read ordinary or large-print copies, and an optional audio reading would have the same transcript. The route to the wording can vary without quietly swapping in different wording.
\n\nThen there’s the record.
\n\nWhich label did visitors choose? What did they misunderstand? How much staff time did the session take? Those are the things to record. Visitor names are not: do not record them.
\n\nWe still don’t know attendance, staffing, or how the choices will be analyzed. We don’t know which label is better. Those gaps won’t disappear because the proposal reads smoothly.
\n\nThere are no results and no demonstrated learning benefit. I’d leave that sentence in the same size type as the appealing parts.
\n\nThe team needs to authorize the session or request revisions. My preference is to request the staffing and analysis details before authorization. That gives the decision something concrete to work on.
\n\nkeep the comparison open long enough to find out something. right now, the answer is still missing.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V23", "sample_id": "V23/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V23/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "89d0b14e4057db12453d9f9e9078f4456d4872f05205e05336d93f0b6eb5bb10", "trimmed_body_sha256": "ad6649c3bc07381069f12a2c0f6247b3d26686ac2952d7de0c52f72e9eb5f8db", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "“Restore” sounds like undoing the present.", "start": 34, "end": 76, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Conversational phrasing, spoken turns or a personal note sit below neutral professional3; the text remains edited." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "“Restore” sounds like undoing the present.", "start": 34, "end": 76, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "No intended comic device appears across the whole piece. The quote illustrates the prevailing serious stance; a quote alone cannot prove absence." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "So begin with the thing you need, not the reassuring verb.", "start": 861, "end": 919, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Rhetorical movement or reader-directed engagement adds some energy, below overt encouragement3 or excitement5." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "So begin with the thing you need, not the reassuring verb.", "start": 861, "end": 919, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Practical decision support shows modest reader regard, between task-only1 and explicit acknowledgment3." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Calling both “getting something back” does not make them the same operation.", "start": 783, "end": 859, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace role, retention and restoration require a little product familiarity, but consequences are explained; below several unexplained domain concepts3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Calling both “getting something back” does not make them the same operation.", "start": 783, "end": 859, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Several connected distinctions explain operation, permissions and recovery boundaries; exceeds selected reasons3 without a fully worked example sequence for5." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://styleguide.mailchimp.com/voice-and-tone/", "title": "Voice and Tone", "id": "S18" }, { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/explanation/", "title": "Explanation", "id": "S42" } ], "researchLimits": "Tone and explanation guidance do not validate shortness, line breaks or an informal label as distinctive voice.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v23-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v23-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V23/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V23/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V23/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V23.svg", "bundleSha256": "4c55e588646efb32170f0077bd4d292dbb46b06f25a36d511b6d8ed14ed73e80", "bundleBytes": 80316 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice for a reader encountering a short, self-contained observation in a newsletter, social post, informal project note, or concise essay. It should feel easy to enter while still carrying a complete argument. The audience may be casually attentive, so the actual point cannot wait behind several hooks. Avoid it for dense reference, exact legal language, or a situation where casualness could obscure the gravity of a commitment.
\n\nThe stable voice notices an ordinary detail, turns it slightly, and follows the implication in plain language. Its stance is conversational and willing to admit uncertainty. Narrative distance is close to the reader but does not presume friendship or shared biography. Tone can be wry, curious, or candid. Informal register is not a claim about a writer’s age, identity, or native dialect. Deliberate lowercase is an optional design choice, separate from the voice itself; the profile must still work with conventional capitalization.
\n\nOpen with a short observation that earns its place. Use a turn to reveal why the detail matters, then supply the concrete proposal or explanation. Alternate a few short lines with a fuller paragraph where facts need context. The ending should return to the opening at a changed level of understanding or land on the practical choice. Avoid a vague teaser followed by “read that again.” Transitions such as “Here’s the detail” work only when a real detail follows. The piece needs a complete thought, not merely an attractive fragment.
\n\nUse contractions and direct clauses when they fit the register. Fragments can create a pause or isolate a distinction, but their referent must be clear. One longer conversational sentence can carry a qualification after a pair of short lines. Parentheses allow a small aside; an em dash can mark a genuine turn, not a habitual flourish. Repeat a meaningful word at the landing rather than cycling through synonyms. Digressions stay brief and return explicitly. Do not insert typos, random punctuation, or broken syntax to simulate unaided human writing.
\n\nChoose familiar nouns and specific details before slang. A casual phrase should make the thought easier to follow, not make the writer seem artificially youthful. Humor can notice an inflated promise or the writer’s own temptation to tidy away uncertainty. It should not shame the reader or manufacture a reaction. Imagery is usually one small comparison rather than an extended metaphor. Emotional intensity remains moderate: interest and skepticism can coexist. Avoid fabricated memories, “everyone knows,” and claims about what the audience secretly feels.
\n\nUse line breaks to time a real turn, not after every clause. Lowercase may mark selected opening or closing lines, but retain proper names, technical tokens, and quoted capitalization. Sparse bold can help one phrase, though the sentence must remain clear without it. In plain text, preserve paragraph breaks and punctuation; remove styling without removing qualification. Check narrow-screen wrapping so a short line is not mistaken for a separate instruction. A compact paragraph version should still carry the same logic when line breaks collapse.
\n\nProtect dates, money, quantities, access conditions, privacy rules, names, citations, and quotations. Casual phrasing cannot turn a proposal into an event someone can attend now. First-person judgments must be authorized or explicitly fictional. This profile combines with a restrained personal letter or a short decision-first paragraph. It conflicts with exhaustive archival labeling and formal abstract conventions unless the brief explicitly requires them. Preserve effective informal writing when the voice already feels specific and the facts are clear. Do not lowercase a competent draft merely to force a visible signature.
\n\nWrite the one observation and the action it affects. Identify the factual load before choosing the hook. Draft the full explanatory paragraph, then add short lines only where they change the pace or reveal a turn. Choose one aside if it adds understanding. Check that all required conditions survive the casual phrasing. Read the piece with line breaks removed: repair any logic that exists only in layout. End with a conclusion earned by the supplied facts, then delete any engagement bait or redundant slogan attached after it.
\n\nFaulty: “so yeah, the museum thing is approved. everyone’s going to learn loads. you in?” Casual shorthand has erased the proposal status and invented a learning result.
\n\nRepair: “two labels can give us something to compare.
\n\nThey don’t give us a result in advance. Linden Museum’s session is still proposed, and no learning benefit has been demonstrated. The team needs to authorize it or request revisions.” The short opening and conversational turn remain, while the factual boundary and decision become clear.
\n\nThe full seed, update, and invitation show informal timing without deliberate errors. The museum application tests a new observation. These are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not social posts already published or examples of Kyle’s personal writing.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "H06", "title": "29 minutes", "author": "18F; front-matter author handle aaron", "year": "2014", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-03-21-29-minutes.md", "relationship": "A compact event produces a conversational observation and ending.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Government digital-service blog", "publicationDate": "2014-03-21" }, { "id": "L07", "title": "A Piece of Chalk (in Tremendous Trifles)", "author": "G. K. Chesterton", "year": "1909", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8092", "relationship": "Concrete opening and earned turn; full essay is longer than a micro-essay.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Personal comic essay", "publicationDate": "1909" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Conversational micro-essay · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V23.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Submissions", "url": "https://brevitymag.com/submissions/", "relationship": "Publisher-specific submission requirements" }, { "title": "Brand voice: Above all, simple and human", "url": "https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/style-guide/brand-voice-above-all-simple-human", "relationship": "Organization-owned house style" }, { "title": "Asking Analytical Questions", "url": "https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/asking-analytical-questions", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A compact conversational essay that earns a small turn in understanding and completes its thought within the passage instead of functioning only as a teaser.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA bounded observation, enough context to understand it, and one meaningful turn or implication.
\n\nEveryday observation → conceptual turn → sufficient context → completed implication.
\n\nBegin with a specific observation rather than a promise of future insight. Check: The opening should contain something the reader can think with now.
Make one consequential turn rather than a pile of unrelated points. Check: State what changes between the first and final thought.
Complete the local thought inside the passage. Check: The reader should not need to click elsewhere to receive the promised distinction.
Use this voice for a reader encountering a short, self-contained observation in a newsletter, social post, informal project note, or concise essay. It should feel easy to enter while still carrying a complete argument. The audience may be casually attentive, so the actual point cannot wait behind several hooks. Avoid it for dense reference, exact legal language, or a situation where casualness could obscure the gravity of a commitment.
\n\nThe stable voice notices an ordinary detail, turns it slightly, and follows the implication in plain language. Its stance is conversational and willing to admit uncertainty. Narrative distance is close to the reader but does not presume friendship or shared biography. Tone can be wry, curious, or candid. Informal register is not a claim about a writer’s age, identity, or native dialect. Deliberate lowercase is an optional design choice, separate from the voice itself; the profile must still work with conventional capitalization.
\n\nOpen with a short observation that earns its place. Use a turn to reveal why the detail matters, then supply the concrete proposal or explanation. Alternate a few short lines with a fuller paragraph where facts need context. The ending should return to the opening at a changed level of understanding or land on the practical choice. Avoid a vague teaser followed by “read that again.” Transitions such as “Here’s the detail” work only when a real detail follows. The piece needs a complete thought, not merely an attractive fragment.
\n\nUse contractions and direct clauses when they fit the register. Fragments can create a pause or isolate a distinction, but their referent must be clear. One longer conversational sentence can carry a qualification after a pair of short lines. Parentheses allow a small aside; an em dash can mark a genuine turn, not a habitual flourish. Repeat a meaningful word at the landing rather than cycling through synonyms. Digressions stay brief and return explicitly. Do not insert typos, random punctuation, or broken syntax to simulate unaided human writing.
\n\nChoose familiar nouns and specific details before slang. A casual phrase should make the thought easier to follow, not make the writer seem artificially youthful. Humor can notice an inflated promise or the writer’s own temptation to tidy away uncertainty. It should not shame the reader or manufacture a reaction. Imagery is usually one small comparison rather than an extended metaphor. Emotional intensity remains moderate: interest and skepticism can coexist. Avoid fabricated memories, “everyone knows,” and claims about what the audience secretly feels.
\n\nUse line breaks to time a real turn, not after every clause. Lowercase may mark selected opening or closing lines, but retain proper names, technical tokens, and quoted capitalization. Sparse bold can help one phrase, though the sentence must remain clear without it. In plain text, preserve paragraph breaks and punctuation; remove styling without removing qualification. Check narrow-screen wrapping so a short line is not mistaken for a separate instruction. A compact paragraph version should still carry the same logic when line breaks collapse.
\n\nProtect dates, money, quantities, access conditions, privacy rules, names, citations, and quotations. Casual phrasing cannot turn a proposal into an event someone can attend now. First-person judgments must be authorized or explicitly fictional. This profile combines with a restrained personal letter or a short decision-first paragraph. It conflicts with exhaustive archival labeling and formal abstract conventions unless the brief explicitly requires them. Preserve effective informal writing when the voice already feels specific and the facts are clear. Do not lowercase a competent draft merely to force a visible signature.
\n\nWrite the one observation and the action it affects. Identify the factual load before choosing the hook. Draft the full explanatory paragraph, then add short lines only where they change the pace or reveal a turn. Choose one aside if it adds understanding. Check that all required conditions survive the casual phrasing. Read the piece with line breaks removed: repair any logic that exists only in layout. End with a conclusion earned by the supplied facts, then delete any engagement bait or redundant slogan attached after it.
\n\nFaulty: “so yeah, the museum thing is approved. everyone’s going to learn loads. you in?” Casual shorthand has erased the proposal status and invented a learning result.
\n\nRepair: “two labels can give us something to compare.
\n\nThey don’t give us a result in advance. Linden Museum’s session is still proposed, and no learning benefit has been demonstrated. The team needs to authorize it or request revisions.” The short opening and conversational turn remain, while the factual boundary and decision become clear.
\n\nNo fixed word cap is asserted. A compact complete paragraph may pass; a shorter incomplete teaser may fail.
\n\nDo not submit these AI-authored fixtures to venues that prohibit AI-assisted writing; using a venue as research does not confer submission eligibility.
\n\nUse clickbait suspense as a substitute for the turn. Check: Remove the promise; check whether any insight remains.
Treat slang, lowercase text, or fragments as sufficient identity. Check: Assess the argumentative movement without surface styling.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional observation: a workshop has no fee, but attendees arrange their own travel. No participation outcome is known.
\n\n“Free” can be a surprisingly expensive word. The workshop has no fee, but attendees still arrange their travel. That does not tell us who will attend. It does tell us to name the cost we have removed instead of implying we have removed every cost.
\n\nA workshop has no fee, but attendees arrange their travel. No participation outcome is known. What does this mean? The answer may surprise you. Keep reading to find out.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second preserves the facts but withholds the thought it promises, functioning as a teaser rather than a micro-essay.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nPublisher practice and conversational style are useful neighbors. No authoritative universal length or shape for this custom micro-essay was located.
\n\nSubmissions — Publisher-specific submission requirements.
Brand voice: Above all, simple and human — Organization-owned house style.
Asking Analytical Questions — University teaching guidance.
\n\nRejected claim: “Recover anything and erase the later history.”
Replacement: Draftline’s Version history lets workspace editors restore a version by making a new current version. Restoration does not delete stored history.
\n\nWhy: The rejected line makes two unsupported promises. “Anything” ignores the recovery boundary, and “erase” reverses the stated effect on stored history. The replacement names the permitted role and the actual operation.
\n\nKeep the timing and terms: Version history becomes available on 20 October 2026. It is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Versions are retained for 30 days.
\n\nWhy: Availability, price inclusion and retention answer different reader questions. Keeping them explicit prevents the correction from becoming technically accurate but practically incomplete.
\n\nKeep the limit: The feature cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled.
\n\nWhy: This is not another way of stating the thirty-day retention rule. It identifies a separate recovery task the feature cannot perform.
\n\nKeep the action name: The interface action is Version history. Use that exact wording when directing a reader to it.
\n\nRead only the Replacement and Keep passages for the usable feature account. The annotations explain the changes; the rejected quotation remains a labeled failure example, not an endorsed description.
" }, { "key": "human-l01", "label": "William Strunk Jr. · The Elements of Style", "path": "excerpts/L01.md", "source": { "title": "The Elements of Style", "author": "William Strunk Jr.", "publicationDate": "1920", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37134", "locator": "Rule 10, “Use the active voice,” opening examples and exception", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37134", "relationship": "Before/after sentences connect a revision to its purpose.", "edition": "Harcourt, Brace text bearing 1918, 1919 and 1920 copyright notices; not Strunk & White 1959", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "The active voice is usually more direct and vigorous than the passive:\n\nI shall always remember my first visit to Boston.\n\nThis is much better than\n\nMy first visit to Boston will always be remembered by me.\n\nThe latter sentence is less direct, less bold, and less concise. If the writer tries to make it more concise by omitting “by me,”\n\nMy first visit to Boston will always be remembered,\n\nit becomes indefinite: is it the writer, or some person undisclosed, or the world at large, that will always remember this visit?\n\nThis rule does not, of course, mean that the writer should entirely discard the passive voice, which is frequently convenient and sometimes necessary.\n", "id": "V24/human-l01", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "The active voice is usually more direct and vigorous than the passive:\n\nI shall always remember my first visit to Boston.\n\nThis is much better than\n\nMy first visit to Boston will always be remembered by me.\n\nThe latter sentence is less direct, less bold, and less concise. If the writer tries to make it more concise by omitting “by me,”\n\nMy first visit to Boston will always be remembered,\n\nit becomes indefinite: is it the writer, or some person undisclosed, or the world at large, that will always remember this visit?\n\nThis rule does not, of course, mean that the writer should entirely discard the passive voice, which is frequently convenient and sometimes necessary.\n", "sha256": "53ced572c961142140af843d9e88108641a1d739b97210de94d35e31d2d1e34a", "html": "The active voice is usually more direct and vigorous than the passive:
\n\nI shall always remember my first visit to Boston.
\n\nThis is much better than
\n\nMy first visit to Boston will always be remembered by me.
\n\nThe latter sentence is less direct, less bold, and less concise. If the writer tries to make it more concise by omitting “by me,”
\n\nMy first visit to Boston will always be remembered,
\n\nit becomes indefinite: is it the writer, or some person undisclosed, or the world at large, that will always remember this visit?
\n\nThis rule does not, of course, mean that the writer should entirely discard the passive voice, which is frequently convenient and sometimes necessary.
" }, { "id": "V24/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "# An invitation without an invented outcome\n\n> **Rejected promise:** “Leave with perfect writing.”\n\n**Replacement:** Bring **one paragraph to revise** at the fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop.\n\n**Keep:** **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Free attendance; **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\n*Why:* The replacement names the activity rather than guaranteeing a result. The practical details remain complete for the supplied brief.\n\n**Check before attendance:** Location, time zone and access arrangements are not supplied here. Do not fill those gaps with assumptions.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V24\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# An invitation without an invented outcome\n\n> **Rejected promise:** “Leave with perfect writing.”\n\n**Replacement:** Bring **one paragraph to revise** at the fictional **Clearer Notes** workshop.\n\n**Keep:** **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Free attendance; **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\n*Why:* The replacement names the activity rather than guaranteeing a result. The practical details remain complete for the supplied brief.\n\n**Check before attendance:** Location, time zone and access arrangements are not supplied here. Do not fill those gaps with assumptions.\n\n", "sha256": "b2efde6a1b7f3a7e234d8fbd38f0301831f4e238285b38de9e0aea94512c78b8", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 9, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.8657142857142857, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 16, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 26.984126984126984, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 63, "prose_sentences": 7, "prose_paragraphs": 4, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 17, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 1, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "b2efde6a1b7f3a7e234d8fbd38f0301831f4e238285b38de9e0aea94512c78b8", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "\n\nRejected promise: “Leave with perfect writing.”
Replacement: Bring one paragraph to revise at the fictional Clearer Notes workshop.
\n\nKeep: 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. Free attendance; 12 places. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nWhy: The replacement names the activity rather than guaranteeing a result. The practical details remain complete for the supplied brief.
\n\nCheck before attendance: Location, time zone and access arrangements are not supplied here. Do not fill those gaps with assumptions.
" }, { "id": "V24/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "# Correct the status wording\n\n> **Rejected promise:** “Everything will be fixed by 3 p.m.”\n\n**Replacement:** **New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.** The cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\n*Why:* The supplied time is for an update. It is not a promised repair time.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: V24\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: Codex AI-authored synthetic demonstration\n---\n\n\n# Correct the status wording\n\n> **Rejected promise:** “Everything will be fixed by 3 p.m.”\n\n**Replacement:** **New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.** The cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\n*Why:* The supplied time is for an update. It is not a promised repair time.\n\n", "sha256": "03419a1768fb2b6b20017cf7dd968c74ce421d452e688fd9e1afa43ed7934c01", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 6.5, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 35.8974358974359, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 39, "prose_sentences": 6, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 14, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 1, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "03419a1768fb2b6b20017cf7dd968c74ce421d452e688fd9e1afa43ed7934c01", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "\n\nRejected promise: “Everything will be fixed by 3 p.m.”
Replacement: New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read. The cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
\n\nWhy: The supplied time is for an update. It is not a promised repair time.
" }, { "id": "V24/historical-full", "key": "historical-full", "briefId": "COMMON_BRIEF", "label": "Decision memo", "markdown": "# Editing the promise\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\nRejected example: ~~A proven service that will save the community money.~~\n\nReplacement: **A proposed six-week trial of the Marlow Library Tool Shelf.**\n\n*Editorial note:* The first sentence supplied a result that does not exist. The replacement preserves the idea without presenting prediction as evidence. The pilot’s status is `proposed`, not `approved`.\n\nThe plan requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits. Borrowing would be free. The proposed opening times are Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026.\n\n*Keep:* These concrete terms make the proposal inspectable. Do not change dates, amounts, or inventory to improve the rhythm. Kit contents and loan conditions remain open questions.\n\nRejected example: ~~Borrowers will reserve online.~~\n\nReplacement: **Borrowers would have an optional web reservation form, plus telephone and walk-up access.**\n\n*Editorial note:* The first version both removed access routes and changed a proposal into a certainty. This is not a matter of tone alone.\n\nThe trial would record completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. Borrower names would not be published. There are no measured outcomes or savings yet.\n\n*Keep:* The failed attempts and privacy limit are substantive information. They should not disappear because the shorter sentence looks more confident.\n\nThe requested decision is whether to authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. That is the ending the facts support. It gives the reader a next step without pretending approval has already occurred.\n\n*Final check:* A revision may improve flow, emphasis, and personality. It must also preserve what is proposed, what is known, and what still needs a decision.", "sourceMarkdown": "# Editing the promise\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.*\n\nRejected example: ~~A proven service that will save the community money.~~\n\nReplacement: **A proposed six-week trial of the Marlow Library Tool Shelf.**\n\n*Editorial note:* The first sentence supplied a result that does not exist. The replacement preserves the idea without presenting prediction as evidence. The pilot’s status is `proposed`, not `approved`.\n\nThe plan requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits. Borrowing would be free. The proposed opening times are Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026.\n\n*Keep:* These concrete terms make the proposal inspectable. Do not change dates, amounts, or inventory to improve the rhythm. Kit contents and loan conditions remain open questions.\n\nRejected example: ~~Borrowers will reserve online.~~\n\nReplacement: **Borrowers would have an optional web reservation form, plus telephone and walk-up access.**\n\n*Editorial note:* The first version both removed access routes and changed a proposal into a certainty. This is not a matter of tone alone.\n\nThe trial would record completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. Borrower names would not be published. There are no measured outcomes or savings yet.\n\n*Keep:* The failed attempts and privacy limit are substantive information. They should not disappear because the shorter sentence looks more confident.\n\nThe requested decision is whether to authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. That is the ending the facts support. It gives the reader a next step without pretending approval has already occurred.\n\n*Final check:* A revision may improve flow, emphasis, and personality. It must also preserve what is proposed, what is known, and what still needs a decision.\n", "sha256": "0ae4076edda99cd4023ca3c4822dd4229531d00c987db95759fa982f8bcd1467", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · COMMON_BRIEF · synthetic facts.
\n\nRejected example: A proven service that will save the community money.
Replacement: A proposed six-week trial of the Marlow Library Tool Shelf.
\n\nEditorial note: The first sentence supplied a result that does not exist. The replacement preserves the idea without presenting prediction as evidence. The pilot’s status is proposed, not approved.
The plan requests $2,400 for 24 tool kits. Borrowing would be free. The proposed opening times are Saturdays, 10 a.m.–noon, from 7 November to 12 December 2026.
\n\nKeep: These concrete terms make the proposal inspectable. Do not change dates, amounts, or inventory to improve the rhythm. Kit contents and loan conditions remain open questions.
\n\nRejected example: Borrowers will reserve online.
Replacement: Borrowers would have an optional web reservation form, plus telephone and walk-up access.
\n\nEditorial note: The first version both removed access routes and changed a proposal into a certainty. This is not a matter of tone alone.
\n\nThe trial would record completed loans, staff time, and failed borrowing attempts. Borrower names would not be published. There are no measured outcomes or savings yet.
\n\nKeep: The failed attempts and privacy limit are substantive information. They should not disappear because the shorter sentence looks more confident.
\n\nThe requested decision is whether to authorize the bounded trial or request revisions. That is the ending the facts support. It gives the reader a next step without pretending approval has already occurred.
\n\nFinal check: A revision may improve flow, emphasis, and personality. It must also preserve what is proposed, what is known, and what still needs a decision.
" }, { "id": "V24/historical-update", "key": "historical-update", "briefId": "short-update", "label": "Schedule update", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\nRejected example: ~~The deadline is Thursday.~~\n\nReplacement: The **review meeting** has moved to Thursday. The scope is unchanged, and no new delivery deadline is approved.\n\n*Why:* the correction preserves the distinction between a meeting and a commitment. Please confirm the revised meeting time.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.*\n\nRejected example: ~~The deadline is Thursday.~~\n\nReplacement: The **review meeting** has moved to Thursday. The scope is unchanged, and no new delivery deadline is approved.\n\n*Why:* the correction preserves the distinction between a meeting and a commitment. Please confirm the revised meeting time.\n", "sha256": "3c6242b9b6a41360f644c2e5402bc977b22db4d889673b39993bab70de01d1a1", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · schedule update · synthetic facts.
\n\nRejected example: The deadline is Thursday.
Replacement: The review meeting has moved to Thursday. The scope is unchanged, and no new delivery deadline is approved.
\n\nWhy: the correction preserves the distinction between a meeting and a commitment. Please confirm the revised meeting time.
" }, { "id": "V24/historical-invitation", "key": "historical-invitation", "briefId": "short-invitation", "label": "Invitation", "markdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\nRejected example: ~~Leave with a perfect paragraph.~~\n\nReplacement: Bring a draft paragraph and a question about its intended reader takeaway to the fictional writing session. Compare revisions and choose what serves the meaning.\n\n*Why:* the invitation can promise a process, not an unobserved result. The example is fictional, not an actual event announcement.", "sourceMarkdown": "*AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.*\n\nRejected example: ~~Leave with a perfect paragraph.~~\n\nReplacement: Bring a draft paragraph and a question about its intended reader takeaway to the fictional writing session. Compare revisions and choose what serves the meaning.\n\n*Why:* the invitation can promise a process, not an unobserved result. The example is fictional, not an actual event announcement.\n", "sha256": "167d2ca0285668b6ec27b7d4a0419cfd7d6da190b6d73f7b3e71d936aaa00a75", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · fictional writing session.
\n\nRejected example: Leave with a perfect paragraph.
Replacement: Bring a draft paragraph and a question about its intended reader takeaway to the fictional writing session. Compare revisions and choose what serves the meaning.
\n\nWhy: the invitation can promise a process, not an unobserved result. The example is fictional, not an actual event announcement.
" }, { "id": "V24/historical-transfer", "key": "historical-transfer", "briefId": "B01", "label": "New-topic example", "markdown": "# V24 · Annotated revision\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\n**Rejected example:** ~~Scan everything and publish the finished archive.~~\n\n**Replacement:** The fictional Alder Photo Archive has 48 donated photographs to catalog. No scanning has been reported complete. Follow the agreed workflow below; no completion date has been promised.\n\n*Why:* The rejected line omits the stopping conditions and directs publication without waiting for the rights review.\n\n**Keep:** If a sleeve number is missing, or if handling could damage a photograph, stop and ask the archive lead. Originals stay in their numbered sleeves. Match each file to the sleeve number.\n\n*Why:* The connection to the original and the stopping rule are operative instructions. Do not shorten them to “handle carefully.”\n\n**Keep:** For this project, scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. The scanner model is unspecified. These settings belong to this fictional agreement, not a universal preservation standard.\n\n**Rejected example:** ~~Improve the donor’s description and estimate the year from clothing.~~\n\n**Replacement:** Use the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Record corrections in a separate catalog note. Record a missing date as unknown; do not guess a year from clothing. Actual dates and donor biographies are not established here.\n\n*Why:* Silent correction would erase the distinction between supplied wording and the cataloger’s note. A plausible year would still be a guess.\n\n**Keep:** Viewing copies remain internal until the rights review is complete. Rights clearance is unresolved. No preservation or speed benefit has been measured.\n\n**Next action:** Use the replacement and “Keep” passages as the volunteer instructions. At either stopping condition, pause and ask the archive lead. The rejected examples are teaching material; they are not alternative steps in the workflow.", "sourceMarkdown": "# V24 · Annotated revision\n\n*AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.*\n\n**Rejected example:** ~~Scan everything and publish the finished archive.~~\n\n**Replacement:** The fictional Alder Photo Archive has 48 donated photographs to catalog. No scanning has been reported complete. Follow the agreed workflow below; no completion date has been promised.\n\n*Why:* The rejected line omits the stopping conditions and directs publication without waiting for the rights review.\n\n**Keep:** If a sleeve number is missing, or if handling could damage a photograph, stop and ask the archive lead. Originals stay in their numbered sleeves. Match each file to the sleeve number.\n\n*Why:* The connection to the original and the stopping rule are operative instructions. Do not shorten them to “handle carefully.”\n\n**Keep:** For this project, scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. The scanner model is unspecified. These settings belong to this fictional agreement, not a universal preservation standard.\n\n**Rejected example:** ~~Improve the donor’s description and estimate the year from clothing.~~\n\n**Replacement:** Use the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Record corrections in a separate catalog note. Record a missing date as unknown; do not guess a year from clothing. Actual dates and donor biographies are not established here.\n\n*Why:* Silent correction would erase the distinction between supplied wording and the cataloger’s note. A plausible year would still be a guess.\n\n**Keep:** Viewing copies remain internal until the rights review is complete. Rights clearance is unresolved. No preservation or speed benefit has been measured.\n\n**Next action:** Use the replacement and “Keep” passages as the volunteer instructions. At either stopping condition, pause and ask the archive lead. The rejected examples are teaching material; they are not alternative steps in the workflow.\n", "sha256": "4c90be975190e24cac1481638da986b943f787c1734520e1be3d36019288577a", "measurement": null, "html": "AI-authored demonstration · B02 · synthetic facts.
\n\nRejected example: Scan everything and publish the finished archive.
Replacement: The fictional Alder Photo Archive has 48 donated photographs to catalog. No scanning has been reported complete. Follow the agreed workflow below; no completion date has been promised.
\n\nWhy: The rejected line omits the stopping conditions and directs publication without waiting for the rights review.
\n\nKeep: If a sleeve number is missing, or if handling could damage a photograph, stop and ask the archive lead. Originals stay in their numbered sleeves. Match each file to the sleeve number.
\n\nWhy: The connection to the original and the stopping rule are operative instructions. Do not shorten them to “handle carefully.”
\n\nKeep: For this project, scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. The scanner model is unspecified. These settings belong to this fictional agreement, not a universal preservation standard.
\n\nRejected example: Improve the donor’s description and estimate the year from clothing.
Replacement: Use the donor’s supplied description verbatim in a separate source-description field. Record corrections in a separate catalog note. Record a missing date as unknown; do not guess a year from clothing. Actual dates and donor biographies are not established here.
\n\nWhy: Silent correction would erase the distinction between supplied wording and the cataloger’s note. A plausible year would still be a guess.
\n\nKeep: Viewing copies remain internal until the rights review is complete. Rights clearance is unresolved. No preservation or speed benefit has been measured.
\n\nNext action: Use the replacement and “Keep” passages as the volunteer instructions. At either stopping condition, pause and ask the archive lead. The rejected examples are teaching material; they are not alternative steps in the workflow.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 4, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "V24", "sample_id": "V24/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/V24/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "7a8bd172e75b6e1d5fa3865b2490f84066d784bba186c0b998b39132b326b7bf", "trimmed_body_sha256": "d019c3c7538c64323b4716dd06204df10cf626a26c214550810b9f56c13604b5", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The annotations explain the changes;", "start": 1336, "end": 1372, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited neutral professional sentences and controlled structure fit3; no strongly ceremonial conventions justify5." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The annotations explain the changes;", "start": 1336, "end": 1372, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "No intended comic device was found across the full sample. The quoted passage illustrates the prevailing factual or reflective stance." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The annotations explain the changes;", "start": 1336, "end": 1372, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Delivery is matter-of-fact and restrained across the sample; positive subject matter alone does not raise the rating." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The annotations explain the changes;", "start": 1336, "end": 1372, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Reader-directed decision support or non-punitive explanation adds modest regard, between task-only1 and explicit relational acknowledgment3." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**Replacement:** Draftline’s **Version history** lets **workspace editors** restore a version by making a **new current version**.", "start": 115, "end": 245, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Workspace-editor, retention and restore concepts require a little product-role familiarity, but the consequences are explained in ordinary language. This is below the few-unexplained-domain-concepts level3." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "It identifies a separate recovery task the feature cannot perform.", "start": 1066, "end": 1132, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The full sample repeatedly explains distinctions among operation, permissions, retained versions and prior deletion; this exceeds selected reasons3 but lacks a fully worked concrete example/definition sequence sufficient for5." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session", "title": "Analyse a research session", "id": "S46" }, { "url": "https://developers.google.com/style/tone", "title": "Tone", "id": "S20" } ], "researchLimits": "Research distinction and clear-language guidance inform correction discipline; no source authorizes modifying protected quotations.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v24-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-v24-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/V24/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/V24/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/V24/profile.json", "preview": "previews/V24.svg", "bundleSha256": "720566b95a273d2d46d8ff1c96fa072dddc53053cee52b32a026f7683c9fdb7c", "bundleBytes": 79635 }, "guideHtml": "Use this voice when the reader needs to see what changed and why: an editorial handoff, claim repair, training example, or review of a consequential draft. The annotations teach a transferable choice while the replacement remains usable. Avoid it as the sole form of a final public message when readers need clean prose. Rejected language must never be mistaken for an endorsed claim in an excerpt, search result, or plain-text export.
\n\nThe stable voice makes its reasoning inspectable. It distinguishes a factual correction from a stylistic preference and leaves effective language alone. Its stance is accountable, precise, and non-punitive. Tone can be firm about an unsupported claim while remaining generous toward the writer. Narrative distance is that of an editor addressing a reader, not an authority claiming approval powers. The genre permits visible correction; it does not authorize silently changing quotations, contracts, code, or a person’s testimony to fit the preferred voice.
\n\nBegin with a clearly labeled faulty or rejected formulation, place the replacement beside it, and explain the specific reason. Follow with any preserved facts needed for a complete passage. End with the next editorial or operational action. Use annotation units that each address one issue: status, access, evidence, or commitment. A unit should not reopen every previous correction. Where a whole document is revised, provide a clean reading path or consolidate the accepted wording so the user need not assemble scattered fragments by guesswork.
\n\nKeep the annotation compact and causal: “The original implies approval; the source describes a proposal.” Use complete clauses for reasons and short labels for status. Colons introduce “Rejected,” “Replacement,” “Keep,” and “Why.” Semicolons can connect the error to its consequence. Repetition of the same labels is useful navigation, while the replacement prose should follow its own intended voice. Avoid sarcastic questions and theatrical ellipses. Digressions into the writer’s presumed motives are irrelevant; explain the observable change in meaning instead.
\n\nName the action accurately: “restores the privacy limit,” “removes an invented deadline,” or “preserves the quoted phrase.” Do not call a preference a factual correction. Use exact terms from the source and enough quoted text to locate the issue without needlessly repeating harmful or misleading wording. Imagery and humor are usually unnecessary. Emotional intensity should remain low even when the correction matters. An editor can be decisive without treating the source writer as careless or implying that every edit is an improvement.
\n\nStrikethrough can reinforce rejected wording, but also write “Rejected example:” before it. Label the accepted replacement explicitly. Bold may highlight accepted wording; inline code is appropriate for a literal status token or field name, not decorative emphasis. In plain text, replace strikethrough with the retained rejection label and keep the replacement on a separate line. Never use color alone to indicate acceptance. Verify the sequence without any Markdown rendering: the reader should still know which sentence is wrong and which instruction to follow.
\n\nProtect exact quotations, names, dates, amounts, citations, code, technical tokens, source-description fields, and contractual text. If a protected span appears wrong, annotate the issue outside it rather than silently rewriting it. Separate unsupported claims from merely awkward style. This profile can wrap any other profile as an editorial layer, but the accepted prose should retain its chosen voice. It conflicts with invisible final-only polishing. The no-change path is explicit: label a passage “Keep” and explain briefly why it already serves the task, or leave it unannotated when no explanation is needed.
\n\nCompare the source with the brief before editing its rhythm. Identify the smallest span that creates the problem, copy it exactly as a rejected example, and write a replacement preserving all supported meaning. State the exact reason and classify it as factual, structural, or stylistic. Retain strong passages. Assemble enough accepted wording to meet the reader’s task. Then read only replacements and “Keep” passages to check completeness; read only labels to check accessibility. Confirm that no rejected claim can appear as the final recommendation without its warning.
\n\nFaulty annotation: “600 dpi TIFF Better quality. Fixed.” The edit deletes technical requirements, supplies no accepted instruction, and relies entirely on styling to show rejection.
Repair: “Keep: Scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. Why: these are the fictional project’s agreed settings. Do not replace them with a vague quality claim.” The editor preserves an effective instruction and explains why leaving it unchanged is the correct action. Visible editing does not require visible damage to the source.
\n\nRead the full seed, schedule correction, and invitation repair. The archive application supplies a new complete annotated guide. All are AI-authored demonstrations; rejected passages are deliberately faulty examples, not endorsed claims or evidence of Kyle’s previous writing.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "L01", "title": "The Elements of Style", "author": "William Strunk Jr.", "year": "1920", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37134", "relationship": "Before/after sentences connect a revision to its purpose.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Instructional reference with human-authored constructed examples", "publicationDate": "1920" }, { "id": "L16", "title": "The King’s English", "author": "H. W. Fowler and F. G. Fowler", "year": "1924", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75439", "relationship": "Fault, syntactic reason and replacement are kept together.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Usage guide with annotated source examples", "publicationDate": "1924" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Annotated revision · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/V24.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Professional Editorial Standards 2024", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" }, { "title": "Stylistic Editing", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/stylistic-editing/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" }, { "title": "Fundamentals of Editing", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/fundamentals-editing/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" } ], "formats": [], "html": "An inspectable revision that preserves the original wording, makes the proposed change explicit, and explains why the intervention is justified. Keeping a passage unchanged is a valid editorial outcome.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nAn actual supplied text or labeled synthetic original, the editing goal, protected content, and permission to propose changes.
\n\nOriginal span → proposed revision or keep decision → adjacent reason → clean reading path.
\n\nPreserve a recoverable original alongside the proposed wording. Check: A reviewer must be able to see exactly what would change.
Give a reason tied to meaning, reader need, or an explicit standard. Check: “Sounds better” alone does not justify a consequential edit.
Provide an unambiguous accepted reading path or identify the proposal as pending. Check: Separate commentary from prose that would be published.
Use this voice when the reader needs to see what changed and why: an editorial handoff, claim repair, training example, or review of a consequential draft. The annotations teach a transferable choice while the replacement remains usable. Avoid it as the sole form of a final public message when readers need clean prose. Rejected language must never be mistaken for an endorsed claim in an excerpt, search result, or plain-text export.
\n\nThe stable voice makes its reasoning inspectable. It distinguishes a factual correction from a stylistic preference and leaves effective language alone. Its stance is accountable, precise, and non-punitive. Tone can be firm about an unsupported claim while remaining generous toward the writer. Narrative distance is that of an editor addressing a reader, not an authority claiming approval powers. The genre permits visible correction; it does not authorize silently changing quotations, contracts, code, or a person’s testimony to fit the preferred voice.
\n\nBegin with a clearly labeled faulty or rejected formulation, place the replacement beside it, and explain the specific reason. Follow with any preserved facts needed for a complete passage. End with the next editorial or operational action. Use annotation units that each address one issue: status, access, evidence, or commitment. A unit should not reopen every previous correction. Where a whole document is revised, provide a clean reading path or consolidate the accepted wording so the user need not assemble scattered fragments by guesswork.
\n\nKeep the annotation compact and causal: “The original implies approval; the source describes a proposal.” Use complete clauses for reasons and short labels for status. Colons introduce “Rejected,” “Replacement,” “Keep,” and “Why.” Semicolons can connect the error to its consequence. Repetition of the same labels is useful navigation, while the replacement prose should follow its own intended voice. Avoid sarcastic questions and theatrical ellipses. Digressions into the writer’s presumed motives are irrelevant; explain the observable change in meaning instead.
\n\nName the action accurately: “restores the privacy limit,” “removes an invented deadline,” or “preserves the quoted phrase.” Do not call a preference a factual correction. Use exact terms from the source and enough quoted text to locate the issue without needlessly repeating harmful or misleading wording. Imagery and humor are usually unnecessary. Emotional intensity should remain low even when the correction matters. An editor can be decisive without treating the source writer as careless or implying that every edit is an improvement.
\n\nStrikethrough can reinforce rejected wording, but also write “Rejected example:” before it. Label the accepted replacement explicitly. Bold may highlight accepted wording; inline code is appropriate for a literal status token or field name, not decorative emphasis. In plain text, replace strikethrough with the retained rejection label and keep the replacement on a separate line. Never use color alone to indicate acceptance. Verify the sequence without any Markdown rendering: the reader should still know which sentence is wrong and which instruction to follow.
\n\nProtect exact quotations, names, dates, amounts, citations, code, technical tokens, source-description fields, and contractual text. If a protected span appears wrong, annotate the issue outside it rather than silently rewriting it. Separate unsupported claims from merely awkward style. This profile can wrap any other profile as an editorial layer, but the accepted prose should retain its chosen voice. It conflicts with invisible final-only polishing. The no-change path is explicit: label a passage “Keep” and explain briefly why it already serves the task, or leave it unannotated when no explanation is needed.
\n\nCompare the source with the brief before editing its rhythm. Identify the smallest span that creates the problem, copy it exactly as a rejected example, and write a replacement preserving all supported meaning. State the exact reason and classify it as factual, structural, or stylistic. Retain strong passages. Assemble enough accepted wording to meet the reader’s task. Then read only replacements and “Keep” passages to check completeness; read only labels to check accessibility. Confirm that no rejected claim can appear as the final recommendation without its warning.
\n\nFaulty annotation: “600 dpi TIFF Better quality. Fixed.” The edit deletes technical requirements, supplies no accepted instruction, and relies entirely on styling to show rejection.
Repair: “Keep: Scan at 600 dpi and save an unchanged TIFF master plus a JPEG viewing copy. Why: these are the fictional project’s agreed settings. Do not replace them with a vague quality claim.” The editor preserves an effective instruction and explains why leaving it unchanged is the correct action. Visible editing does not require visible damage to the source.
\n\nTracked changes, side-by-side columns, and plain-text labels are all acceptable. A specific software format is not required.
\n\nAn unchanged passage with a justified keep note can pass. The number of edits is not a quality score.
\n\nSilently change facts, certainty, approval, or quotation meaning. Check: Compare protected claims before and after; flag changes requiring author approval.
Rewrite correct prose merely to demonstrate activity. Check: Include a keep decision when no justified intervention exists.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Synthetic original: “The request was accepted, so the file is ready.” Specified fact: acceptance means queued, not completed.
\n\nOriginal: “The request was accepted, so the file is ready.”\nProposed: “The request was accepted and is queued; the file is not yet confirmed ready.”\nReason: Acceptance does not establish completion. This is a factual correction, not merely a tone adjustment; confirm against the interface specification before publication.
\n\nRevised text: “The request was accepted and is queued; the file is not yet confirmed ready.” It sounds nicer now.
\n\nWhy it differs: The repair may be useful, but the second hides the original and fails to explain the consequential change.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nEditors Canada is a closely relevant prewritten authority for editing practice. The display and diagnostic schema are local implementation decisions.
\n\nProfessional Editorial Standards 2024 — Professional association standards.
Stylistic Editing — Professional association standards.
Fundamentals of Editing — Professional association standards.
If a retained draft needs to become the current one, Draftline’s Version history provides that operation from 20 October 2026. Versions are retained for 30 days. The feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.
\n\nThe first condition is permission: only workspace editors can restore a version. Open Version history to access the feature. When an editor restores a retained version, the restore makes a new current version. It does not delete stored history. The change concerns which version is current; the history remains.
\n\nThe second condition is scope. Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. A request for an earlier retained version and a request for a previously deleted file are different recovery tasks. This feature supports the former within its retention window; it cannot resolve the latter when deletion preceded enablement.
\n\nKeep both conditions with the instruction: editor access governs who can restore, and retained history governs what this operation can return to. Inclusion on an existing plan removes an additional charge for the feature; it does not remove either condition.
" }, { "key": "human-m01", "label": "GitLab institutional byline; CEO apology within text · Postmortem of database outage of January 31", "path": "excerpts/M01.md", "source": { "title": "Postmortem of database outage of January 31", "author": "GitLab institutional byline; CEO apology within text", "publicationDate": "2017-02-10", "url": "https://about.gitlab.com/blog/postmortem-of-database-outage-of-january-31/", "locator": "Opening: paragraph2 firstsentence; paragraph3 firstsentence. Timeline is a separate source section, not included in this short extract.", "rights": "Short attributed quotation · copyright retained", "rightsUrl": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/marketing/digital-experience/gitlab-blog/-/issues/159", "relationship": "Names service disruption and acknowledges the unacceptable loss before technical detail.", "edition": "Dated publisher/author webpage; no immutable pre-2022 snapshot acquired", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "GitLab, Postmortem of database outage of January 31, 10 February 2017. Copyright retained; selected short quotation.", "note": "Only a short incident-impact/acknowledgment aspect. P45 chronology is in the linkedTimeline; this extract does not itself demonstrate the whole timeline module." }, "markdown": "This incident caused the GitLab.com service to be unavailable for many hours.\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]\n\nLosing production data is unacceptable.\n", "id": "P25/human-m01", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "This incident caused the GitLab.com service to be unavailable for many hours.\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]\n\nLosing production data is unacceptable.\n", "sha256": "ee84ba2b31db9f8407ce90ae66b4b122a3e05471b5010ac9089d365acb6b9070", "html": "This incident caused the GitLab.com service to be unavailable for many hours.
\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]
\n\nLosing production data is unacceptable.
" }, { "id": "P25/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## Clearer Notes\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise** to Clearer Notes, a free workshop on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**\n\nThere are **12 places**, and registration closes on **5 November**. Register before registration closes if you want to attend. The preparation is one paragraph: choose the passage you would like to work on and bring that passage with you.\n\nKeep the two dates distinct when planning: 5 November is the registration deadline; 7 November is the workshop.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P25\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Clearer Notes\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise** to Clearer Notes, a free workshop on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**\n\nThere are **12 places**, and registration closes on **5 November**. Register before registration closes if you want to attend. The preparation is one paragraph: choose the passage you would like to work on and bring that passage with you.\n\nKeep the two dates distinct when planning: 5 November is the registration deadline; 7 November is the workshop.\n\n", "sha256": "da27e2a4d3c7bddad17c24cb23f5246f1b4963ed8ab8f2ba01a5745589260738", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 13.6, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7221052631578948, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 44.11764705882353, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 16, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 13.235294117647058, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 68, "prose_sentences": 5, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 3, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "da27e2a4d3c7bddad17c24cb23f5246f1b4963ed8ab8f2ba01a5745589260738", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Bring one paragraph to revise to Clearer Notes, a free workshop on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.
\n\nThere are 12 places, and registration closes on 5 November. Register before registration closes if you want to attend. The preparation is one paragraph: choose the passage you would like to work on and bring that passage with you.
\n\nKeep the two dates distinct when planning: 5 November is the registration deadline; 7 November is the workshop.
" }, { "id": "P25/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## Draftline upload status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P25\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Draftline upload status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\n", "sha256": "8ed46346ef14be0811c2f891fdc16272f8586764beea3e40ac5eef9f21d08339", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 5.75, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 8.695652173913043, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 23, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 2, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "8ed46346ef14be0811c2f891fdc16272f8586764beea3e40ac5eef9f21d08339", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P25", "sample_id": "P25/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P25/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "5da115509f4bb9f4bf913d80a0a0baacd5dbc97188b49deb0356b32e4ffafbdd", "trimmed_body_sha256": "e31970bcc4b01900bf18758f364e6583ad31179f2690eaa3b449a143406e9e28", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The change concerns which version is current; the history remains.", "start": 530, "end": 596, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public/professional wording is neutral and readable, without sustained conversational intimacy or ceremonial convention." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "If a retained draft needs to become the current one, Draftline’s **Version history** provides that operation from **20 October 2026**. Versions are retained for **30 days**. The feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.", "start": 34, "end": 279, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Reading the complete sample shows no intended comic device; factual phrasing and the quoted passage illustrate that restrained posture." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "If a retained draft needs to become the current one, Draftline’s **Version history** provides that operation from **20 October 2026**. Versions are retained for **30 days**. The feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.", "start": 34, "end": 279, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The sample states availability and operating terms without sustained excitement, celebratory wording or energetic encouragement; positive usefulness alone is not enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "If a retained draft needs to become the current one", "start": 34, "end": 85, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The quoted passage acknowledges a reader task, likely concern or practical entry point. This is limited reader consideration, below explicit relational care." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "A request for an earlier retained version and a request for a previously deleted file are different recovery tasks.", "start": 710, "end": 825, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The operation is explained through ordinary terms and explicit conditions, so little specialist background is required." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "A request for an earlier retained version and a request for a previously deleted file are different recovery tasks.", "start": 710, "end": 825, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The complete piece develops multiple related conditions and explains why a distinction matters, beyond selected statements; the cited passage supports that intermediate level." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://www.nngroup.com/articles/tone-of-voice-dimensions/", "title": "The Four Dimensions of Tone of Voice", "id": "S17" }, { "url": "https://developers.google.com/style/tone", "title": "Tone", "id": "S20" } ], "researchLimits": "Tone guidance does not supply a missing recovery step, deadline or verified cause.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p25-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p25-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P25/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P25/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P25/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P25.svg", "bundleSha256": "73854a19f11935f800feb6e9823f18e7ecf591f64aff96f81e51d4edfb66bf67", "bundleBytes": 94242 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: recipe, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nWrite for a person whose immediate task is blocked or whose next action has a consequential restriction. This recipe suits service recovery explanations, permission notices and support replies. It is less suitable for exploration, memoir or a welcome with no obstruction. Do not manufacture a problem merely to give the recipe an opening.
\n\nOpen with the consequence the reader can recognize: what cannot happen, or what a recovery operation will change. Move to the available control, attach its eligibility condition, then state its reach. A feature explanation can begin with a conditional need; an actual incident must begin with actual status. The order is consequence, supported action, constraint. Recovery is a task description, not an emotional promise. Give the restriction its own sentence when missing it could lead to a wrong action. End at the next supported step rather than a generic expression of confidence.
\n\nUse named actors and concrete verbs: editors restore; a version becomes current; documents remain readable. Keep conditional clauses adjacent to the action they govern. One paragraph establishes state, one explains control, and one bounds it. Repeat the exact control name instead of introducing a friendly synonym. Short sentences mark consequential limits; medium sentences connect an operation with its result. Avoid consolation that consumes the place where a reader needs a condition.
\n\nFeature: describe a retained-version operation, not universal file recovery. Workshop: the recipe has weak recovery fit; use preparation and registration conditions without depicting attendance as a remedy. Incident: suppress recovery instructions because none are supplied, retain readable-document status, and finish with the next update.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “Relax—Draftline can bring back anything you lose.”
\n\nThe reassurance invents universal recovery and conceals the documented scope limit. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nOnly workspace editors can restore a retained version. Files deleted before Version history was enabled cannot be recovered with this feature.
V09 supplies the plain-language foundation. P25 is a task ordering recipe within that foundation: consequence and control precede reassurance. It does not establish an independent personality. A useful transfer test is whether the consequence stays visible when the task changes, even when no remedy can be offered.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "M03", "title": "Cloudflare outage caused by bad software deploy (updated)", "author": "John Graham-Cumming", "year": "2019", "url": "https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-outage/", "relationship": "Impact and rollback are explicit; no individualized remedy or compensation.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Service status brief", "publicationDate": "2019-07-02" }, { "id": "M01", "title": "Postmortem of database outage of January 31", "author": "GitLab institutional byline; CEO apology within text", "year": "2017", "url": "https://about.gitlab.com/blog/postmortem-of-database-outage-of-january-31/", "relationship": "Names service disruption and acknowledges the unacceptable loss before technical detail.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Incident postmortem and recovery FAQ", "publicationDate": "2017-02-10" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Consequence-first service recovery · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P25.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Plain Language Guide Series", "url": "https://digital.gov/guides/plain-language", "relationship": "Government guidance" }, { "title": "Postmortem Culture: Learning from Failure", "url": "https://sre.google/workbook/postmortem-culture/", "relationship": "Primary practitioner manual with worked contrasts" }, { "title": "Fundamentals of Editing", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/fundamentals-editing/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A service-recovery module that begins with the reader’s actual consequence and follows with the control or remedy genuinely available. An apology does not substitute for a remedy.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nVerified disruption, affected users or scope, supported control, and the current remedy status; parent V09 remains task-centered.
\n\nReader consequence → available control → eligibility and limits → current status or next checkpoint.
\n\nName the consequence in terms meaningful to the affected reader. Check: Identify what the user cannot do, has lost, or must change.
Present the actual available control or explicitly state that none is available. Check: Walk through the proposed action without inventing a remedy.
Keep eligibility and limits adjacent to the remedy. Check: An affected person must not infer a remedy that applies only to someone else.
Write for a person whose immediate task is blocked or whose next action has a consequential restriction. This recipe suits service recovery explanations, permission notices and support replies. It is less suitable for exploration, memoir or a welcome with no obstruction. Do not manufacture a problem merely to give the recipe an opening.
\n\nOpen with the consequence the reader can recognize: what cannot happen, or what a recovery operation will change. Move to the available control, attach its eligibility condition, then state its reach. A feature explanation can begin with a conditional need; an actual incident must begin with actual status. The order is consequence, supported action, constraint. Recovery is a task description, not an emotional promise. Give the restriction its own sentence when missing it could lead to a wrong action. End at the next supported step rather than a generic expression of confidence.
\n\nUse named actors and concrete verbs: editors restore; a version becomes current; documents remain readable. Keep conditional clauses adjacent to the action they govern. One paragraph establishes state, one explains control, and one bounds it. Repeat the exact control name instead of introducing a friendly synonym. Short sentences mark consequential limits; medium sentences connect an operation with its result. Avoid consolation that consumes the place where a reader needs a condition.
\n\nFeature: describe a retained-version operation, not universal file recovery. Workshop: the recipe has weak recovery fit; use preparation and registration conditions without depicting attendance as a remedy. Incident: suppress recovery instructions because none are supplied, retain readable-document status, and finish with the next update.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “Relax—Draftline can bring back anything you lose.”
\n\nThe reassurance invents universal recovery and conceals the documented scope limit. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nOnly workspace editors can restore a retained version. Files deleted before Version history was enabled cannot be recovered with this feature.
V09 supplies the plain-language foundation. P25 is a task ordering recipe within that foundation: consequence and control precede reassurance. It does not establish an independent personality. A useful transfer test is whether the consequence stays visible when the task changes, even when no remedy can be offered.
\n\nA sincere apology is optional when appropriate; it is neither a required magic phrase nor evidence of recovery.
\n\nNo harm or disruption exists: use the parent service profile without claiming a recovery event.
\n\nLead with organizational self-defense instead of the consequence. Check: Inspect the opening before any apology or explanation.
Offer an invented refund, workaround, or restoration time. Check: Trace each remedy claim to an authorized source.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Synthetic incident: queued exports cannot yet be downloaded. No workaround is confirmed. Next status update is 10:00; restoration time is unknown.
\n\nYour queued export is not yet available to download. No workaround or restoration time is confirmed. The next status update is at 10:00; that is an update time, not a promised repair time.
\n\nWe take service excellence seriously and are monitoring our systems. Queued exports cannot yet be downloaded, no workaround or restoration time is confirmed, and the next update is at 10:00.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second preserves facts but makes institutional reassurance the lead rather than the reader’s consequence.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nService and incident guidance offer relevant practices. This exact recovery module is a local specification, not a promise of compensation rights.
\n\nPlain Language Guide Series — Government guidance.
Postmortem Culture: Learning from Failure — Primary practitioner manual with worked contrasts.
Fundamentals of Editing — Professional association standards.
Version history becomes available in Draftline on 20 October 2026, on every existing plan at no additional charge. Versions are retained for 30 days.
\n\nA restore has a defined sequence. A workspace editor accesses Version history and restores a retained version. That restore makes a new current version. Stored history is not deleted by the operation. The current version changes while the history remains.
\n\nOnly workspace editors can perform a restore. Plan inclusion and restore permission therefore describe different conditions: the feature is included on every existing plan, but that inclusion does not give every person editor permission.
\n\nThere is also a boundary in time. Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. Its availability date should not be read as a retrospective recovery promise for those files.
\n\nRead the change as three separate states: the feature becomes available on the stated date; retained versions remain available within the 30-day retention period; an editor’s restore makes a new current version without deleting stored history.
" }, { "key": "human-m01", "label": "GitLab institutional byline; CEO apology within text · Postmortem of database outage of January 31", "path": "excerpts/M01.md", "source": { "title": "Postmortem of database outage of January 31", "author": "GitLab institutional byline; CEO apology within text", "publicationDate": "2017-02-10", "url": "https://about.gitlab.com/blog/postmortem-of-database-outage-of-january-31/", "locator": "Opening: paragraph2 firstsentence; paragraph3 firstsentence. Timeline is a separate source section, not included in this short extract.", "rights": "Short attributed quotation · copyright retained", "rightsUrl": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/marketing/digital-experience/gitlab-blog/-/issues/159", "relationship": "Names service disruption and acknowledges the unacceptable loss before technical detail.", "edition": "Dated publisher/author webpage; no immutable pre-2022 snapshot acquired", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "GitLab, Postmortem of database outage of January 31, 10 February 2017. Copyright retained; selected short quotation.", "note": "Only a short incident-impact/acknowledgment aspect. P45 chronology is in the linkedTimeline; this extract does not itself demonstrate the whole timeline module." }, "markdown": "This incident caused the GitLab.com service to be unavailable for many hours.\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]\n\nLosing production data is unacceptable.\n", "id": "P26/human-m01", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "This incident caused the GitLab.com service to be unavailable for many hours.\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]\n\nLosing production data is unacceptable.\n", "sha256": "ee84ba2b31db9f8407ce90ae66b4b122a3e05471b5010ac9089d365acb6b9070", "html": "This incident caused the GitLab.com service to be unavailable for many hours.
\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]
\n\nLosing production data is unacceptable.
" }, { "id": "P26/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## Clearer Notes: deadline and session\n\n**Registration closes on 5 November.** The free Clearer Notes workshop then takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**\n\nThere are **12 places**. Attendees bring **one paragraph to revise**.\n\nThe deadline and the session are separate points in the sequence: register before registration closes, then bring your paragraph to the workshop. A place count describes the workshop’s capacity; it does not describe how many places have already been taken.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P26\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Clearer Notes: deadline and session\n\n**Registration closes on 5 November.** The free Clearer Notes workshop then takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**\n\nThere are **12 places**. Attendees bring **one paragraph to revise**.\n\nThe deadline and the session are separate points in the sequence: register before registration closes, then bring your paragraph to the workshop. A place count describes the workshop’s capacity; it does not describe how many places have already been taken.\n\n", "sha256": "f0c2f4b49c3cba69cfc75f1e7fae4f533e3dd630340158222983974b3e13f4cb", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 10.833333333333334, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7787500000000002, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 15.384615384615385, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 16, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 18.46153846153846, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 65, "prose_sentences": 6, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 1, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 1, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 12, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "f0c2f4b49c3cba69cfc75f1e7fae4f533e3dd630340158222983974b3e13f4cb", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Registration closes on 5 November. The free Clearer Notes workshop then takes place on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.
\n\nThere are 12 places. Attendees bring one paragraph to revise.
\n\nThe deadline and the session are separate points in the sequence: register before registration closes, then bring your paragraph to the workshop. A place count describes the workshop’s capacity; it does not describe how many places have already been taken.
" }, { "id": "P26/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## Draftline: current state\n\nNew uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next stated checkpoint is an update at **3 p.m.**", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P26\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Draftline: current state\n\nNew uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next stated checkpoint is an update at **3 p.m.**\n\n", "sha256": "7f972b72887d83eb8cdb7a5e017f164c1dad0dbb7e605000f3d954b90df2ead5", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 8.666666666666666, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 7.6923076923076925, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 26, "prose_sentences": 3, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 2, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "7f972b72887d83eb8cdb7a5e017f164c1dad0dbb7e605000f3d954b90df2ead5", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next stated checkpoint is an update at 3 p.m.
" }, { "id": "P26/probe-H01", "key": "probe-H01", "briefId": "H01", "label": "Separate mechanism probe", "markdown": "## Inkport: what changed, and what remains unresolved\n\nAt **10:40**, new exports are working in the fictional document service Inkport. **Three earlier export requests remain unresolved.** Reading existing documents was unaffected.\n\nThe sequence begins at **10:00**, when exports started failing. The team paused new export requests at **10:12** and restarted the export queue at **10:25**. By 10:40, new exports were working, while the three earlier requests remained unresolved.\n\nThe cause of the initial failure is not yet known. The restart came before the current working state, but the sequence does not establish that the restart caused recovery.\n\nNew exports working does not settle the three earlier requests. The next update is at **11:00**.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P26\nbrief_id: H01\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\ncohort: separate-heldout-mechanism-probe\n---\n\n\n## Inkport: what changed, and what remains unresolved\n\nAt **10:40**, new exports are working in the fictional document service Inkport. **Three earlier export requests remain unresolved.** Reading existing documents was unaffected.\n\nThe sequence begins at **10:00**, when exports started failing. The team paused new export requests at **10:12** and restarted the export queue at **10:25**. By 10:40, new exports were working, while the three earlier requests remained unresolved.\n\nThe cause of the initial failure is not yet known. The restart came before the current working state, but the sequence does not establish that the restart caused recovery.\n\nNew exports working does not settle the three earlier requests. The next update is at **11:00**.\n\n", "sha256": "0204c450086f94db3bc8e52bb1ab4b24d127a50982ea6911ce87ff3458c4f6de", "measurement": null, "html": "At 10:40, new exports are working in the fictional document service Inkport. Three earlier export requests remain unresolved. Reading existing documents was unaffected.
\n\nThe sequence begins at 10:00, when exports started failing. The team paused new export requests at 10:12 and restarted the export queue at 10:25. By 10:40, new exports were working, while the three earlier requests remained unresolved.
\n\nThe cause of the initial failure is not yet known. The restart came before the current working state, but the sequence does not establish that the restart caused recovery.
\n\nNew exports working does not settle the three earlier requests. The next update is at 11:00.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P26", "sample_id": "P26/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P26/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "bc5b392be6d3f32e5c30b0c084097e1da7d2a123901bd25c87f738618fc2db9f", "trimmed_body_sha256": "7cca19006902b8ceda1ab4fbeffe497f101595fa2c9016eac847d6941a3d39ec", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "A restore has a defined sequence.", "start": 199, "end": 232, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current whole piece uses edited public/professional wording, without ceremonial convention or sustained intimate conversation." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**Version history** becomes available in Draftline on **20 October 2026**, on every existing plan at no additional charge. Versions are retained for **30 days**.", "start": 36, "end": 197, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current whole piece contains no intended comic device; its factual/evidential phrasing is restrained." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**Version history** becomes available in Draftline on **20 October 2026**, on every existing plan at no additional charge. Versions are retained for **30 days**.", "start": 36, "end": 197, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current availability and operating terms are matter-of-fact. There is no sustained excitement or celebratory framing; useful content alone does not establish enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Only workspace editors can perform a restore.", "start": 456, "end": 501, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current reader relationship is primarily impersonal and task/evidence focused. Clear instruction alone does not establish relational care." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Read the change as three separate states", "start": 901, "end": 941, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current piece assumes limited familiarity with workspace/editor/version or evidence-account terminology, while explaining the consequential relation; this is below dense specialist expertise." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The current version changes while the history remains.", "start": 400, "end": 454, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current piece develops linked conditions or an explanatory relation and clarifies its boundary/source status, beyond a list of selected statements." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://sre.google/sre-book/postmortem-culture/", "title": "Postmortem Culture: Learning from Failure", "id": "S45" }, { "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session", "title": "Analyse a research session", "id": "S46" } ], "researchLimits": "Postmortem practice concerns investigated incidents; live-update style must not borrow a completed causal finding.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p26-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p26-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P26/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P26/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P26/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P26.svg", "bundleSha256": "b54a907f2faa90b43afdd8cda1417dc34252426956e3addb756913e5e38ab087", "bundleBytes": 74949 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: voice candidate, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nUse for readers following a changing operational state, release transition or service notice. It suits accounts where sequence matters and causal knowledge is incomplete. It is unsuitable for a narrative that needs invented connective events, a promotional launch, or a retrospective whose start, response and resolution have not been documented.
\n\nOpen with the present state before explaining the sequence that matters to it. Move through verified transitions in order, explicitly separate what is known now from what remains unresolved, and close with the next stated checkpoint. Accountability lives in the handling of evidence, not in claiming an authorized institutional role. A transition can be a feature operation rather than an incident chronology. Where there is only one status snapshot, report one snapshot. Do not fill the missing beginning and middle of an incident with likely events.
\n\nChoose verbs that preserve state: becomes, remains, is unavailable, has not been established. Use time anchors only when supplied. A paragraph may contain a state and its direct consequence, but causal interpretation needs its own evidence. Semicolons can pair two simultaneous states without asserting causation. Keep the unknown close to any detail readers might mistake for an explanation. Avoid a suspenseful reveal; each paragraph should remain accurate if copied into a status record.
\n\nFeature: explain the restore transition and retention separately; launch availability is a supplied date, not a completed incident. Workshop: order the registration deadline before the event without inventing a booking history. Incident: report current availability, unknown cause and next update; no beginning, diagnosis, investigation milestone or resolution is supplied.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “A deployment interrupted uploads this morning; engineers will have everything back soon.”
\n\nThe sentence invents a cause, an occurrence time and a repair commitment. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nNew Draftline uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read. The cause is not yet known; the next update is at 3 p.m.
V17 orders facts by news importance. This candidate maintains continuity among verified states and future checkpoints. The difference is an editorial hypothesis, especially with a single status snapshot. P45 provides visible sequence formatting; it is not required for this prose mechanism.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "M02", "title": "Details of the Cloudflare outage on July 2, 2019", "author": "John Graham-Cumming", "year": "2019", "url": "https://blog.cloudflare.com/details-of-the-cloudflare-outage-on-july-2-2019/", "relationship": "Timeline links known events, diagnosis and corrective work.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Technical incident analysis", "publicationDate": "2019-07-12" }, { "id": "M01", "title": "Postmortem of database outage of January 31", "author": "GitLab institutional byline; CEO apology within text", "year": "2017", "url": "https://about.gitlab.com/blog/postmortem-of-database-outage-of-january-31/", "relationship": "Names service disruption and acknowledges the unacceptable loss before technical detail.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Incident postmortem and recovery FAQ", "publicationDate": "2017-02-10" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Candid incident chronicler · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P26.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Postmortem Culture: Learning from Failure", "url": "https://sre.google/workbook/postmortem-culture/", "relationship": "Primary practitioner manual with worked contrasts" }, { "title": "Reuters Journalistic Standards", "url": "https://reutersagency.com/about/standards-values/", "relationship": "Organization-owned professional standards" }, { "title": "Analyse a research session", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session", "relationship": "Government practitioner guidance" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A candid incident account that tracks verified changes of state while distinguishing intervention, observed effect, unresolved cause, and the next reporting checkpoint.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA real or explicitly synthetic incident, verified sequence, known impact, open questions, and authorized update commitments.
\n\nCurrent state → verified transitions → intervention versus effect → known/unknown → next checkpoint.
\n\nLead with the latest verified state. Check: Compare the opening with the last timestamped observation.
Separate the action taken from the observed result. Check: Restarting a worker is not automatically proof of restored service.
Track consequential unknowns across updates. Check: An unresolved cause or backlog must not disappear without new evidence.
Use for readers following a changing operational state, release transition or service notice. It suits accounts where sequence matters and causal knowledge is incomplete. It is unsuitable for a narrative that needs invented connective events, a promotional launch, or a retrospective whose start, response and resolution have not been documented.
\n\nOpen with the present state before explaining the sequence that matters to it. Move through verified transitions in order, explicitly separate what is known now from what remains unresolved, and close with the next stated checkpoint. Accountability lives in the handling of evidence, not in claiming an authorized institutional role. A transition can be a feature operation rather than an incident chronology. Where there is only one status snapshot, report one snapshot. Do not fill the missing beginning and middle of an incident with likely events.
\n\nChoose verbs that preserve state: becomes, remains, is unavailable, has not been established. Use time anchors only when supplied. A paragraph may contain a state and its direct consequence, but causal interpretation needs its own evidence. Semicolons can pair two simultaneous states without asserting causation. Keep the unknown close to any detail readers might mistake for an explanation. Avoid a suspenseful reveal; each paragraph should remain accurate if copied into a status record.
\n\nFeature: explain the restore transition and retention separately; launch availability is a supplied date, not a completed incident. Workshop: order the registration deadline before the event without inventing a booking history. Incident: report current availability, unknown cause and next update; no beginning, diagnosis, investigation milestone or resolution is supplied.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “A deployment interrupted uploads this morning; engineers will have everything back soon.”
\n\nThe sentence invents a cause, an occurrence time and a repair commitment. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nNew Draftline uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read. The cause is not yet known; the next update is at 3 p.m.
V17 orders facts by news importance. This candidate maintains continuity among verified states and future checkpoints. The difference is an editorial hypothesis, especially with a single status snapshot. P45 provides visible sequence formatting; it is not required for this prose mechanism.
\n\nA timeline is useful but not mandatory. An update can be short if it preserves state and uncertainty.
\n\nA full postmortem needs more than this micro-update. Passing this local candidate does not imply complete SRE postmortem compliance.
\n\nInfer a causal repair solely from event order. Check: Check whether “after” has become “because” without support.
Blame a person where the record only documents an action. Check: Describe the mechanism and evidence, not an unsupported character judgment.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Synthetic incident, 11 August 2021: exports stalled at 09:00; worker restarted 09:10; queue moving 09:18; at 09:25 backlog and cause remain unknown; next update 10:00.
\n\n09:25 update: the export queue is moving, but the remaining backlog and cause are not yet known. Exports stalled at 09:00. A worker was restarted at 09:10; movement was observed at 09:18. Those observations do not yet establish the cause. Next update: 10:00.
\n\n09:00: exports stalled. 09:10: worker restarted. 09:18: queue moving. 09:25: backlog and cause unknown. Next update: 10:00. Systems have events over time.
\n\nWhy it differs: The raw chronology preserves the facts but does not organize the latest state or distinguish intervention from causal explanation for the reader.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nGoogle supplies strong prewritten incident examples. This local candidate covers short updates as well as retrospective chronology, without importing every Google process rule.
\n\nPostmortem Culture: Learning from Failure — Primary practitioner manual with worked contrasts.
Reuters Journalistic Standards — Organization-owned professional standards.
Analyse a research session — Government practitioner guidance.
The decision is whether Draftline’s Version history fits a need to make a retained version current. The documented operation supports that use: restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history.
\n\nThe feature becomes available on 20 October 2026. It is included on every existing plan at no additional charge, and versions are retained for 30 days. Open Version history to access the feature. Only workspace editors can restore a version.
\n\nThese terms give two criteria for fit: the desired version must fall within the retained history, and the person performing the restore must be a workspace editor. The feature’s inclusion on a plan supports a cost statement; it does not establish that every workspace member can perform the action.
\n\nThe recovery boundary changes the decision for a different need. Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. A task requiring recovery of those files lies outside the documented scope.
\n\nUse the operation for the retained-version task described here. Whether readers understand the difference between changing the current version and deleting history is a question to test, not a result established by this specification.
" }, { "key": "human-r01", "label": "Study participants, quoted by Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke · Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK", "path": "excerpts/R01.md", "source": { "title": "Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK", "author": "Study participants, quoted by Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke", "publicationDate": "2021-10-13", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258344", "locator": "Findings §1: Loss of in-person interaction; participant quotations; Method/Procedure/Analysis for provenance", "rights": "CC BY 4.0", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/", "relationship": "Findings lead to implications, but not an explicit stakeholder decision memo.", "edition": "2021-10-13", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "Participant quotations reproduced from the credited research article; omissions are marked. No participant identity is inferred.", "note": "Participant testimony quoted in the research article." }, "markdown": "“I think it’s probably the not socialising like face-to-face.”\n\n(Participant 1, 27-year-old female)\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]\n\n“You sort of don’t realise how sociable you are, or how much of a routine you’re in of seeing people until you physically can’t.”\n\n(Participant 2, 21-year-old female)\n", "id": "P27/human-r01", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "“I think it’s probably the not socialising like face-to-face.”\n\n(Participant 1, 27-year-old female)\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]\n\n“You sort of don’t realise how sociable you are, or how much of a routine you’re in of seeing people until you physically can’t.”\n\n(Participant 2, 21-year-old female)\n", "sha256": "b733476af18b8847db35aa2b16c2ea14e592539673ee4b62902721e90a246d2d", "html": "“I think it’s probably the not socialising like face-to-face.”
\n\n(Participant 1, 27-year-old female)
\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]
\n\n“You sort of don’t realise how sociable you are, or how much of a routine you’re in of seeing people until you physically can’t.”
\n\n(Participant 2, 21-year-old female)
" }, { "key": "human-r02", "label": "Study participants, quoted by Ilaria Falvo; Maria Caiata Zufferey; Emiliano Albanese; Marta Fadda · Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study", "path": "excerpts/R02.md", "source": { "title": "Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study", "author": "Study participants, quoted by Ilaria Falvo; Maria Caiata Zufferey; Emiliano Albanese; Marta Fadda", "publicationDate": "2021-06-23", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252101", "locator": "Results: Impact on the individual level; Method: consent and translation", "rights": "CC BY 4.0", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/", "relationship": "Variation supports bounded implications, not a tested intervention recommendation.", "edition": "2021-06-23", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "Participant quotations reproduced from the credited research article; omissions are marked. No participant identity is inferred.", "note": "Participant testimony quoted in the research article." }, "markdown": "I am locked inside my house and I am afraid to go out. I must stay at home because of the federal ordinance. Those who are over 65 cannot even go out to buy their groceries. Here at home, I don’t see anyone… This is how it works here. People are afraid to go out. (P2, male, 74, secondary school, living alone in a flat)\n", "id": "P27/human-r02", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "I am locked inside my house and I am afraid to go out. I must stay at home because of the federal ordinance. Those who are over 65 cannot even go out to buy their groceries. Here at home, I don’t see anyone… This is how it works here. People are afraid to go out. (P2, male, 74, secondary school, living alone in a flat)\n", "sha256": "a155575bc770c4e8d81ec3a87262e9abe17aae3c200333409622cdb91a31888f", "html": "I am locked inside my house and I am afraid to go out. I must stay at home because of the federal ordinance. Those who are over 65 cannot even go out to buy their groceries. Here at home, I don’t see anyone… This is how it works here. People are afraid to go out. (P2, male, 74, secondary school, living alone in a flat)
" }, { "key": "human-r01-abstract", "label": "Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke · Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK — Abstract", "path": "excerpts/R01-abstract.md", "source": { "title": "Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK — Abstract", "author": "Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke", "publicationDate": "2021-10-13", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258344", "locator": "Complete author-written Abstract; original section headings retained.", "rights": "CC BY 4.0", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/", "relationship": "Connects the research question, method and findings in a compact summary.", "edition": "2021-10-13", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke. Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK — Abstract. PLOS ONE (2021). CC BY 4.0. Retained abstract with original headings.", "note": "" }, "markdown": "## Abstract\n\nThe COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated physical distancing which is expected to continue in some form for the foreseeable future. Physical distancing policies have increased reliance on digital forms of social connection and there are widespread concerns about social isolation and mental health in this context. This qualitative study sought to understand how loneliness was experienced during physical distancing in the initial national UK COVID-19 lockdown. Eight individuals who reported feeling lonely during the initial lockdown were interviewed in May 2020. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Four main themes were identified: (1) Loss of in-person interaction causing loneliness, (2) Constrained freedom, (3) Challenging emotions, and (4) Coping with loneliness. The loss of in-person interaction contributed to feelings of loneliness and digital interaction was viewed as an insufficient alternative. Social freedom could be constrained by distancing policies and by social contacts, contributing to strained personal relationships and feelings of frustration as part of loneliness. Fluctuations in mood and difficult emotions were experienced alongside loneliness, and distraction and seeking reconnection were commonly reported methods of coping, although they were less accessible. These findings indicate that physical distancing measures can impact loneliness due to the limitations they impose on in-person social contact and the perceived insufficiency of digital contact as a substitute.\n", "id": "P27/human-r01-abstract", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "## Abstract\n\nThe COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated physical distancing which is expected to continue in some form for the foreseeable future. Physical distancing policies have increased reliance on digital forms of social connection and there are widespread concerns about social isolation and mental health in this context. This qualitative study sought to understand how loneliness was experienced during physical distancing in the initial national UK COVID-19 lockdown. Eight individuals who reported feeling lonely during the initial lockdown were interviewed in May 2020. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Four main themes were identified: (1) Loss of in-person interaction causing loneliness, (2) Constrained freedom, (3) Challenging emotions, and (4) Coping with loneliness. The loss of in-person interaction contributed to feelings of loneliness and digital interaction was viewed as an insufficient alternative. Social freedom could be constrained by distancing policies and by social contacts, contributing to strained personal relationships and feelings of frustration as part of loneliness. Fluctuations in mood and difficult emotions were experienced alongside loneliness, and distraction and seeking reconnection were commonly reported methods of coping, although they were less accessible. These findings indicate that physical distancing measures can impact loneliness due to the limitations they impose on in-person social contact and the perceived insufficiency of digital contact as a substitute.\n", "sha256": "30d2e00dc0145e78034210174c7deeb04ca10604a328f9638b599642e7255824", "html": "The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated physical distancing which is expected to continue in some form for the foreseeable future. Physical distancing policies have increased reliance on digital forms of social connection and there are widespread concerns about social isolation and mental health in this context. This qualitative study sought to understand how loneliness was experienced during physical distancing in the initial national UK COVID-19 lockdown. Eight individuals who reported feeling lonely during the initial lockdown were interviewed in May 2020. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Four main themes were identified: (1) Loss of in-person interaction causing loneliness, (2) Constrained freedom, (3) Challenging emotions, and (4) Coping with loneliness. The loss of in-person interaction contributed to feelings of loneliness and digital interaction was viewed as an insufficient alternative. Social freedom could be constrained by distancing policies and by social contacts, contributing to strained personal relationships and feelings of frustration as part of loneliness. Fluctuations in mood and difficult emotions were experienced alongside loneliness, and distraction and seeking reconnection were commonly reported methods of coping, although they were less accessible. These findings indicate that physical distancing measures can impact loneliness due to the limitations they impose on in-person social contact and the perceived insufficiency of digital contact as a substitute.
" }, { "key": "human-r02-abstract", "label": "Ilaria Falvo; Maria Caiata Zufferey; Emiliano Albanese; Marta Fadda · Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study — Abstract", "path": "excerpts/R02-abstract.md", "source": { "title": "Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study — Abstract", "author": "Ilaria Falvo; Maria Caiata Zufferey; Emiliano Albanese; Marta Fadda", "publicationDate": "2021-06-23", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252101", "locator": "Complete author-written Abstract; original section headings retained.", "rights": "CC BY 4.0", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/", "relationship": "Connects the research question, method and findings in a compact summary.", "edition": "2021-06-23", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "Ilaria Falvo; Maria Caiata Zufferey; Emiliano Albanese; Marta Fadda. Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study — Abstract. PLOS ONE (2021). CC BY 4.0. Retained abstract with original headings.", "note": "" }, "markdown": "## Background and aim\n\nPublic health measures used to mitigate the COVID-19 epidemic may have unintended, detrimental consequences particularly on older adults, whose voices and perspectives are often silent or silenced. The aim of this study was to explore the lived experiences of individuals aged 64 or older during the first COVID-19 lockdown.\n\n## Methods\n\nWe conducted a qualitative study in a convenience sample of 19 older adults (aged 64+) living at home in the Italian-speaking region of Switzerland during the first COVID-19 lockdown, between April and May 2020. Participants varied in terms of gender, education, age, nationality, and socio-economic status. We conducted semi-structured phone interviews to elicit emotions, expectations and hopes in relation to the present situation, and the post-pandemic world. We inquired about opinions on the enforced public health measures, including those specifically targeting older adults, and on the societal portrayal of older adults.\n\n## Findings\n\nWe found that the epidemic and the public health response to it had both generated a variety of resentments and a high degree of ambivalence at the individual, micro-, meso- and macro-social levels. We also found that labelling older adults as an at-risk sub-population inevitably contributed to public and self-stigmatization.\n\n## Discussion\n\nWe conducted an in-depth qualitative investigation of lived experiences of older adults during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in one of the most gravely hit region in Europe. Our findings on the complexity of unintended, detrimental consequences of outbreak responses on older adults have relevant implications for local adaptions of public health measures, and suggest that public health authorities should engage vulnerable sub-populations and promote bi-directional communication to inform and support communities.\n", "id": "P27/human-r02-abstract", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "## Background and aim\n\nPublic health measures used to mitigate the COVID-19 epidemic may have unintended, detrimental consequences particularly on older adults, whose voices and perspectives are often silent or silenced. The aim of this study was to explore the lived experiences of individuals aged 64 or older during the first COVID-19 lockdown.\n\n## Methods\n\nWe conducted a qualitative study in a convenience sample of 19 older adults (aged 64+) living at home in the Italian-speaking region of Switzerland during the first COVID-19 lockdown, between April and May 2020. Participants varied in terms of gender, education, age, nationality, and socio-economic status. We conducted semi-structured phone interviews to elicit emotions, expectations and hopes in relation to the present situation, and the post-pandemic world. We inquired about opinions on the enforced public health measures, including those specifically targeting older adults, and on the societal portrayal of older adults.\n\n## Findings\n\nWe found that the epidemic and the public health response to it had both generated a variety of resentments and a high degree of ambivalence at the individual, micro-, meso- and macro-social levels. We also found that labelling older adults as an at-risk sub-population inevitably contributed to public and self-stigmatization.\n\n## Discussion\n\nWe conducted an in-depth qualitative investigation of lived experiences of older adults during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in one of the most gravely hit region in Europe. Our findings on the complexity of unintended, detrimental consequences of outbreak responses on older adults have relevant implications for local adaptions of public health measures, and suggest that public health authorities should engage vulnerable sub-populations and promote bi-directional communication to inform and support communities.\n", "sha256": "962b0fd4a653aad8e016368ad85ce32ddad6a1ec52f593a98e812ef12995329f", "html": "Public health measures used to mitigate the COVID-19 epidemic may have unintended, detrimental consequences particularly on older adults, whose voices and perspectives are often silent or silenced. The aim of this study was to explore the lived experiences of individuals aged 64 or older during the first COVID-19 lockdown.
\n\nWe conducted a qualitative study in a convenience sample of 19 older adults (aged 64+) living at home in the Italian-speaking region of Switzerland during the first COVID-19 lockdown, between April and May 2020. Participants varied in terms of gender, education, age, nationality, and socio-economic status. We conducted semi-structured phone interviews to elicit emotions, expectations and hopes in relation to the present situation, and the post-pandemic world. We inquired about opinions on the enforced public health measures, including those specifically targeting older adults, and on the societal portrayal of older adults.
\n\nWe found that the epidemic and the public health response to it had both generated a variety of resentments and a high degree of ambivalence at the individual, micro-, meso- and macro-social levels. We also found that labelling older adults as an at-risk sub-population inevitably contributed to public and self-stigmatization.
\n\nWe conducted an in-depth qualitative investigation of lived experiences of older adults during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in one of the most gravely hit region in Europe. Our findings on the complexity of unintended, detrimental consequences of outbreak responses on older adults have relevant implications for local adaptions of public health measures, and suggest that public health authorities should engage vulnerable sub-populations and promote bi-directional communication to inform and support communities.
" }, { "id": "P27/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## Clearer Notes\n\nClearer Notes offers a specific revision task: bring **one paragraph to revise**. The workshop is free, has **12 places**, and takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**\n\nRegistration closes on **5 November**. If that task and those dates fit your plans, register before registration closes and bring the paragraph you want to revise.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P27\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Clearer Notes\n\nClearer Notes offers a specific revision task: bring **one paragraph to revise**. The workshop is free, has **12 places**, and takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**\n\nRegistration closes on **5 November**. If that task and those dates fit your plans, register before registration closes and bring the paragraph you want to revise.\n\n", "sha256": "3952e842062e96a94fe41e717bd02f9448fff7742dc41d1668c9f1ca20bf8468", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 12.5, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.76, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 40, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 18, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 50, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 2, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "3952e842062e96a94fe41e717bd02f9448fff7742dc41d1668c9f1ca20bf8468", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Clearer Notes offers a specific revision task: bring one paragraph to revise. The workshop is free, has 12 places, and takes place on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.
\n\nRegistration closes on 5 November. If that task and those dates fit your plans, register before registration closes and bring the paragraph you want to revise.
" }, { "id": "P27/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## Draftline status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known, so the current status does not support a causal explanation. The next update is at **3 p.m.**", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P27\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Draftline status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known, so the current status does not support a causal explanation. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\n", "sha256": "5a4a3c4ff4d60f28f78fe54e6c76005f2d459c0db4b3d06dc7114d3da9395df7", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 8.25, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 6.0606060606060606, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 33, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 2, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "5a4a3c4ff4d60f28f78fe54e6c76005f2d459c0db4b3d06dc7114d3da9395df7", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known, so the current status does not support a causal explanation. The next update is at 3 p.m.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P27", "sample_id": "P27/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P27/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "7da1fff8700073f6206ef26af58839f54c5263cbb49466ba82560d197b3f36b0", "trimmed_body_sha256": "ea9bca0845b26b63037baab9bea46ee7e05a677eddec08eb9e83c165d16fb262", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The decision is whether Draftline’s **Version history** fits a need", "start": 34, "end": 101, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public/professional wording is neutral and readable, without sustained conversational intimacy or ceremonial convention." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The feature becomes available on **20 October 2026**. It is included on every existing plan at no additional charge, and versions are retained for **30 days**. Open Version history to access the feature. **Only workspace editors can restore a version.**", "start": 257, "end": 510, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Reading the complete sample shows no intended comic device; factual phrasing and the quoted passage illustrate that restrained posture." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The feature becomes available on **20 October 2026**. It is included on every existing plan at no additional charge, and versions are retained for **30 days**. Open Version history to access the feature. **Only workspace editors can restore a version.**", "start": 257, "end": 510, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The sample states availability and operating terms without sustained excitement, celebratory wording or energetic encouragement; positive usefulness alone is not enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Use the operation for the retained-version task described here.", "start": 1035, "end": 1098, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The quoted passage acknowledges a reader task, likely concern or practical entry point. This is limited reader consideration, below explicit relational care." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "These terms give two criteria for fit", "start": 512, "end": 549, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The sample lightly assumes familiarity with workspace/editor/version terminology, while explaining the consequential relations; it does not require dense specialist knowledge." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "These terms give two criteria for fit", "start": 512, "end": 549, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The complete piece develops multiple related conditions and explains why a distinction matters, beyond selected statements; the cited passage supports that intermediate level." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session", "title": "Analyse a research session", "id": "S46" }, { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/explanation/", "title": "Explanation", "id": "S42" } ], "researchLimits": "Action-oriented research guidance does not establish sample prevalence or a business outcome.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p27-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p27-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P27/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P27/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P27/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P27.svg", "bundleSha256": "e35f2c6b5d925ffce2dafa38f762f97ba310d9b559f2c39147b11c4df4aef791", "bundleBytes": 100889 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: recipe, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nUse when a stakeholder needs to know which bounded decision the supplied evidence supports. It suits research readouts, planning notes and specification reviews. Avoid it when no decision is requested or when the assignment is a simple public notice. A specification can support a feature-fit decision; it cannot establish observed audience outcomes.
\n\nBegin by naming the decision and the available evidence class. Move from the relevant fact to its implication, mark the limitation that keeps the implication bounded, and conclude with a proportionate choice or next question. The evidence-to-decision bridge must be visible. A condition in a specification supports a conditional recommendation; it is not a finding about user behavior. Separate the current decision from a proposed investigation so readers can tell what they can act on now and what still needs testing.
\n\nUse explicit relationships: because, within this scope, this supports, the record does not establish. Keep finding and implication in adjacent sentences rather than mixing them into a grand conclusion. A paragraph should answer one decision question. Label proposed research as proposed. Repeat the criterion when returning to the recommendation. Avoid statistical language, participant counts or claims of representativeness unless those data actually exist.
\n\nFeature: decide whether the documented restore scope fits a stated need; no usability finding is available. Workshop: invite using supplied terms rather than suggesting proven learning benefit. Incident: the communication decision is to report status; unknown cause cannot justify a diagnosis or repair recommendation.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “Research shows that everyone can recover lost work, so adoption is the obvious decision.”
\n\nNo participant research exists in this fixture, and the asserted recovery scope is false. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nThe specification supports restoring retained versions by workspace editors. It does not support recovery of files deleted before the feature was enabled.
V12 maintains evidential distinctions across a report. P27 adds a final decision bridge and is best treated as a recipe layered on that register. A recommendation is only as strong as the supplied evidence; distinct headings or confident diction do not make it a separate voice.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "R01", "title": "Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK", "author": "Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke", "year": "2021", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258344", "relationship": "Findings lead to implications, but not an explicit stakeholder decision memo.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Qualitative research article containing transcribed speech", "publicationDate": "2021-10-13" }, { "id": "R02", "title": "Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study", "author": "Ilaria Falvo; Maria Caiata Zufferey; Emiliano Albanese; Marta Fadda", "year": "2021", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252101", "relationship": "Variation supports bounded implications, not a tested intervention recommendation.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Qualitative research article containing translated testimony", "publicationDate": "2021-06-23" }, { "id": "R01-abstract", "title": "Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK — Abstract", "author": "Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke", "year": "2021", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258344", "relationship": "Connects the research question, method and findings in a compact summary.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Qualitative research abstract", "publicationDate": "2021-10-13" }, { "id": "R02-abstract", "title": "Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study — Abstract", "author": "Ilaria Falvo; Maria Caiata Zufferey; Emiliano Albanese; Marta Fadda", "year": "2021", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252101", "relationship": "Connects the research question, method and findings in a compact summary.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Qualitative research abstract", "publicationDate": "2021-06-23" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Evidence-to-decision researcher · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P27.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Analyse a research session", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session", "relationship": "Government practitioner guidance" }, { "title": "Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research — registry record", "url": "https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/srqr/", "relationship": "Reporting-guideline registry" }, { "title": "Counterargument", "url": "https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/counterargument", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A research-to-choice module that makes the chain from evidence class to implication to proportional decision explicit, without converting product facts into user findings.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA decision to support, evidence with provenance, its limits, and a recommendation that can be proportionate to those limits; parent V12 retained.
\n\nDecision → evidence class → observation → implication → limit → bounded choice.
\n\nIdentify the decision the evidence is intended to inform. Check: A reviewer should know what choice changes if the inference is accepted.
Label the kind of evidence before using it. Check: Distinguish interface specifications, participant observations, interpretations, and recommendations.
Link each proposed action to a bounded implication and limitation. Check: Trace action → implication → observation without a missing step.
Use when a stakeholder needs to know which bounded decision the supplied evidence supports. It suits research readouts, planning notes and specification reviews. Avoid it when no decision is requested or when the assignment is a simple public notice. A specification can support a feature-fit decision; it cannot establish observed audience outcomes.
\n\nBegin by naming the decision and the available evidence class. Move from the relevant fact to its implication, mark the limitation that keeps the implication bounded, and conclude with a proportionate choice or next question. The evidence-to-decision bridge must be visible. A condition in a specification supports a conditional recommendation; it is not a finding about user behavior. Separate the current decision from a proposed investigation so readers can tell what they can act on now and what still needs testing.
\n\nUse explicit relationships: because, within this scope, this supports, the record does not establish. Keep finding and implication in adjacent sentences rather than mixing them into a grand conclusion. A paragraph should answer one decision question. Label proposed research as proposed. Repeat the criterion when returning to the recommendation. Avoid statistical language, participant counts or claims of representativeness unless those data actually exist.
\n\nFeature: decide whether the documented restore scope fits a stated need; no usability finding is available. Workshop: invite using supplied terms rather than suggesting proven learning benefit. Incident: the communication decision is to report status; unknown cause cannot justify a diagnosis or repair recommendation.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “Research shows that everyone can recover lost work, so adoption is the obvious decision.”
\n\nNo participant research exists in this fixture, and the asserted recovery scope is false. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nThe specification supports restoring retained versions by workspace editors. It does not support recovery of files deleted before the feature was enabled.
V12 maintains evidential distinctions across a report. P27 adds a final decision bridge and is best treated as a recipe layered on that register. A recommendation is only as strong as the supplied evidence; distinct headings or confident diction do not make it a separate voice.
\n\nThe recommendation may be not to change anything. Actionability does not require shipping a feature.
\n\nNo participant data exist: a specification audit may still inform a decision, provided it is labeled as such and not marketed as user research.
\n\nCall a product requirement a participant finding. Check: Check whether any person was actually observed.
Recommend a broad rollout from a small unresolved signal without qualification. Check: Compare the commitment with evidential scope.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Synthetic study: one of four volunteers asked whether “accepted” meant a file was ready. No comparison or timing data exist. Decision: whether to investigate export terminology further.
\n\nDecision: investigate the meaning of “accepted” before choosing a wording change. In a synthetic four-person task session, one person asked whether it meant ready. That observation suggests a possible interpretation problem; it does not establish prevalence or a better label. Compare candidate wording in a further task before recommending a replacement.
\n\nIn a synthetic four-person task session, one person asked whether “accepted” meant ready. No comparison or timing data exist. Export terminology is important, and a wording decision will be needed.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second preserves the evidence but never builds the implication-to-choice chain.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nResearch-analysis guidance supports separating findings from actions. A complete SRQR checklist was not retrieved and is not claimed.
\n\nAnalyse a research session — Government practitioner guidance.
Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research — registry record — Reporting-guideline registry.
Counterargument — University teaching guidance.
Choose Draftline’s Version history when you need a retained version to become the current one. The feature becomes available on 20 October 2026, retains versions for 30 days, and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.
\n\nThat recommendation has an access condition. Only workspace editors can restore a version. Open Version history to access the feature; an editor’s restore makes a new current version without deleting stored history. The operation changes which version is current while leaving the stored history in place.
\n\nIt also has a recovery condition. Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. If recovering such a file is the task, this capability does not fit that need. An included feature can still be the wrong tool for a particular recovery request.
\n\nAssess fit in this order: the version you need is retained, the person restoring it is a workspace editor, and the task is to make that retained version current. The 30-day retention period and the deleted-file limit belong in that assessment alongside the absence of an additional charge.
" }, { "key": "human-h01", "label": "18F; front-matter author handle eric · Why we use HTTPS for every .gov we make", "path": "excerpts/H01.md", "source": { "title": "Why we use HTTPS for every .gov we make", "author": "18F; front-matter author handle eric", "publicationDate": "2014-11-13", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-11-13-why-we-use-https-in-every-gov-website-we-make.md", "locator": "Opening and “Integrating HTTPS into our workflow” (two non-contiguous extracts)", "rights": "CC0 · 18F staff prose", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/", "relationship": "Same canonical decision-first evidence as V01.", "edition": "18F repository snapshot df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5 (2021-12-30)", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "That's why 18F's policy is to **use HTTPS for every .gov website we make**. 18F is an in-house government technology team that builds things for the rest of the U.S. federal government, and we're committed to deploying HTTPS across all of our released websites.\n\n[Excerpt break]\n\nA more serious concern with HTTPS is operational: managing certificates, working out the right configuration, and generally not screwing it up. The financial cost of _purchasing_ certificates is small — the maintenance cost of installing, configuring, and rotating them is not. This is arguably the biggest issue with deploying HTTPS today, and contributes to the web's overall slow and inflexible security response.\n\nLike everything else, managing the mechanics of HTTPS becomes far easier when you commit to it and operationalize it.\n", "id": "P28/human-h01", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "That's why 18F's policy is to **use HTTPS for every .gov website we make**. 18F is an in-house government technology team that builds things for the rest of the U.S. federal government, and we're committed to deploying HTTPS across all of our released websites.\n\n[Excerpt break]\n\nA more serious concern with HTTPS is operational: managing certificates, working out the right configuration, and generally not screwing it up. The financial cost of _purchasing_ certificates is small — the maintenance cost of installing, configuring, and rotating them is not. This is arguably the biggest issue with deploying HTTPS today, and contributes to the web's overall slow and inflexible security response.\n\nLike everything else, managing the mechanics of HTTPS becomes far easier when you commit to it and operationalize it.\n", "sha256": "b2cd1da8f84ac38bdeec9b13683832e3792fa5ddf36bf98f8caefef056204651", "html": "That's why 18F's policy is to use HTTPS for every .gov website we make. 18F is an in-house government technology team that builds things for the rest of the U.S. federal government, and we're committed to deploying HTTPS across all of our released websites.
\n\n[Excerpt break]
\n\nA more serious concern with HTTPS is operational: managing certificates, working out the right configuration, and generally not screwing it up. The financial cost of purchasing certificates is small — the maintenance cost of installing, configuring, and rotating them is not. This is arguably the biggest issue with deploying HTTPS today, and contributes to the web's overall slow and inflexible security response.
\n\nLike everything else, managing the mechanics of HTTPS becomes far easier when you commit to it and operationalize it.
" }, { "id": "P28/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## A one-paragraph revision workshop\n\nChoose Clearer Notes if you want to bring **one paragraph to revise** and the workshop fits your calendar. It takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**, is free, and has **12 places**.\n\nRegistration closes on **5 November**. Register before registration closes if you intend to attend, and bring the paragraph you would like to revise.\n\nThe choice is bounded by a concrete task, a one-hour time slot and a registration deadline. Use those terms to decide whether it fits your plans.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P28\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## A one-paragraph revision workshop\n\nChoose Clearer Notes if you want to bring **one paragraph to revise** and the workshop fits your calendar. It takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**, is free, and has **12 places**.\n\nRegistration closes on **5 November**. Register before registration closes if you intend to attend, and bring the paragraph you would like to revise.\n\nThe choice is bounded by a concrete task, a one-hour time slot and a registration deadline. Use those terms to decide whether it fits your plans.\n\n", "sha256": "14be7c1b856d68350835d03ba875771df4d24c1460d9e3dbac00836351fbda22", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 13.166666666666666, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7420000000000003, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 63.29113924050633, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 27, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 11.39240506329114, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 79, "prose_sentences": 6, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 5, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "14be7c1b856d68350835d03ba875771df4d24c1460d9e3dbac00836351fbda22", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Choose Clearer Notes if you want to bring one paragraph to revise and the workshop fits your calendar. It takes place on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m., is free, and has 12 places.
\n\nRegistration closes on 5 November. Register before registration closes if you intend to attend, and bring the paragraph you would like to revise.
\n\nThe choice is bounded by a concrete task, a one-hour time slot and a registration deadline. Use those terms to decide whether it fits your plans.
" }, { "id": "P28/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## Draftline upload notice\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P28\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Draftline upload notice\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\n", "sha256": "2e35f0d1cff456971e4642fba16f4b416cc9fc1923e487d8933c89f1fe3a7c52", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 5.75, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 8.695652173913043, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 23, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 2, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "2e35f0d1cff456971e4642fba16f4b416cc9fc1923e487d8933c89f1fe3a7c52", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P28", "sample_id": "P28/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P28/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "05826680394bce82573a0f9059f17b578db1e0f3e6bc715386af97a410c0805c", "trimmed_body_sha256": "8c0a32bcf5b07b591abf724e727867349a6c14de0bd2246c46ab11ef9302d5cf", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Assess fit in this order", "start": 893, "end": 917, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public/professional wording is neutral and readable, without sustained conversational intimacy or ceremonial convention." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Choose Draftline’s **Version history** when you need a retained version to become the current one. The feature becomes available on **20 October 2026**, retains versions for **30 days**, and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.", "start": 52, "end": 302, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Reading the complete sample shows no intended comic device; factual phrasing and the quoted passage illustrate that restrained posture." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Choose Draftline’s **Version history** when you need a retained version to become the current one. The feature becomes available on **20 October 2026**, retains versions for **30 days**, and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.", "start": 52, "end": 302, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The sample states availability and operating terms without sustained excitement, celebratory wording or energetic encouragement; positive usefulness alone is not enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "when you need a retained version to become the current one", "start": 91, "end": 149, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The quoted passage acknowledges a reader task, likely concern or practical entry point. This is limited reader consideration, below explicit relational care." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "An included feature can still be the wrong tool for a particular recovery request.", "start": 809, "end": 891, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The operation is explained through ordinary terms and explicit conditions, so little specialist background is required." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "An included feature can still be the wrong tool for a particular recovery request.", "start": 809, "end": 891, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The complete piece develops multiple related conditions and explains why a distinction matters, beyond selected statements; the cited passage supports that intermediate level." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/explanation/", "title": "Explanation", "id": "S42" }, { "url": "https://digital.gov/guides/plain-language", "title": "Plain language guide series", "id": "S48" } ], "researchLimits": "Context guidance does not turn a preference or single use case into a universal best choice.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p28-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p28-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P28/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P28/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P28/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P28.svg", "bundleSha256": "8e7839106ec9ac67c1f651bc9fe4765f6028bd99b68142f127a561f767eb2c85", "bundleBytes": 93513 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: recipe, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nWrite for someone choosing a course of action under a real constraint. This recipe suits proposals, option advice and product-fit guidance. Avoid it for an emergency notice or an apparently neutral comparison whose author has no basis for a recommendation. If the source gives only terms, make the recommendation conditional on a stated need.
\n\nOpen with a recommendation that includes its fit condition. Explain what the choice buys, identify the constraint it leaves in place, then name the point at which another need falls outside the recommendation. Do not postpone a disqualifying condition to the final footnote. The movement gives readers permission to decline on relevant grounds. Cost is one constraint among several; permission and scope can matter even when a capability carries no additional charge. End with a usable decision criterion rather than a universal verdict.
\n\nConditional clauses are structural devices: if your task is this, the option fits in this way. Pair the positive operation with the limiting condition in the same paragraph. Use verbs such as choose, use and fits only where the recommendation is grounded. Contrast tasks rather than flattering one kind of user over another. Give a decisive boundary a short sentence. Avoid a procession of caveats that obscures the original recommendation.
\n\nFeature: distinguish retained-draft restoration from older deleted-file recovery. Workshop: recommend attendance only for the supplied one-paragraph task and compatible dates; no quality guarantee. Incident: remove choice framing where no recovery choice is supplied and report the four required status facts.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “Version history is the best recovery option for every workspace.”
\n\nThe universal ranking has no comparison evidence and ignores a disqualifying recovery task. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nUse Version history when a retained version needs to become current. It cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled.
V01 already provides decision-first movement. P28 adds a conditional-fit checklist and adjacent limitations, making it a useful recommendation recipe rather than a demonstrated new voice. P47 adds sales context; that persuasive purpose should not be smuggled into a neutral recommendation.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "H01", "title": "Why we use HTTPS for every .gov we make", "author": "18F; front-matter author handle eric", "year": "2014", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-11-13-why-we-use-https-in-every-gov-website-we-make.md", "relationship": "Same canonical decision-first evidence as V01.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Government digital-service blog", "publicationDate": "2014-11-13" }, { "id": "M04", "title": "Chairman’s Letter — 1983", "author": "Warren E. Buffett", "year": "1984", "url": "https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1983.html", "relationship": "Same bounded acquisition-criteria example as V01.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Shareholder letter", "publicationDate": "1984-03-14" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Constraint-aware recommender · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P28.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Plain Language Guide Series", "url": "https://digital.gov/guides/plain-language", "relationship": "Government guidance" }, { "title": "Counterargument", "url": "https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/counterargument", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" }, { "title": "Brand voice: Above all, simple and human", "url": "https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/style-guide/brand-voice-above-all-simple-human", "relationship": "Organization-owned house style" } ], "formats": [], "html": "An alternate entry point to V01 emphasizing fit conditions and disqualifiers beside a recommendation. It is not a new independently discriminable voice.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nThe same evidence and decision inputs as V01, with explicit suitability conditions.
\n\nV01 sequence, with applicability and disqualifying conditions adjacent to the recommendation.
\n\nResolve this resource to the V01 membership contract. Check: Check canonical base V01 while preserving the original route metadata.
Expose the condition under which the recommendation is suitable. Check: Read recommendation and fit condition together.
State a known disqualifier before inviting commitment. Check: The reader must not discover ineligibility after the ask.
Write for someone choosing a course of action under a real constraint. This recipe suits proposals, option advice and product-fit guidance. Avoid it for an emergency notice or an apparently neutral comparison whose author has no basis for a recommendation. If the source gives only terms, make the recommendation conditional on a stated need.
\n\nOpen with a recommendation that includes its fit condition. Explain what the choice buys, identify the constraint it leaves in place, then name the point at which another need falls outside the recommendation. Do not postpone a disqualifying condition to the final footnote. The movement gives readers permission to decline on relevant grounds. Cost is one constraint among several; permission and scope can matter even when a capability carries no additional charge. End with a usable decision criterion rather than a universal verdict.
\n\nConditional clauses are structural devices: if your task is this, the option fits in this way. Pair the positive operation with the limiting condition in the same paragraph. Use verbs such as choose, use and fits only where the recommendation is grounded. Contrast tasks rather than flattering one kind of user over another. Give a decisive boundary a short sentence. Avoid a procession of caveats that obscures the original recommendation.
\n\nFeature: distinguish retained-draft restoration from older deleted-file recovery. Workshop: recommend attendance only for the supplied one-paragraph task and compatible dates; no quality guarantee. Incident: remove choice framing where no recovery choice is supplied and report the four required status facts.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “Version history is the best recovery option for every workspace.”
\n\nThe universal ranking has no comparison evidence and ignores a disqualifying recovery task. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nUse Version history when a retained version needs to become current. It cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled.
V01 already provides decision-first movement. P28 adds a conditional-fit checklist and adjacent limitations, making it a useful recommendation recipe rather than a demonstrated new voice. P47 adds sales context; that persuasive purpose should not be smuggled into a neutral recommendation.
\n\nUse the alias for routing or discovery. Do not manufacture stylistic differences solely to justify its presence.
\n\nAn output can simultaneously satisfy V01 and P28. That is expected alias behavior, not a discrimination failure.
\n\nInstall a duplicate independent voice under the alias name. Check: Check inventory identity and validation denominator.
Soften a disqualifier into a vague preference. Check: Compare the condition’s actual force with the wording.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional facts: proposed repair café has 16 free places and unconfirmed staffing; approval pending. Writer recommends deferral until staffing is confirmed.
\n\nI recommend deferring the proposed 16-place repair café until staffing is confirmed. Free places do not resolve the missing staffing condition. Approval remains pending.
\n\nThe proposed repair café has 16 free places. Approval is pending and staffing is unconfirmed. These are interesting constraints; we may consider them in due course.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second lists constraints but offers no accountable decision-first recommendation. It fails V01 rather than a distinct P28-only style.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nThe source support belongs to the canonical decision-first mechanism. The alias adds a retrieval label, not external authority or a new fingerprint.
\n\nPlain Language Guide Series — Government guidance.
Counterargument — University teaching guidance.
Brand voice: Above all, simple and human — Organization-owned house style.
Draftline’s Version history changes which version is current without deleting stored history. The distinction is between the current version and the record of retained versions.
\n\nThe feature becomes available on 20 October 2026. Versions are retained for 30 days, and the feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Open Version history to access it.
\n\nHere is the operation in ordinary terms. Only workspace editors can restore a version. When an editor restores a retained version, that restore makes a new current version. Stored history remains. Returning to a retained version therefore does not mean erasing the history that was already stored.
\n\nNow test the boundary with a different question: can the feature recover a file deleted before it was enabled? It cannot. That task is outside its stated recovery scope, even though the feature is included on the plan.
\n\nKeep the model small: retained versions last for 30 days; editor permission governs restoration; a restore changes the current version without deleting stored history. Those relations explain the documented behavior without requiring a claim about the product’s internal storage design.
" }, { "key": "human-l02", "label": "Michael Faraday; edited by William Crookes · The Chemical History of a Candle", "path": "excerpts/L02.md", "source": { "title": "The Chemical History of a Candle", "author": "Michael Faraday; edited by William Crookes", "publicationDate": "1861", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14474", "locator": "Lecture I, opening address", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14474", "relationship": "A familiar candle opens a causal chain.", "edition": "1908 New Impression, edited by William Crookes; Project Gutenberg digital release 2004-12-26", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "I purpose, in return for the honour you do us by coming to see what are our proceedings here, to bring before you, in the course of these lectures, the Chemical History of a Candle. I have taken this subject on a former occasion; and were it left to my own will, I should prefer to repeat it almost every year—so abundant is the interest that attaches itself to the subject, so wonderful are the varieties of outlet which it offers into the various departments of philosophy.\n\nThere is not a law under which any part of this universe is governed which does not come into play, and is touched upon in these phenomena. There is no better, there is no more open door by which you can enter into the study of natural philosophy, than by considering the physical phenomena of a candle.\n", "id": "P29/human-l02", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "I purpose, in return for the honour you do us by coming to see what are our proceedings here, to bring before you, in the course of these lectures, the Chemical History of a Candle. I have taken this subject on a former occasion; and were it left to my own will, I should prefer to repeat it almost every year—so abundant is the interest that attaches itself to the subject, so wonderful are the varieties of outlet which it offers into the various departments of philosophy.\n\nThere is not a law under which any part of this universe is governed which does not come into play, and is touched upon in these phenomena. There is no better, there is no more open door by which you can enter into the study of natural philosophy, than by considering the physical phenomena of a candle.\n", "sha256": "608c3a587457b26d2a6ac2802aec1cff839dba741faf44cfcfb3472ad42a0865", "html": "I purpose, in return for the honour you do us by coming to see what are our proceedings here, to bring before you, in the course of these lectures, the Chemical History of a Candle. I have taken this subject on a former occasion; and were it left to my own will, I should prefer to repeat it almost every year—so abundant is the interest that attaches itself to the subject, so wonderful are the varieties of outlet which it offers into the various departments of philosophy.
\n\nThere is not a law under which any part of this universe is governed which does not come into play, and is touched upon in these phenomena. There is no better, there is no more open door by which you can enter into the study of natural philosophy, than by considering the physical phenomena of a candle.
" }, { "id": "P29/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## What should you bring to Clearer Notes?\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise**. That paragraph is the concrete starting point for the workshop; you can choose the passage you would like to work on.\n\nClearer Notes is free and has **12 places**. It takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nThere are two dates to keep straight: the registration deadline comes first, and the workshop follows on 7 November. Register before registration closes if you plan to attend, then bring your selected paragraph.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P29\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## What should you bring to Clearer Notes?\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise**. That paragraph is the concrete starting point for the workshop; you can choose the passage you would like to work on.\n\nClearer Notes is free and has **12 places**. It takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nThere are two dates to keep straight: the registration deadline comes first, and the workshop follows on 7 November. Register before registration closes if you plan to attend, then bring your selected paragraph.\n\n", "sha256": "03c5c577c62776e016efa4fd46390b4020e3f78b64392816ad180049a67b4ff6", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 12.666666666666666, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7718518518518521, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 52.63157894736842, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 26, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 11.842105263157896, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 76, "prose_sentences": 6, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 4, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "03c5c577c62776e016efa4fd46390b4020e3f78b64392816ad180049a67b4ff6", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Bring one paragraph to revise. That paragraph is the concrete starting point for the workshop; you can choose the passage you would like to work on.
\n\nClearer Notes is free and has 12 places. It takes place on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nThere are two dates to keep straight: the registration deadline comes first, and the workshop follows on 7 November. Register before registration closes if you plan to attend, then bring your selected paragraph.
" }, { "id": "P29/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## Draftline: two different availability states\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThose states describe different operations. The cause of the upload problem is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P29\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Draftline: two different availability states\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThose states describe different operations. The cause of the upload problem is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\n", "sha256": "1a40574824ed1e0cf3cca09fe4baa5d2ac964fda3634dffee8f74660f433f014", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 6.4, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 6.25, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 32, "prose_sentences": 5, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 2, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "1a40574824ed1e0cf3cca09fe4baa5d2ac964fda3634dffee8f74660f433f014", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThose states describe different operations. The cause of the upload problem is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
" }, { "id": "P29/probe-H02", "key": "probe-H02", "briefId": "H02", "label": "Separate mechanism probe", "markdown": "## Why resetting Counterwheel is not returning to the past\n\nCounterwheel is an invented tabletop toy whose wheel shows **0, 1 or 2**, starting at **0**. Each press of the blue button advances one place: **0 to 1, 1 to 2, and 2 to 0**. The sequence circles back to its starting value.\n\nWhat does the white button do differently? Every press sets the display to **0**, whatever it showed before. It is a reset to one fixed value, rather than another step around the cycle.\n\nThe distinction matters because Counterwheel **keeps no record of earlier displays**. The white button cannot recover an earlier display; it always sets 0. A previous value might happen to have been 0, but the operation does not retrieve it from history.\n\nA button press changes **only the display**. No objects move. Those rules explain the toy’s behavior without requiring a story about an internal mechanism.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P29\nbrief_id: H02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\ncohort: separate-heldout-mechanism-probe\n---\n\n\n## Why resetting Counterwheel is not returning to the past\n\nCounterwheel is an invented tabletop toy whose wheel shows **0, 1 or 2**, starting at **0**. Each press of the blue button advances one place: **0 to 1, 1 to 2, and 2 to 0**. The sequence circles back to its starting value.\n\nWhat does the white button do differently? Every press sets the display to **0**, whatever it showed before. It is a reset to one fixed value, rather than another step around the cycle.\n\nThe distinction matters because Counterwheel **keeps no record of earlier displays**. The white button cannot recover an earlier display; it always sets 0. A previous value might happen to have been 0, but the operation does not retrieve it from history.\n\nA button press changes **only the display**. No objects move. Those rules explain the toy’s behavior without requiring a story about an internal mechanism.\n\n", "sha256": "89eac5ec25bc89a3417164419df2f3a8938d7f1a8214d45d38a43d0f501adad5", "measurement": null, "html": "Counterwheel is an invented tabletop toy whose wheel shows 0, 1 or 2, starting at 0. Each press of the blue button advances one place: 0 to 1, 1 to 2, and 2 to 0. The sequence circles back to its starting value.
\n\nWhat does the white button do differently? Every press sets the display to 0, whatever it showed before. It is a reset to one fixed value, rather than another step around the cycle.
\n\nThe distinction matters because Counterwheel keeps no record of earlier displays. The white button cannot recover an earlier display; it always sets 0. A previous value might happen to have been 0, but the operation does not retrieve it from history.
\n\nA button press changes only the display. No objects move. Those rules explain the toy’s behavior without requiring a story about an internal mechanism.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 4, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P29", "sample_id": "P29/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P29/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "6ead0ed6d4c240b552eddcac5a0c778cd7fe1ef5370fda4887a3e19f67d41c05", "trimmed_body_sha256": "fb1dae426323455a82289e03340b03ce2018694cb2f889bd25f832b51a60cdc5", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Here is the operation in ordinary terms.", "start": 432, "end": 472, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public/professional wording is neutral and readable, without sustained conversational intimacy or ceremonial convention." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The feature becomes available on **20 October 2026**. Versions are retained for **30 days**, and the feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Open Version history to access it.", "start": 227, "end": 430, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Reading the complete sample shows no intended comic device; factual phrasing and the quoted passage illustrate that restrained posture." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The feature becomes available on **20 October 2026**. Versions are retained for **30 days**, and the feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Open Version history to access it.", "start": 227, "end": 430, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The sample states availability and operating terms without sustained excitement, celebratory wording or energetic encouragement; positive usefulness alone is not enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Keep the model small", "start": 955, "end": 975, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The quoted passage acknowledges a reader task, likely concern or practical entry point. This is limited reader consideration, below explicit relational care." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Now test the boundary with a different question", "start": 735, "end": 782, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The operation is explained through ordinary terms and explicit conditions, so little specialist background is required." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 5, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Now test the boundary with a different question", "start": 735, "end": 782, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The complete piece builds understanding with guiding questions or a model, a mechanism/relationship, and an analogy or countercase; the evidence excerpt shows that developed support." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/explanation/", "title": "Explanation", "id": "S42" }, { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/tutorials/", "title": "Tutorials", "id": "S43" } ], "researchLimits": "Diátaxis is a documentation framework; causal correctness requires domain sources beyond a writing guide.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p29-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p29-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P29/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P29/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P29/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P29.svg", "bundleSha256": "4a8eae607109b1b2750d31009734eafea3719a8e46ef5379657d00e176c0589b", "bundleBytes": 74762 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: voice candidate, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nUse for readers who want to understand a relationship or operation, rather than merely copy an instruction. It suits feature explanations and teaching notes. Avoid it when the mechanism is undocumented, when an analogy would be mistaken for architecture, or when a short status notice already exhausts the relevant facts.
\n\nOpen with a small puzzle grounded in supplied facts: how can a restore change the present while leaving history intact? Answer by tracing a few concrete state changes. Explain the relation before the terminology becomes an obstacle, then test its boundary with a different task. Curiosity is a way to choose explanatory questions, not a warrant to invent hidden implementation. The ending should leave the reader with a model that predicts the stated operation and recognizes its limit.
\n\nUse connected subject–verb sentences to show which part changes and which part remains. A question can begin a paragraph when its answer is genuinely useful. Answer it promptly; suspense does not improve an instruction. Repeat the central terms while explaining their relation. Place an analogy in a separate sentence and identify its limits. Paragraphs progress from puzzle, to operation, to boundary, with minimal side journeys.
\n\nFeature: explain current version versus stored history, not storage internals. Workshop: focus on the concrete object to bring and the timing; no invented pedagogy. Incident: there is no known cause to unpack, so explain only the difference between upload availability and document readability, then stop.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “Draftline copies each file through a redundant recovery engine, which is why nothing disappears.”
\n\nThe explanation invents storage internals and a guarantee rather than explaining the stated operation. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nRestoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. The supplied operation does not describe how Draftline stores those versions.
V11 coaches a learner through an achievable step. This candidate foregrounds an explanatory puzzle and the relation among states, even where no learning exercise is assigned. That distinction remains provisional; explanation recipes may account for it without a new voice classification.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "L02", "title": "The Chemical History of a Candle", "author": "Michael Faraday; edited by William Crookes", "year": "1861", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14474", "relationship": "A familiar candle opens a causal chain.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Edited public science lectures", "publicationDate": "1861" }, { "id": "M05", "title": "Maker’s Schedule, Manager’s Schedule", "author": "Paul Graham", "year": "2009", "url": "https://paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html", "relationship": "An everyday scheduling problem is explained through a small model.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Conversational explanatory essay", "publicationDate": "2009-07" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Curious systems explainer · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P29.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Explanation", "url": "https://diataxis.fr/explanation/", "relationship": "Originator/practitioner framework" }, { "title": "Reference", "url": "https://diataxis.fr/reference/", "relationship": "Originator/practitioner framework" }, { "title": "Simile", "url": "https://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/S/simile.htm", "relationship": "University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference" } ], "formats": [], "html": "An explanation that builds a usable mental model by tracing relationships among parts, states, or incentives and exposing where that model stops applying.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nDocumented components or states, a real explanatory question, and known model boundaries. Internal mechanisms must not be guessed.
\n\nFactual puzzle → relationships and state changes → boundary condition → reusable prediction or distinction.
\n\nPose a question about an actual relation or behavior. Check: Distinguish an explanatory puzzle from a list of feature names.
Trace how at least two documented parts or states relate. Check: A reviewer should reconstruct the relation without relying on adjectives.
State a boundary and show what the model permits the reader to predict. Check: Ask a new in-scope question the explanation can answer.
Use for readers who want to understand a relationship or operation, rather than merely copy an instruction. It suits feature explanations and teaching notes. Avoid it when the mechanism is undocumented, when an analogy would be mistaken for architecture, or when a short status notice already exhausts the relevant facts.
\n\nOpen with a small puzzle grounded in supplied facts: how can a restore change the present while leaving history intact? Answer by tracing a few concrete state changes. Explain the relation before the terminology becomes an obstacle, then test its boundary with a different task. Curiosity is a way to choose explanatory questions, not a warrant to invent hidden implementation. The ending should leave the reader with a model that predicts the stated operation and recognizes its limit.
\n\nUse connected subject–verb sentences to show which part changes and which part remains. A question can begin a paragraph when its answer is genuinely useful. Answer it promptly; suspense does not improve an instruction. Repeat the central terms while explaining their relation. Place an analogy in a separate sentence and identify its limits. Paragraphs progress from puzzle, to operation, to boundary, with minimal side journeys.
\n\nFeature: explain current version versus stored history, not storage internals. Workshop: focus on the concrete object to bring and the timing; no invented pedagogy. Incident: there is no known cause to unpack, so explain only the difference between upload availability and document readability, then stop.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “Draftline copies each file through a redundant recovery engine, which is why nothing disappears.”
\n\nThe explanation invents storage internals and a guarantee rather than explaining the stated operation. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nRestoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. The supplied operation does not describe how Draftline stores those versions.
V11 coaches a learner through an achievable step. This candidate foregrounds an explanatory puzzle and the relation among states, even where no learning exercise is assigned. That distinction remains provisional; explanation recipes may account for it without a new voice classification.
\n\nAn analogy is optional. Literal state transitions can explain a system more clearly than a metaphor.
\n\nA system can include uncertainty or non-determinism. Do not force a deterministic prediction where only a conditional relationship is known.
\n\nInvent hidden implementation to make the explanation feel complete. Check: Mark undocumented internals as unknown.
Replace relationships with a feature catalogue. Check: The account must explain a connection, not merely enumerate parts.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional export system: editor submits request; acceptance queues job; completion makes file available; file expires 24 hours after creation. Internal scheduler is unspecified.
\n\nWhy can an accepted export still be unavailable? Acceptance changes the request’s state to queued; completion is the separate event that makes a file available. The file then lasts 24 hours after creation. This explains why acceptance alone cannot justify a download link. It does not explain scheduling delays: the internal scheduler is unspecified.
\n\nFeatures: editor submission, queued acceptance, completion, file availability, 24-hour retention after creation. The internal scheduler is unspecified. These are the export system’s features.
\n\nWhy it differs: The list preserves facts but supplies neither an explanatory relationship nor a transferable distinction.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nDiátaxis provides a close practitioner framework. The curiosity-led opening and local prediction test are implementation choices.
\n\nExplanation — Originator/practitioner framework.
Reference — Originator/practitioner framework.
Simile — University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference.
A draft can take a different direction while the history already stored remains in place. Draftline’s Version history offers a way to return to a retained version from 20 October 2026.
\n\nVersions are retained for 30 days. The feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. These are the practical terms behind the invitation to revisit a draft.
\n\nOpen Version history to access the feature. Only workspace editors can restore a version. Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. An earlier retained version can become current while that record remains.
\n\nThe boundary is plain: Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. The image of returning along a draft’s path applies to retained versions; it is not a promise that every missing file can return.
\n\nIf a retained version is the one you want to make current, open Version history. A workspace editor can restore it while the stored history remains.
" }, { "key": "human-l17", "label": "Okakura Kakuzō (published as Kakuzo Okakura) · The Book of Tea", "path": "excerpts/L17.md", "source": { "title": "The Book of Tea", "author": "Okakura Kakuzō (published as Kakuzo Okakura)", "publicationDate": "1906", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/769", "locator": "IV. The Tea-Room: entry, seating, silence and the kettle", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/769", "relationship": "A sensory ritual structures attention, but uses more imagery than the module permits.", "edition": "1906", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "The order of precedence having been mutually agreed upon while resting in the machiai, the guests one by one will enter noiselessly and take their seats, first making obeisance to the picture or flower arrangement on the tokonoma. The host will not enter the room until all the guests have seated themselves and quiet reigns with nothing to break the silence save the note of the boiling water in the iron kettle.\n\nThe kettle sings well, for pieces of iron are so arranged in the bottom as to produce a peculiar melody in which one may hear the echoes of a cataract muffled by clouds, of a distant sea breaking among the rocks, a rainstorm sweeping through a bamboo forest, or of the soughing of pines on some faraway hill.\n", "id": "P30/human-l17", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "The order of precedence having been mutually agreed upon while resting in the machiai, the guests one by one will enter noiselessly and take their seats, first making obeisance to the picture or flower arrangement on the tokonoma. The host will not enter the room until all the guests have seated themselves and quiet reigns with nothing to break the silence save the note of the boiling water in the iron kettle.\n\nThe kettle sings well, for pieces of iron are so arranged in the bottom as to produce a peculiar melody in which one may hear the echoes of a cataract muffled by clouds, of a distant sea breaking among the rocks, a rainstorm sweeping through a bamboo forest, or of the soughing of pines on some faraway hill.\n", "sha256": "f9d77fbd3042385fb3d31ee11b15827b97f768fda156ea61dd2376bb8f8fbdd5", "html": "The order of precedence having been mutually agreed upon while resting in the machiai, the guests one by one will enter noiselessly and take their seats, first making obeisance to the picture or flower arrangement on the tokonoma. The host will not enter the room until all the guests have seated themselves and quiet reigns with nothing to break the silence save the note of the boiling water in the iron kettle.
\n\nThe kettle sings well, for pieces of iron are so arranged in the bottom as to produce a peculiar melody in which one may hear the echoes of a cataract muffled by clouds, of a distant sea breaking among the rocks, a rainstorm sweeping through a bamboo forest, or of the soughing of pines on some faraway hill.
" }, { "key": "human-l02", "label": "Michael Faraday; edited by William Crookes · The Chemical History of a Candle", "path": "excerpts/L02.md", "source": { "title": "The Chemical History of a Candle", "author": "Michael Faraday; edited by William Crookes", "publicationDate": "1861", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14474", "locator": "Lecture I, opening address", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14474", "relationship": "A familiar object welcomes readers; literal hosting terms are not supplied.", "edition": "1908 New Impression, edited by William Crookes; Project Gutenberg digital release 2004-12-26", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "I purpose, in return for the honour you do us by coming to see what are our proceedings here, to bring before you, in the course of these lectures, the Chemical History of a Candle. I have taken this subject on a former occasion; and were it left to my own will, I should prefer to repeat it almost every year—so abundant is the interest that attaches itself to the subject, so wonderful are the varieties of outlet which it offers into the various departments of philosophy.\n\nThere is not a law under which any part of this universe is governed which does not come into play, and is touched upon in these phenomena. There is no better, there is no more open door by which you can enter into the study of natural philosophy, than by considering the physical phenomena of a candle.\n", "id": "P30/human-l02", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "I purpose, in return for the honour you do us by coming to see what are our proceedings here, to bring before you, in the course of these lectures, the Chemical History of a Candle. I have taken this subject on a former occasion; and were it left to my own will, I should prefer to repeat it almost every year—so abundant is the interest that attaches itself to the subject, so wonderful are the varieties of outlet which it offers into the various departments of philosophy.\n\nThere is not a law under which any part of this universe is governed which does not come into play, and is touched upon in these phenomena. There is no better, there is no more open door by which you can enter into the study of natural philosophy, than by considering the physical phenomena of a candle.\n", "sha256": "608c3a587457b26d2a6ac2802aec1cff839dba741faf44cfcfb3472ad42a0865", "html": "I purpose, in return for the honour you do us by coming to see what are our proceedings here, to bring before you, in the course of these lectures, the Chemical History of a Candle. I have taken this subject on a former occasion; and were it left to my own will, I should prefer to repeat it almost every year—so abundant is the interest that attaches itself to the subject, so wonderful are the varieties of outlet which it offers into the various departments of philosophy.
\n\nThere is not a law under which any part of this universe is governed which does not come into play, and is touched upon in these phenomena. There is no better, there is no more open door by which you can enter into the study of natural philosophy, than by considering the physical phenomena of a candle.
" }, { "id": "P30/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## Give one paragraph room to change\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise** to Clearer Notes. Choose a passage you would like to return to, and bring it as the starting point for the workshop.\n\nClearer Notes takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It is free and has **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nIf you would like to attend, register before registration closes. The invitation is small and concrete: one paragraph, the stated workshop time, and a chance to work on the passage you bring.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P30\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Give one paragraph room to change\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise** to Clearer Notes. Choose a passage you would like to return to, and bring it as the starting point for the workshop.\n\nClearer Notes takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It is free and has **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nIf you would like to attend, register before registration closes. The invitation is small and concrete: one paragraph, the stated workshop time, and a chance to work on the passage you bring.\n\n", "sha256": "71409ae3c4512ed70206ce26209edb0b4296d3b316e0377a74c3617f1b4b51eb", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 12.833333333333334, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.735, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 38.96103896103896, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 27, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 11.688311688311689, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 77, "prose_sentences": 6, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 3, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "71409ae3c4512ed70206ce26209edb0b4296d3b316e0377a74c3617f1b4b51eb", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Bring one paragraph to revise to Clearer Notes. Choose a passage you would like to return to, and bring it as the starting point for the workshop.
\n\nClearer Notes takes place on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. It is free and has 12 places. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nIf you would like to attend, register before registration closes. The invitation is small and concrete: one paragraph, the stated workshop time, and a chance to work on the passage you bring.
" }, { "id": "P30/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## Draftline status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P30\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Draftline status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\n", "sha256": "c2ca5ce38843a382cf67f8b054c5e54f93db57cc8bd639fb32499ab91cdc5786", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 5.75, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 8.695652173913043, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 23, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 2, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "c2ca5ce38843a382cf67f8b054c5e54f93db57cc8bd639fb32499ab91cdc5786", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P30", "sample_id": "P30/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P30/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "2d961018082594f6f278333062ea5cf85c4803dfac84caaa1744aa4e9a7c8215", "trimmed_body_sha256": "6cdaa68cb7bef3c72e66c631543e5ba5d7efece1603bf309539d06aec9ec5122", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Versions are retained for **30 days**.", "start": 222, "end": 260, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current whole piece uses edited public/professional wording, without ceremonial convention or sustained intimate conversation." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "A draft can take a different direction while the history already stored remains in place. Draftline’s **Version history** offers a way to return to a retained version from **20 October 2026**.", "start": 28, "end": 220, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current whole piece contains no intended comic device; its factual/evidential phrasing is restrained." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "A draft can take a different direction while the history already stored remains in place. Draftline’s **Version history** offers a way to return to a retained version from **20 October 2026**.", "start": 28, "end": 220, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current availability and operating terms are matter-of-fact. There is no sustained excitement or celebratory framing; useful content alone does not establish enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "If a retained version is the one you want to make current", "start": 884, "end": 941, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The cited passage recognizes a practical reader need or the limited significance of revisiting work. It offers modest acknowledgment, below overt relational care." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "An earlier retained version can become current while that record remains.", "start": 574, "end": 647, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current operation and boundary are explained in ordinary terms, with little specialist prerequisite." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "An earlier retained version can become current while that record remains.", "start": 574, "end": 647, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current piece adds selected clarifications and reasons to its terms, without developing a sustained model or worked test." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://aclanthology.org/2021.acl-long.185/", "title": "Style is NOT a single variable: Case Studies for Cross-Stylistic Language Understanding", "id": "S12" }, { "url": "https://styleguide.mailchimp.com/voice-and-tone/", "title": "Voice and Tone", "id": "S18" } ], "researchLimits": "Style and brand references do not establish experienced sensations, hospitality outcomes or an independent persona.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p30-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p30-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P30/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P30/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P30/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P30.svg", "bundleSha256": "2ad90cc852e2ce3111e69b6830778adc86d8159b464382983583feaf3d9536fd", "bundleBytes": 95044 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: modifier, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nUse to welcome a reader into an introduction with unhurried pacing and a modest, relevant image. It suits some hospitality copy, product introductions and creative invitations. Avoid it in incidents, exact policy terms, or any assignment where sensory detail would imply direct experience that the source does not provide.
\n\nOpen with one small image drawn from the task, then move promptly into the literal terms. Allow a short pause between invitation and instruction. Place the operational boundary in plain language so the image cannot expand the capability. The image is an entry point, not the evidence. Hospitality comes from room to read, a clear route and respect for the reader’s choice. End quietly with a useful condition rather than simulated intimacy or a promise about how the reader will feel.
\n\nUse a mix of short welcoming sentences and medium factual ones. Prefer one concrete image over multiple sensory adjectives. Paragraphs offer space without scattering one fact across many isolated lines. An image should have a literal counterpart nearby: a path refers to retained drafts, not guaranteed preservation. Remove any adjective that implies an unprovided product quality. Avoid possessive endearments, imagined scents and first-person sensory testimony.
\n\nFeature: one draft-related image may introduce revisiting retained versions, followed by exact terms. Workshop: a paragraph can be given room to change without claiming an atmosphere or outcome. Incident: remove the image and all hospitality performance; use direct status, unknown cause and update time.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “Settle into our beautifully calm workspace, where every precious draft is kept forever.”
\n\nThe image implies an experienced atmosphere and permanent retention that the source does not support. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nFrom 20 October 2026, Draftline’s Version history retains versions for 30 days. Files deleted before the feature was enabled cannot be recovered with it.
V07 supplies concrete lyric devices. P30 narrows their use with a welcome pace and a one-image ceiling. It is a modifier or composite, not a distinct voice proven by a hospitable name. The literal draft must remain complete when the opening image is removed.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "L17", "title": "The Book of Tea", "author": "Okakura Kakuzō (published as Kakuzo Okakura)", "year": "1906", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/769", "relationship": "A sensory ritual structures attention, but uses more imagery than the module permits.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "English-language aesthetic and cultural essay", "publicationDate": "1906" }, { "id": "L02", "title": "The Chemical History of a Candle", "author": "Michael Faraday; edited by William Crookes", "year": "1861", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14474", "relationship": "A familiar object welcomes readers; literal hosting terms are not supplied.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Edited public science lectures", "publicationDate": "1861" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Restrained sensory host · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P30.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Enargia", "url": "https://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/E/enargia.htm", "relationship": "University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference" }, { "title": "Speeches", "url": "https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/speeches/", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" }, { "title": "Stylistic Editing", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/stylistic-editing/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A restrained invitation that uses a small concrete image to establish attentiveness, then gives way to literal hosting terms. Sensory charm must not carry the practical contract.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA genuine or explicitly fictional invitation, grounded setting detail or labeled image, and complete practical terms; parent V07 is narrowed.
\n\nSmall sensory or concrete cue → literal opportunity → terms → quiet useful condition.
\n\nMake the concrete cue relevant to the experience being offered. Check: A reviewer should state its relation to the invitation.
Move promptly from the cue to literal hosting terms. Check: Timing, place, participation, and obligations must not depend on interpretation.
Leave a complete invitation after removing the image. Check: Run the literal-only deletion test.
Use to welcome a reader into an introduction with unhurried pacing and a modest, relevant image. It suits some hospitality copy, product introductions and creative invitations. Avoid it in incidents, exact policy terms, or any assignment where sensory detail would imply direct experience that the source does not provide.
\n\nOpen with one small image drawn from the task, then move promptly into the literal terms. Allow a short pause between invitation and instruction. Place the operational boundary in plain language so the image cannot expand the capability. The image is an entry point, not the evidence. Hospitality comes from room to read, a clear route and respect for the reader’s choice. End quietly with a useful condition rather than simulated intimacy or a promise about how the reader will feel.
\n\nUse a mix of short welcoming sentences and medium factual ones. Prefer one concrete image over multiple sensory adjectives. Paragraphs offer space without scattering one fact across many isolated lines. An image should have a literal counterpart nearby: a path refers to retained drafts, not guaranteed preservation. Remove any adjective that implies an unprovided product quality. Avoid possessive endearments, imagined scents and first-person sensory testimony.
\n\nFeature: one draft-related image may introduce revisiting retained versions, followed by exact terms. Workshop: a paragraph can be given room to change without claiming an atmosphere or outcome. Incident: remove the image and all hospitality performance; use direct status, unknown cause and update time.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “Settle into our beautifully calm workspace, where every precious draft is kept forever.”
\n\nThe image implies an experienced atmosphere and permanent retention that the source does not support. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nFrom 20 October 2026, Draftline’s Version history retains versions for 30 days. Files deleted before the feature was enabled cannot be recovered with it.
V07 supplies concrete lyric devices. P30 narrows their use with a welcome pace and a one-image ceiling. It is a modifier or composite, not a distinct voice proven by a hospitable name. The literal draft must remain complete when the opening image is removed.
\n\nOne small cue is a local restraint default, not a universal law of invitations or a claim about all restrained prose.
\n\nA safety or access instruction must remain literal even if the rest of the invitation uses an image.
\n\nInvent smells, tastes, hospitality, or accessibility features. Check: Check every promised or observed detail against the brief.
Extend sensory description until it hides an important condition. Check: Compare space given to the cue with visibility of the terms.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional invitation: writing session Thursday 2–3 in Room 4; bring a draft; no refreshments or other amenities are specified. “A page on a table” is an explicitly imagined cue.
\n\nImagine a page resting on a table, waiting for the next sentence. Join the writing session Thursday, two to three, in Room Four. Bring a draft to work on; no other materials or amenities are promised here.
\n\nImagine a page, a radiant page, an extraordinary table, and an astonishing room of possibilities. The writing session is Thursday, two to three, in Room Four; bring a draft. No other amenities are specified.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second retains logistics but makes grand decorative sensory performance compete with the restrained hosting function.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nNo governing host-style authority or complete paired historical match was found. This is a local module with relevant craft support.
\n\nEnargia — University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference.
Speeches — University teaching guidance.
Stylistic Editing — Professional association standards.
If you want a retained version to become current, Draftline’s Version history provides that operation from 20 October 2026. The feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge, and versions are retained for 30 days.
\n\nOpen Version history to access it. Before choosing a restore, keep the permission and the consequence in view: only workspace editors can restore a version, and restoring makes a new current version. It does not delete stored history.
\n\nThat consequence matters to the choice. A restore changes the current version; it does not remove the stored record. Feature inclusion on a plan does not expand restore permission to people who are not workspace editors.
\n\nThe recovery scope is also limited. Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. Choose it for the retained-version operation described here, rather than treating it as a recovery promise for files outside that scope.
\n\nThese terms let you assess the action on its actual conditions: availability from the stated date, 30-day retention, editor permission and a new current version with stored history intact.
" }, { "key": "human-h03", "label": "18F (institutional byline) · Ask us (almost) anything", "path": "excerpts/H03.md", "source": { "title": "Ask us (almost) anything", "author": "18F (institutional byline)", "publicationDate": "2014-04-01", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-04-01-ask-us-almost-anything.md", "locator": "Invitation and practical footer; links reduced to visible labels", "rights": "CC0 · 18F staff prose", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/", "relationship": "A conditional question-invitation does not presume participation.", "edition": "18F repository snapshot df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5 (2021-12-30)", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "GitHub for Government did their very first AMA (Ask Me Anything) last week with Philadelphia's Chief Data Officer, Mark Headd. After some prodding by GitHub's Head Bureaucat, Ben Balter, 18F decided to use this new avenue to do some Q&A.\n\nIf you have questions about 18F or the Presidential Innovation Fellows program, please come ask us (almost) anything!\n\n**18F AMA: government/ask-me-anything#4**\n\n- About 18F\n- Who's answering? Team 18F, fellows\n- Apply to be a Presidential Innovation Fellow\n\nP.S. The deadline for the current fellowship application is April 7, 2014!\n", "id": "P31/human-h03", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "GitHub for Government did their very first AMA (Ask Me Anything) last week with Philadelphia's Chief Data Officer, Mark Headd. After some prodding by GitHub's Head Bureaucat, Ben Balter, 18F decided to use this new avenue to do some Q&A.\n\nIf you have questions about 18F or the Presidential Innovation Fellows program, please come ask us (almost) anything!\n\n**18F AMA: government/ask-me-anything#4**\n\n- About 18F\n- Who's answering? Team 18F, fellows\n- Apply to be a Presidential Innovation Fellow\n\nP.S. The deadline for the current fellowship application is April 7, 2014!\n", "sha256": "a040bd0d5a281454e11a20ba1e6e0284776e885bb4abded323b87c7619e862b2", "html": "GitHub for Government did their very first AMA (Ask Me Anything) last week with Philadelphia's Chief Data Officer, Mark Headd. After some prodding by GitHub's Head Bureaucat, Ben Balter, 18F decided to use this new avenue to do some Q&A.
\n\nIf you have questions about 18F or the Presidential Innovation Fellows program, please come ask us (almost) anything!
\n\n18F AMA: government/ask-me-anything#4
\n\nAbout 18F
Who's answering? Team 18F, fellows
Apply to be a Presidential Innovation Fellow
P.S. The deadline for the current fellowship application is April 7, 2014!
" }, { "key": "human-h07", "label": "18F; author handle gray · Open source and terms of service = a better developer experience", "path": "excerpts/H07.md", "source": { "title": "Open source and terms of service = a better developer experience", "author": "18F; author handle gray", "publicationDate": "2014-04-11", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-04-11-open-source-terms-of-service-a-better-developer.md", "locator": "Second body paragraph", "rights": "CC0 · 18F staff prose", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/", "relationship": "The final paragraph invites relevant feedback without promising rights or outcomes.", "edition": "18F snapshot df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "This document helps to frame expectations, rights, and responsibilities for any developers who want to use a specific API. Rather than re-invent the wheel, agencies are encouraged to look at existing examples from their sister agencies and repurpose existing language. But that also means that there may be a need for new thinking about the clauses that make up the relationship agencies set up with outside developers.\n", "id": "P31/human-h07", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "This document helps to frame expectations, rights, and responsibilities for any developers who want to use a specific API. Rather than re-invent the wheel, agencies are encouraged to look at existing examples from their sister agencies and repurpose existing language. But that also means that there may be a need for new thinking about the clauses that make up the relationship agencies set up with outside developers.\n", "sha256": "a705a80e167759416a8ab742b13ac7f4dbd3aeccfcbb8b30101c6c945670c6bc", "html": "This document helps to frame expectations, rights, and responsibilities for any developers who want to use a specific API. Rather than re-invent the wheel, agencies are encouraged to look at existing examples from their sister agencies and repurpose existing language. But that also means that there may be a need for new thinking about the clauses that make up the relationship agencies set up with outside developers.
" }, { "id": "P31/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## An invitation to Clearer Notes\n\nIf you would like to revise a paragraph, Clearer Notes invites you to bring **one paragraph to revise**. The workshop is free and takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**\n\nThere are **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**. If you decide to attend, register before registration closes and bring the passage you have chosen.\n\nUse the task, timing and registration deadline to decide whether this workshop fits your plans. The place count describes its capacity; it is not a reason to assume you must participate.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P31\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## An invitation to Clearer Notes\n\nIf you would like to revise a paragraph, Clearer Notes invites you to bring **one paragraph to revise**. The workshop is free and takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**\n\nThere are **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**. If you decide to attend, register before registration closes and bring the passage you have chosen.\n\nUse the task, timing and registration deadline to decide whether this workshop fits your plans. The place count describes its capacity; it is not a reason to assume you must participate.\n\n", "sha256": "8425a7a68927173762db44f76036b0e6244c4393242c90e63a8b44d803fdd7b8", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 11.857142857142858, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7411764705882357, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 72.28915662650603, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 29, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 10.843373493975903, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 83, "prose_sentences": 7, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 6, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "8425a7a68927173762db44f76036b0e6244c4393242c90e63a8b44d803fdd7b8", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "If you would like to revise a paragraph, Clearer Notes invites you to bring one paragraph to revise. The workshop is free and takes place on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.
\n\nThere are 12 places. Registration closes on 5 November. If you decide to attend, register before registration closes and bring the passage you have chosen.
\n\nUse the task, timing and registration deadline to decide whether this workshop fits your plans. The place count describes its capacity; it is not a reason to assume you must participate.
" }, { "id": "P31/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## Draftline upload status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P31\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Draftline upload status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\n", "sha256": "be06f81abd5059f2c6ab0bb3d611367a07b9db1ffc3d3fd110b9583772aec7cb", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 5.75, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 8.695652173913043, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 23, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 2, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "be06f81abd5059f2c6ab0bb3d611367a07b9db1ffc3d3fd110b9583772aec7cb", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P31", "sample_id": "P31/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P31/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "08894310ad30b1bafe05d5d9f9f7ca1cf800a4ab8c469e64707554ff6e99a52b", "trimmed_body_sha256": "9c331544b7693626730a61e5d3497544b9d71eb948d554f90b0b3e810ac23cd2", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Before choosing a restore, keep the permission and the consequence in view", "start": 326, "end": 400, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public/professional wording is neutral and readable, without sustained conversational intimacy or ceremonial convention." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "If you want a retained version to become current, Draftline’s **Version history** provides that operation from **20 October 2026**. The feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge, and versions are retained for **30 days**.", "start": 43, "end": 289, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Reading the complete sample shows no intended comic device; factual phrasing and the quoted passage illustrate that restrained posture." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "If you want a retained version to become current, Draftline’s **Version history** provides that operation from **20 October 2026**. The feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge, and versions are retained for **30 days**.", "start": 43, "end": 289, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The sample states availability and operating terms without sustained excitement, celebratory wording or energetic encouragement; positive usefulness alone is not enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "If you want a retained version to become current", "start": 43, "end": 91, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The quoted passage acknowledges a reader task, likely concern or practical entry point. This is limited reader consideration, below explicit relational care." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "That consequence matters to the choice.", "start": 531, "end": 570, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The operation is explained through ordinary terms and explicit conditions, so little specialist background is required." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "That consequence matters to the choice.", "start": 531, "end": 570, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The complete piece develops multiple related conditions and explains why a distinction matters, beyond selected statements; the cited passage supports that intermediate level." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/getting-users-consent-for-research", "title": "Getting informed consent for user research", "id": "S47" }, { "url": "https://styleguide.mailchimp.com/voice-and-tone/", "title": "Voice and Tone", "id": "S18" } ], "researchLimits": "Research-consent guidance is a bounded precedent, not a general legal compliance determination.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p31-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p31-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P31/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P31/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P31/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P31.svg", "bundleSha256": "0e6d3bdbf1da0a35410b65125364963f1463005f69061a12f3e1221ffa791c22", "bundleBytes": 90685 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: modifier, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nUse when a reader is invited to participate, adopt an optional feature or make a choice that deserves clear terms. It suits onboarding and invitations. It is unsuitable as a substitute for an actual consent policy, permission procedure or legal agreement. A friendly opt-out phrase cannot establish withdrawal rights, privacy rules or access arrangements.
\n\nOpen with the opportunity and its practical scope. State the action the reader would take, the supplied conditions and the consequence of that action. Keep refusal possible in the language by avoiding assumed acceptance. Do not manufacture a penalty for declining or invent an exemption to make the invitation appear generous. The movement makes choice legible: opportunity, terms, decision. When no genuine choice is available, as in a service interruption, replace invitation with direct notice.
\n\nUse conditional phrasing and direct second person without presuming desire. Replace coercive urgency with an exact deadline when supplied. Paragraphs should distinguish invitation from conditions, but should not hide cost or prerequisites below emotional language. Keep modal verbs precise: can, must and may carry different meanings. An optional recommendation is not a requirement. Avoid rhetorical questions that make refusal sound socially awkward.
\n\nFeature: state what restoring changes before recommending it and retain editor access. Workshop: capacity is 12 places, not evidence that places are disappearing; state the real closing date. Incident: no opt-in framing, reassurance bargain or engagement request; report status and next update.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “You will want to join everyone else before the last places disappear.”
\n\nThe invitation assumes the reader’s choice, invents social proof and turns capacity into unsupported scarcity. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nClearer Notes has 12 places. If you want to attend, register before registration closes on 5 November.
V15 provides spoken welcome. P31 is a consent-sensitive modifier that can apply to several primary voices. It regulates assumptions and pressure rather than supplying a distinctive narrative movement on every task. P36 states limits; this modifier keeps optional participation explicit.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "H03", "title": "Ask us (almost) anything", "author": "18F (institutional byline)", "year": "2014", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-04-01-ask-us-almost-anything.md", "relationship": "A conditional question-invitation does not presume participation.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Government digital-service blog", "publicationDate": "2014-04-01" }, { "id": "H07", "title": "Open source and terms of service = a better developer experience", "author": "18F; author handle gray", "year": "2014", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-04-11-open-source-terms-of-service-a-better-developer.md", "relationship": "The final paragraph invites relevant feedback without promising rights or outcomes.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Government practice blog", "publicationDate": "2014-04-11" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Consent-first invitation · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P31.md", "sources": [ { "title": "OHA Statement on Ethics", "url": "https://oralhistory.org/oha-statement-on-ethics/", "relationship": "Professional association ethics guidance" }, { "title": "IAP2 Core Values for Public Participation", "url": "https://www.iap2.org/page/corevalues", "relationship": "Professional association participation principles" }, { "title": "Speeches", "url": "https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/speeches/", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" } ], "formats": [], "html": "An invitation that preserves genuine choice by making the opportunity, obligations, and consequences understandable before asking for participation. It is not a substitute for regulated informed consent.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA genuinely optional activity, known terms, real response options, and any consequences of acceptance or refusal; parent V15 retained.
\n\nOpportunity → terms and consequences → actual choice → optional response route.
\n\nState the opportunity without presuming acceptance. Check: Check for language that enrolls or thanks the person before they choose.
Expose obligations and material consequences before the request. Check: A reader should know what saying yes entails.
Keep a genuine refusal route open where a choice exists. Where none exists, state that directly. Check: An incident update must not manufacture an invitation or an opt-out.
Use when a reader is invited to participate, adopt an optional feature or make a choice that deserves clear terms. It suits onboarding and invitations. It is unsuitable as a substitute for an actual consent policy, permission procedure or legal agreement. A friendly opt-out phrase cannot establish withdrawal rights, privacy rules or access arrangements.
\n\nOpen with the opportunity and its practical scope. State the action the reader would take, the supplied conditions and the consequence of that action. Keep refusal possible in the language by avoiding assumed acceptance. Do not manufacture a penalty for declining or invent an exemption to make the invitation appear generous. The movement makes choice legible: opportunity, terms, decision. When no genuine choice is available, as in a service interruption, replace invitation with direct notice.
\n\nUse conditional phrasing and direct second person without presuming desire. Replace coercive urgency with an exact deadline when supplied. Paragraphs should distinguish invitation from conditions, but should not hide cost or prerequisites below emotional language. Keep modal verbs precise: can, must and may carry different meanings. An optional recommendation is not a requirement. Avoid rhetorical questions that make refusal sound socially awkward.
\n\nFeature: state what restoring changes before recommending it and retain editor access. Workshop: capacity is 12 places, not evidence that places are disappearing; state the real closing date. Incident: no opt-in framing, reassurance bargain or engagement request; report status and next update.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “You will want to join everyone else before the last places disappear.”
\n\nThe invitation assumes the reader’s choice, invents social proof and turns capacity into unsupported scarcity. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nClearer Notes has 12 places. If you want to attend, register before registration closes on 5 November.
V15 provides spoken welcome. P31 is a consent-sensitive modifier that can apply to several primary voices. It regulates assumptions and pressure rather than supplying a distinctive narrative movement on every task. P36 states limits; this modifier keeps optional participation explicit.
\n\nA refusal link or response button is not universally necessary; the real choice must nevertheless be clear.
\n\nNo evidence about consequences of declining is supplied: do not add “there is no penalty” merely because the activity is described as optional.
\n\nDescribe a mandatory action as optional. Check: Compare the invitation language with actual consequences.
Invent anonymity, confidentiality, withdrawal rights, or absence of consequences. Check: Only promise protections supplied and authorized.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional invitation: optional draft session Thursday 2–3; bring a draft; reply by Tuesday only if attending; no consequence for not attending is specified.
\n\nYou are invited to an optional draft session on Thursday, two to three. Bring a draft if you take part. Please reply by Tuesday only if you plan to attend; this message does not assume that you will join.
\n\nThank you for joining the optional draft session on Thursday, two to three. Bring a draft, and reply by Tuesday only if attending. We look forward to your participation.
\n\nWhy it differs: The logistical facts survive, but thanking the reader for joining and anticipating participation presumes a choice not yet made.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nEthics and participation guidance supply relevant principles. Their institutional consent requirements are not imported wholesale into a general invitation.
\n\nOHA Statement on Ethics — Professional association ethics guidance.
IAP2 Core Values for Public Participation — Professional association participation principles.
Speeches — University teaching guidance.
Draftline’s Version history becomes available on 20 October 2026. It is included on every existing plan at no additional charge, and versions are retained for 30 days.
\n\nFor people using a workspace, the distinction to keep clear is between feature inclusion and restore permission. Only workspace editors can restore a version. Open Version history to access the feature; an editor’s restore makes a new current version and does not delete stored history.
\n\nThat role boundary belongs in any explanation passed around a workspace. A plan includes the capability, while editor permission determines who can perform the restore. Saying that the feature is included for every existing plan does not mean saying that every person can restore a version.
\n\nThe scope has a second boundary: Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. Keep that condition with the 30-day retention period when discussing what the feature can do.
\n\nA useful shared explanation therefore names the same three things for everyone: the retained-version task, the editor role that can act, and the history that remains after a restore. Clear roles make the capability easier to discuss without expanding its promise.
" }, { "key": "human-h05", "label": "18F; front-matter author handles chrisc, mhz and nick · User-centered design at 18F: a design studio for natural resource revenues", "path": "excerpts/H05.md", "source": { "title": "User-centered design at 18F: a design studio for natural resource revenues", "author": "18F; front-matter author handles chrisc, mhz and nick", "publicationDate": "2014-09-25", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-09-25-design-studio-onrr.md", "locator": "“What’s next?”; links reduced to visible labels", "rights": "CC0 · 18F staff prose", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/", "relationship": "Collaborative work and public participation are explicit.", "edition": "18F repository snapshot df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5 (2021-12-30)", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "Exhausted, but excited, the group walked away at the end of the session with clear direction for designs that we can build and then test with real users. Work on this project has just begun, and user-centered design requires more than theorizing. It requires continual testing of our design decisions and assumptions to ensure the needs of users are being met.\n\n18F will also continue to work on this project in the open and in public. That means quickly moving beyond designing for the public to designing with the public.\n\nWe’re interested in finding out ways to work with you that go beyond the software code to how the things we’re building actually work. Look out for upcoming opportunities to collaborate! To stay up to date on our work on this project and others, follow us on Twitter.\n", "id": "P32/human-h05", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "Exhausted, but excited, the group walked away at the end of the session with clear direction for designs that we can build and then test with real users. Work on this project has just begun, and user-centered design requires more than theorizing. It requires continual testing of our design decisions and assumptions to ensure the needs of users are being met.\n\n18F will also continue to work on this project in the open and in public. That means quickly moving beyond designing for the public to designing with the public.\n\nWe’re interested in finding out ways to work with you that go beyond the software code to how the things we’re building actually work. Look out for upcoming opportunities to collaborate! To stay up to date on our work on this project and others, follow us on Twitter.\n", "sha256": "616e3dd4835f4a960485d02bfca307d6d135118bdade78efa6a44a15d690ebd8", "html": "Exhausted, but excited, the group walked away at the end of the session with clear direction for designs that we can build and then test with real users. Work on this project has just begun, and user-centered design requires more than theorizing. It requires continual testing of our design decisions and assumptions to ensure the needs of users are being met.
\n\n18F will also continue to work on this project in the open and in public. That means quickly moving beyond designing for the public to designing with the public.
\n\nWe’re interested in finding out ways to work with you that go beyond the software code to how the things we’re building actually work. Look out for upcoming opportunities to collaborate! To stay up to date on our work on this project and others, follow us on Twitter.
" }, { "key": "human-h03", "label": "18F (institutional byline) · Ask us (almost) anything", "path": "excerpts/H03.md", "source": { "title": "Ask us (almost) anything", "author": "18F (institutional byline)", "publicationDate": "2014-04-01", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-04-01-ask-us-almost-anything.md", "locator": "Invitation and practical footer; links reduced to visible labels", "rights": "CC0 · 18F staff prose", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/", "relationship": "Public access and who will answer are clear; limited evidence of shared decision authority.", "edition": "18F repository snapshot df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5 (2021-12-30)", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "GitHub for Government did their very first AMA (Ask Me Anything) last week with Philadelphia's Chief Data Officer, Mark Headd. After some prodding by GitHub's Head Bureaucat, Ben Balter, 18F decided to use this new avenue to do some Q&A.\n\nIf you have questions about 18F or the Presidential Innovation Fellows program, please come ask us (almost) anything!\n\n**18F AMA: government/ask-me-anything#4**\n\n- About 18F\n- Who's answering? Team 18F, fellows\n- Apply to be a Presidential Innovation Fellow\n\nP.S. The deadline for the current fellowship application is April 7, 2014!\n", "id": "P32/human-h03", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "GitHub for Government did their very first AMA (Ask Me Anything) last week with Philadelphia's Chief Data Officer, Mark Headd. After some prodding by GitHub's Head Bureaucat, Ben Balter, 18F decided to use this new avenue to do some Q&A.\n\nIf you have questions about 18F or the Presidential Innovation Fellows program, please come ask us (almost) anything!\n\n**18F AMA: government/ask-me-anything#4**\n\n- About 18F\n- Who's answering? Team 18F, fellows\n- Apply to be a Presidential Innovation Fellow\n\nP.S. The deadline for the current fellowship application is April 7, 2014!\n", "sha256": "a040bd0d5a281454e11a20ba1e6e0284776e885bb4abded323b87c7619e862b2", "html": "GitHub for Government did their very first AMA (Ask Me Anything) last week with Philadelphia's Chief Data Officer, Mark Headd. After some prodding by GitHub's Head Bureaucat, Ben Balter, 18F decided to use this new avenue to do some Q&A.
\n\nIf you have questions about 18F or the Presidential Innovation Fellows program, please come ask us (almost) anything!
\n\n18F AMA: government/ask-me-anything#4
\n\nAbout 18F
Who's answering? Team 18F, fellows
Apply to be a Presidential Innovation Fellow
P.S. The deadline for the current fellowship application is April 7, 2014!
" }, { "id": "P32/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## Bring a paragraph to Clearer Notes\n\nClearer Notes brings the workshop task down to one contribution from each attendee: **one paragraph to revise**. Choose a passage you would like to work on and bring it with you.\n\nThe workshop is free, with **12 places**, on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nIf you would like to take part, register before registration closes. The shared starting point is the paragraph each attendee brings; the passage each attendee brings is the concrete contribution to the revision task.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P32\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Bring a paragraph to Clearer Notes\n\nClearer Notes brings the workshop task down to one contribution from each attendee: **one paragraph to revise**. Choose a passage you would like to work on and bring it with you.\n\nThe workshop is free, with **12 places**, on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nIf you would like to take part, register before registration closes. The shared starting point is the paragraph each attendee brings; the passage each attendee brings is the concrete contribution to the revision task.\n\n", "sha256": "fe405f3989dde9ca5cb25f51d8872f596d70ddac8b432792b465b10fd34912e5", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 15.8, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.696, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 37.9746835443038, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 31, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 11.39240506329114, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 79, "prose_sentences": 5, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 3, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "fe405f3989dde9ca5cb25f51d8872f596d70ddac8b432792b465b10fd34912e5", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Clearer Notes brings the workshop task down to one contribution from each attendee: one paragraph to revise. Choose a passage you would like to work on and bring it with you.
\n\nThe workshop is free, with 12 places, on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nIf you would like to take part, register before registration closes. The shared starting point is the paragraph each attendee brings; the passage each attendee brings is the concrete contribution to the revision task.
" }, { "id": "P32/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## For people using Draftline\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P32\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## For people using Draftline\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\n", "sha256": "18ffe34f0fc4a3f51572d4e7b3f4d3a8d672e59589e9d6651fed2c57af26d72c", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 5.75, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 8.695652173913043, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 23, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 2, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "18ffe34f0fc4a3f51572d4e7b3f4d3a8d672e59589e9d6651fed2c57af26d72c", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
" }, { "id": "P32/probe-H03", "key": "probe-H03", "briefId": "H03", "label": "Separate mechanism probe", "markdown": "## Lantern Room: participation has roles, approval has one owner\n\nThe fictional community space Lantern Room has a proposal for a label-exchange session on **18 March 2027, 6–7 p.m.** It is **not yet approved**. The requested decision concerns this single session, not a continuing program.\n\nParticipation would start with **eight places**, no participation fee and **one draft label from each participant**. Participants could submit comments aloud or on a paper comment sheet. Those two routes make the proposed contribution explicit without assuming that everyone would speak.\n\n**Two volunteer facilitators** would collect comments without ranking participants. The coordinator would compile the comments into a summary. These roles describe how contributions would move through the proposed session.\n\nThe space manager alone decides whether to approve it. No existing community consensus or participant commitment has been recorded. Shared participation is proposed; approval authority remains with the manager.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P32\nbrief_id: H03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\ncohort: separate-heldout-mechanism-probe\n---\n\n\n## Lantern Room: participation has roles, approval has one owner\n\nThe fictional community space Lantern Room has a proposal for a label-exchange session on **18 March 2027, 6–7 p.m.** It is **not yet approved**. The requested decision concerns this single session, not a continuing program.\n\nParticipation would start with **eight places**, no participation fee and **one draft label from each participant**. Participants could submit comments aloud or on a paper comment sheet. Those two routes make the proposed contribution explicit without assuming that everyone would speak.\n\n**Two volunteer facilitators** would collect comments without ranking participants. The coordinator would compile the comments into a summary. These roles describe how contributions would move through the proposed session.\n\nThe space manager alone decides whether to approve it. No existing community consensus or participant commitment has been recorded. Shared participation is proposed; approval authority remains with the manager.\n\n", "sha256": "0656a33829e36ac66c7f488b86eca7ccd4409acb10beac2349dae3e17e73ad93", "measurement": null, "html": "The fictional community space Lantern Room has a proposal for a label-exchange session on 18 March 2027, 6–7 p.m. It is not yet approved. The requested decision concerns this single session, not a continuing program.
\n\nParticipation would start with eight places, no participation fee and one draft label from each participant. Participants could submit comments aloud or on a paper comment sheet. Those two routes make the proposed contribution explicit without assuming that everyone would speak.
\n\nTwo volunteer facilitators would collect comments without ranking participants. The coordinator would compile the comments into a summary. These roles describe how contributions would move through the proposed session.
\n\nThe space manager alone decides whether to approve it. No existing community consensus or participant commitment has been recorded. Shared participation is proposed; approval authority remains with the manager.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P32", "sample_id": "P32/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P32/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "79cc7d7e8408a5528a8e417ae1d9c479bff8aca96d123c7d8e6a192cb88c50d4", "trimmed_body_sha256": "7f2cca718d80947d9a77a6c5d38bff1ffc5e47d2fd97b6c061d62b7d4aa202a9", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "That role boundary belongs in any explanation passed around a workspace.", "start": 522, "end": 594, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public/professional wording is neutral and readable, without sustained conversational intimacy or ceremonial convention." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Draftline’s **Version history** becomes available on **20 October 2026**. It is included on every existing plan at no additional charge, and versions are retained for **30 days**.", "start": 49, "end": 228, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Reading the complete sample shows no intended comic device; factual phrasing and the quoted passage illustrate that restrained posture." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Draftline’s **Version history** becomes available on **20 October 2026**. It is included on every existing plan at no additional charge, and versions are retained for **30 days**.", "start": 49, "end": 228, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The sample states availability and operating terms without sustained excitement, celebratory wording or energetic encouragement; positive usefulness alone is not enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "For people using a workspace", "start": 230, "end": 258, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The quoted passage acknowledges a reader task, likely concern or practical entry point. This is limited reader consideration, below explicit relational care." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "A plan includes the capability, while editor permission determines who can perform the restore.", "start": 595, "end": 690, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The sample lightly assumes familiarity with workspace/editor/version terminology, while explaining the consequential relations; it does not require dense specialist knowledge." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "A plan includes the capability, while editor permission determines who can perform the restore.", "start": 595, "end": 690, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The complete piece develops multiple related conditions and explains why a distinction matters, beyond selected statements; the cited passage supports that intermediate level." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/getting-users-consent-for-research", "title": "Getting informed consent for user research", "id": "S47" }, { "url": "https://oralhistory.org/principles-and-best-practices-revised-2018/", "title": "OHA Principles and Best Practices", "id": "S49" } ], "researchLimits": "Consent and collaboration principles inform inclusion constraints; they do not prove a convenor voice from two generic role sentences.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p32-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p32-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P32/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P32/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P32/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P32.svg", "bundleSha256": "c3fe5a2a97033236b4708384b21fdf53c49134bfb55d2cce4ab833a33311c58f", "bundleBytes": 75388 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: voice candidate, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nWrite for people coordinating around a shared task where roles and entry conditions matter. It suits participatory announcements, workshops and team guidance. Avoid it when a collective identity is unsupported, when individual consent should not be blurred, or when the message could imply agreement from people who have not spoken.
\n\nOpen with the shared task rather than an invented shared feeling. Name who can participate or act, explain the practical access conditions, then keep role boundaries visible. The movement is task, roles, route, limit. Community language should help people locate themselves in the activity. It should never convert shared plan access into shared action permission. End with the concrete contribution or next checkpoint, not a declaration that everyone belongs or agrees.
\n\nUse plural nouns with specific referents: workspace editors, attendees, people reading existing documents. Use we only when speaker membership is established. Pair an invitation with the preparation that makes participation concrete. Paragraphs can distinguish a common capability from the role authorized to use it. Favor ordinary coordinated sentences over a ceremonial list of values. Keep enthusiasm lower than the clarity of who can do what.
\n\nFeature: explain the distinction between every existing plan and only workspace editors. Workshop: the common starting point is one paragraph from each attendee; no shared background or prior demand is supplied. Incident: address people using Draftline without assuming how all feel; status replaces rallying language.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “We all asked for this, and now everyone can restore whatever they need.”
\n\nThe collective framing invents consensus and expands restore permission to everyone. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nVersion history is included on every existing plan. Only workspace editors can restore a version.
V02 addresses a capable colleague with practical warmth. This candidate organizes around shared agency and explicit role distribution. That can be a durable mechanism, but it may also be a community-purpose composite. Test it on genuinely different participatory tasks before asserting independent voice status.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "H05", "title": "User-centered design at 18F: a design studio for natural resource revenues", "author": "18F; front-matter author handles chrisc, mhz and nick", "year": "2014", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-09-25-design-studio-onrr.md", "relationship": "Collaborative work and public participation are explicit.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Government digital-service blog", "publicationDate": "2014-09-25" }, { "id": "H03", "title": "Ask us (almost) anything", "author": "18F (institutional byline)", "year": "2014", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-04-01-ask-us-almost-anything.md", "relationship": "Public access and who will answer are clear; limited evidence of shared decision authority.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Government digital-service blog", "publicationDate": "2014-04-01" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Community convenor · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P32.md", "sources": [ { "title": "IAP2 Core Values for Public Participation", "url": "https://www.iap2.org/page/corevalues", "relationship": "Professional association participation principles" }, { "title": "OHA Statement on Ethics", "url": "https://oralhistory.org/oha-statement-on-ethics/", "relationship": "Professional association ethics guidance" }, { "title": "Plain Language Guide Series", "url": "https://digital.gov/guides/plain-language", "relationship": "Government guidance" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A collective invitation that defines the shared task, participation routes, and the real relationship between contributions and decisions, without inventing a community consensus.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA real collective task, who can participate, practical access routes, and the actual scope of influence; candidate status preserved.
\n\nShared task → roles and access → influence and limits → concrete contribution → feedback route where available.
\n\nName the concrete shared task rather than invoking community sentiment alone. Check: Identify what participants can contribute to.
Describe roles and a practical route into participation. Check: A newcomer must be able to determine how to join or contribute.
State what input can and cannot influence. Check: Distinguish consultation, recommendation, and decision authority.
Write for people coordinating around a shared task where roles and entry conditions matter. It suits participatory announcements, workshops and team guidance. Avoid it when a collective identity is unsupported, when individual consent should not be blurred, or when the message could imply agreement from people who have not spoken.
\n\nOpen with the shared task rather than an invented shared feeling. Name who can participate or act, explain the practical access conditions, then keep role boundaries visible. The movement is task, roles, route, limit. Community language should help people locate themselves in the activity. It should never convert shared plan access into shared action permission. End with the concrete contribution or next checkpoint, not a declaration that everyone belongs or agrees.
\n\nUse plural nouns with specific referents: workspace editors, attendees, people reading existing documents. Use we only when speaker membership is established. Pair an invitation with the preparation that makes participation concrete. Paragraphs can distinguish a common capability from the role authorized to use it. Favor ordinary coordinated sentences over a ceremonial list of values. Keep enthusiasm lower than the clarity of who can do what.
\n\nFeature: explain the distinction between every existing plan and only workspace editors. Workshop: the common starting point is one paragraph from each attendee; no shared background or prior demand is supplied. Incident: address people using Draftline without assuming how all feel; status replaces rallying language.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “We all asked for this, and now everyone can restore whatever they need.”
\n\nThe collective framing invents consensus and expands restore permission to everyone. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nVersion history is included on every existing plan. Only workspace editors can restore a version.
V02 addresses a capable colleague with practical warmth. This candidate organizes around shared agency and explicit role distribution. That can be a durable mechanism, but it may also be a community-purpose composite. Test it on genuinely different participatory tasks before asserting independent voice status.
\n\nA community need not share an identity or a single opinion. Respectful disagreement is compatible with convening.
\n\nWhen a group actually has decision authority, state that stronger role. Do not downgrade participation merely to keep cautious-sounding prose.
\n\nClaim that everyone agrees or that the group has power it does not possess. Check: Trace collective claims to actual authorization.
Use inclusion language without disclosing an important access constraint. Check: Compare the invitation with the available access arrangements.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Synthetic gathering: residents may suggest workshop topics at a Tuesday meeting in Room 4. The library team chooses the schedule; no remote route or feedback deadline is specified.
\n\nResidents are invited to suggest workshop topics at Tuesday’s meeting in Room Four. Bring an idea for the library team to consider. The team will choose the schedule; the meeting is a route to contribute, not a vote that sets the program. A remote route and feedback deadline have not been specified.
\n\nOur community is united around great workshops. Residents may suggest topics Tuesday in Room Four, and the library team chooses the schedule. No remote route or feedback deadline is specified. Together, our voices are powerful.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second preserves logistics but substitutes an unsupported consensus claim for honest convening and practical role clarity.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nIAP2 is a close authority for participation principles, not a guarantee that a particular gathering is democratic or accessible.
\n\nIAP2 Core Values for Public Participation — Professional association participation principles.
OHA Statement on Ethics — Professional association ethics guidance.
Plain Language Guide Series — Government guidance.
Think of two separate questions: which version is current, and which versions remain in history? Draftline’s Version history keeps those questions distinct. A restore makes a new current version and does not delete stored history.
\n\nThe comparison is to revisiting an earlier draft rather than throwing away the record of revision. That comparison explains the relation between current version and history; it does not describe Draftline’s internal storage design.
\n\nVersion history becomes available on 20 October 2026. Versions are retained for 30 days, and the feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Open Version history to access it. Only workspace editors can restore a version.
\n\nHere is where the comparison stops. Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. Revisiting a retained version is different from recovering a file outside that scope.
\n\nThe literal terms remain the guide: editor-only restoration, a new current version, stored history left intact and a 30-day retention period. Use the comparison to understand those terms, then rely on the terms themselves when deciding whether the operation fits the task.
" }, { "key": "human-l14", "label": "David Hume · Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion", "path": "excerpts/L14.md", "source": { "title": "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion", "author": "David Hume", "publicationDate": "1779", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4583", "locator": "Part II, Philo’s house analogy and its limits", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4583", "relationship": "House analogy is tested for where similarity stops.", "edition": "1779 work; Gutenberg transcription, print impression not identified", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "If we see a house, CLEANTHES, we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder; because this is precisely that species of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm, that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house, that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect. The dissimilitude is so striking, that the utmost you can here pretend to is a guess, a conjecture, a presumption concerning a similar cause; and how that pretension will be received in the world, I leave you to consider.\n", "id": "P33/human-l14", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "If we see a house, CLEANTHES, we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder; because this is precisely that species of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm, that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house, that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect. The dissimilitude is so striking, that the utmost you can here pretend to is a guess, a conjecture, a presumption concerning a similar cause; and how that pretension will be received in the world, I leave you to consider.\n", "sha256": "32c9b57fd2ba52367f5a0d545ac99c4b94a9a1e23bad884c811af06b9bb9b036", "html": "If we see a house, CLEANTHES, we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder; because this is precisely that species of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm, that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house, that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect. The dissimilitude is so striking, that the utmost you can here pretend to is a guess, a conjecture, a presumption concerning a similar cause; and how that pretension will be received in the world, I leave you to consider.
" }, { "key": "human-l21", "label": "Edwin A. Abbott · Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions", "path": "excerpts/L21.md", "source": { "title": "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions", "author": "Edwin A. Abbott", "publicationDate": "1884", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/97/pg97-images.html", "locator": "Section 1, first two paragraphs.", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/97", "relationship": "The paper-world analogy states a dimensional limitation.", "edition": "1884", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "I call our world Flatland, not because we call it so, but to make its nature clearer to you, my happy readers, who are privileged to live in Space.\n\nImagine a vast sheet of paper on which straight Lines, Triangles, Squares, Pentagons, Hexagons, and other figures, instead of remaining fixed in their places, move freely about, on or in the surface, but without the power of rising above or sinking below it, very much like shadows—only hard with luminous edges—and you will then have a pretty correct notion of my country and countrymen.\n", "id": "P33/human-l21", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "I call our world Flatland, not because we call it so, but to make its nature clearer to you, my happy readers, who are privileged to live in Space.\n\nImagine a vast sheet of paper on which straight Lines, Triangles, Squares, Pentagons, Hexagons, and other figures, instead of remaining fixed in their places, move freely about, on or in the surface, but without the power of rising above or sinking below it, very much like shadows—only hard with luminous edges—and you will then have a pretty correct notion of my country and countrymen.\n", "sha256": "a6f4275ccba40bb7e84c48851263ae03e15365f748877703edf2562c2e72a1fb", "html": "I call our world Flatland, not because we call it so, but to make its nature clearer to you, my happy readers, who are privileged to live in Space.
\n\nImagine a vast sheet of paper on which straight Lines, Triangles, Squares, Pentagons, Hexagons, and other figures, instead of remaining fixed in their places, move freely about, on or in the surface, but without the power of rising above or sinking below it, very much like shadows—only hard with luminous edges—and you will then have a pretty correct notion of my country and countrymen.
" }, { "id": "P33/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## One paragraph, rather than the whole piece\n\nClearer Notes asks attendees to bring **one paragraph to revise**. A paragraph is the passage to bring; the invitation does not ask for an entire piece.\n\nThe workshop is free and has **12 places**. It takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**, and registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nIf the one-paragraph task fits what you want to work on, register before registration closes and bring that passage. Keep the workshop date separate from the earlier registration deadline when planning.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P33\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## One paragraph, rather than the whole piece\n\nClearer Notes asks attendees to bring **one paragraph to revise**. A paragraph is the passage to bring; the invitation does not ask for an entire piece.\n\nThe workshop is free and has **12 places**. It takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**, and registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nIf the one-paragraph task fits what you want to work on, register before registration closes and bring that passage. Keep the workshop date separate from the earlier registration deadline when planning.\n\n", "sha256": "138250000f0ffc71fe86cb9ff625c50c966175ae37c60db1631ea7a9eb8fd715", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 12.833333333333334, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.770714285714286, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 12.987012987012987, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 26, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 11.688311688311689, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 77, "prose_sentences": 6, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 1, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "138250000f0ffc71fe86cb9ff625c50c966175ae37c60db1631ea7a9eb8fd715", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Clearer Notes asks attendees to bring one paragraph to revise. A paragraph is the passage to bring; the invitation does not ask for an entire piece.
\n\nThe workshop is free and has 12 places. It takes place on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m., and registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nIf the one-paragraph task fits what you want to work on, register before registration closes and bring that passage. Keep the workshop date separate from the earlier registration deadline when planning.
" }, { "id": "P33/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## Draftline upload availability\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P33\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Draftline upload availability\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\n", "sha256": "2600bdd187aa514e09aa25dbecdb02e88cf6862a68537b4f33fb3ad7f4eb692c", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 5.75, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 8.695652173913043, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 23, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 2, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "2600bdd187aa514e09aa25dbecdb02e88cf6862a68537b4f33fb3ad7f4eb692c", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 4, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P33", "sample_id": "P33/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P33/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "11c3910c08ff224f6f8442dbb88a406336f4ea96f3872c2d593a223308892377", "trimmed_body_sha256": "33c21819e7399e81734d569a75aac13b4c6a8bbbd30c11dbfe93db0e355424fe", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The literal terms remain the guide", "start": 979, "end": 1013, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public/professional wording is neutral and readable, without sustained conversational intimacy or ceremonial convention." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Version history becomes available on **20 October 2026**. Versions are retained for **30 days**, and the feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Open Version history to access it. **Only workspace editors can restore a version.**", "start": 516, "end": 773, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Reading the complete sample shows no intended comic device; factual phrasing and the quoted passage illustrate that restrained posture." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Version history becomes available on **20 October 2026**. Versions are retained for **30 days**, and the feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Open Version history to access it. **Only workspace editors can restore a version.**", "start": 516, "end": 773, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The sample states availability and operating terms without sustained excitement, celebratory wording or energetic encouragement; positive usefulness alone is not enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Think of two separate questions", "start": 47, "end": 78, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The quoted passage acknowledges a reader task, likely concern or practical entry point. This is limited reader consideration, below explicit relational care." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Use the comparison to understand those terms, then rely on the terms themselves", "start": 1121, "end": 1200, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The operation is explained through ordinary terms and explicit conditions, so little specialist background is required." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 5, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Use the comparison to understand those terms, then rely on the terms themselves", "start": 1121, "end": 1200, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The complete piece builds understanding with guiding questions or a model, a mechanism/relationship, and an analogy or countercase; the evidence excerpt shows that developed support." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/explanation/", "title": "Explanation", "id": "S42" }, { "url": "https://developers.google.com/style/tone", "title": "Tone", "id": "S20" } ], "researchLimits": "Connections and global-audience guidance do not license cultural caricatures or establish analogy-based comprehension.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p33-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p33-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P33/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P33/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P33/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P33.svg", "bundleSha256": "245b64d2fe2f88ab7149f2f09f257deda3c85f2d802d86f304d7a8608b7d7c48", "bundleBytes": 85841 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: voice candidate, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nUse when an unfamiliar concept can be clarified by comparison with something the audience already understands. It suits explanations across technical domains. Avoid cultural caricatures, undocumented comparisons and descriptions where readers may treat an analogy as the actual implementation. A comparison is a teaching aid with a stated stopping point.
\n\nOpen with the distinction the reader needs to understand, then offer a comparison that preserves it. Explain the shared relation, expose the mismatch and return to the literal operation. The comparison should help readers predict one behavior rather than imply a complete equivalence. An earlier draft and a current draft can be compared without claiming a product is literally a time machine. End with a sentence that survives removal of the comparison.
\n\nUse paired clauses to make the mapping explicit: this resembles that in one respect, but differs in another. Keep the literal nouns alongside figurative substitutes. Give the mismatch a full sentence rather than a parenthesis. Paragraphs first establish the concept, then examine the comparison, then restate scope. Avoid stacking several analogies; switching models is costly for a reader learning one relation.
\n\nFeature: compare changing the current version with removing history, then name exact restore terms. Workshop: compare revising a paragraph with replacing an entire piece only as a task distinction, not an invented agenda. Incident: avoid metaphor; the two availability states are sufficient literal information.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “Version history is a time machine that returns every missing file.”
\n\nThe analogy expands a retained-version operation into unrestricted recovery. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nThe useful comparison is revisiting a retained draft. Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled.
V11 uses patient explanation and achievable steps. P33 centers mapping and mismatch as the explanatory device. It may remain an analogy recipe within V11 rather than an independent voice. P29 explains a relation directly; this candidate tests how a comparison carries that relation without distorting it.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "L14", "title": "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion", "author": "David Hume", "year": "1779", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4583", "relationship": "House analogy is tested for where similarity stops.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Authored philosophical dialogue", "publicationDate": "1779" }, { "id": "L21", "title": "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions", "author": "Edwin A. Abbott", "year": "1884", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/97/pg97-images.html", "relationship": "The paper-world analogy states a dimensional limitation.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Speculative mathematical fiction", "publicationDate": "1884" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Comparative translator · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P33.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Simile", "url": "https://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/S/simile.htm", "relationship": "University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference" }, { "title": "Explanation", "url": "https://diataxis.fr/explanation/", "relationship": "Originator/practitioner framework" }, { "title": "Counterargument", "url": "https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/counterargument", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A comparison-led explanatory module that maps specific relationships between an unfamiliar system and a familiar one, then identifies a consequential mismatch.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nTwo comparable domains, documented relationships, and known limits; parent P29 remains an explanation rather than a feature list.
\n\nComparison → mapped relations → mismatch → surviving literal operation.
\n\nMap at least one relationship, not only a superficial resemblance. Check: State what in domain A corresponds to what relation in domain B.
Name a consequential point where the comparison fails. Check: Identify the false inference the boundary prevents.
Return to the literal system after the analogy. Check: A reader should recover the actual documented behavior.
Use when an unfamiliar concept can be clarified by comparison with something the audience already understands. It suits explanations across technical domains. Avoid cultural caricatures, undocumented comparisons and descriptions where readers may treat an analogy as the actual implementation. A comparison is a teaching aid with a stated stopping point.
\n\nOpen with the distinction the reader needs to understand, then offer a comparison that preserves it. Explain the shared relation, expose the mismatch and return to the literal operation. The comparison should help readers predict one behavior rather than imply a complete equivalence. An earlier draft and a current draft can be compared without claiming a product is literally a time machine. End with a sentence that survives removal of the comparison.
\n\nUse paired clauses to make the mapping explicit: this resembles that in one respect, but differs in another. Keep the literal nouns alongside figurative substitutes. Give the mismatch a full sentence rather than a parenthesis. Paragraphs first establish the concept, then examine the comparison, then restate scope. Avoid stacking several analogies; switching models is costly for a reader learning one relation.
\n\nFeature: compare changing the current version with removing history, then name exact restore terms. Workshop: compare revising a paragraph with replacing an entire piece only as a task distinction, not an invented agenda. Incident: avoid metaphor; the two availability states are sufficient literal information.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “Version history is a time machine that returns every missing file.”
\n\nThe analogy expands a retained-version operation into unrestricted recovery. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nThe useful comparison is revisiting a retained draft. Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled.
V11 uses patient explanation and achievable steps. P33 centers mapping and mismatch as the explanatory device. It may remain an analogy recipe within V11 rather than an independent voice. P29 explains a relation directly; this candidate tests how a comparison carries that relation without distorting it.
\n\nThe words “like” and “as” are optional. Relationship mapping, not a syntactic marker, defines this module.
\n\nTwo unlike systems can support a narrow useful comparison. Similar names alone cannot establish a useful analogy.
\n\nTreat analogy as evidence that the systems are identical. Check: Audit claims imported from the familiar domain.
Invent undocumented mechanics to maintain the comparison. Check: Drop the analogy rather than altering the source facts.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional interface: accepted export jobs are queued but not completed. Comparison to taking a queue ticket is illustrative, not a description of a documented scheduler.
\n\nAn accepted export is like receiving a queue ticket: you have a place in a process, not the finished result. The comparison stops there—we do not know how this scheduler orders jobs. Literally, acceptance means queued; a file becomes available only after completion.
\n\nAn accepted export is like a queue ticket. Queue tickets have numbers, so this scheduler must process exports in ticket-number order. Acceptance means queued, not completed.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second has a comparison and correct base facts but imports an undocumented scheduling rule to extend it.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nRhetorical comparison and explanatory guidance support the device. The mismatch test is a local conformance requirement.
\n\nSimile — University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference.
Explanation — Originator/practitioner framework.
Counterargument — University teaching guidance.
It might seem that making an earlier version current would remove the history already stored. Draftline’s Version history provides a counterexample: restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history.
\n\nThe corrected rule is narrower and more useful. A restore changes which version is current; it does not remove the stored record. Only workspace editors can restore a version. Open Version history to access the feature.
\n\nThe feature becomes available on 20 October 2026, retains versions for 30 days, and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Inclusion and permission are different terms: no additional charge does not mean every person can restore.
\n\nA second generalization also needs a limit. The feature does not recover every file from the past. It cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled.
\n\nSo use this rule when explaining the operation: a workspace editor can restore a retained version as a new current version while stored history remains. Keep the 30-day retention period and the deleted-file boundary with that rule; they determine the scope of the capability.
" }, { "key": "human-l15", "label": "Plato; English translation Benjamin Jowett · Meno (Benjamin Jowett translation)", "path": "excerpts/L15.md", "source": { "title": "Meno (Benjamin Jowett translation)", "author": "Plato; English translation Benjamin Jowett", "publicationDate": "1999-02-01", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1643", "locator": "Dialogue: doubled-square demonstration, from “And is not that four times four?”", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1643", "relationship": "A plausible answer fails against the doubled-square demonstration.", "edition": "Benjamin Jowett translation; digital release 1999-02-01. Exact print impression unestablished.", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "SOCRATES: And is not that four times four?\n\nBOY: Certainly.\n\nSOCRATES: And four times is not double?\n\nBOY: No, indeed.\n\nSOCRATES: But how much?\n\nBOY: Four times as much.\n\nSOCRATES: Therefore the double line, boy, has given a space, not twice, but four times as much.\n\nBOY: True.\n", "id": "P34/human-l15", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "SOCRATES: And is not that four times four?\n\nBOY: Certainly.\n\nSOCRATES: And four times is not double?\n\nBOY: No, indeed.\n\nSOCRATES: But how much?\n\nBOY: Four times as much.\n\nSOCRATES: Therefore the double line, boy, has given a space, not twice, but four times as much.\n\nBOY: True.\n", "sha256": "7f76dd6cc69a86630410dcb56e54fd0450a744ac573a9beef1a29c09e604f2a2", "html": "SOCRATES: And is not that four times four?
\n\nBOY: Certainly.
\n\nSOCRATES: And four times is not double?
\n\nBOY: No, indeed.
\n\nSOCRATES: But how much?
\n\nBOY: Four times as much.
\n\nSOCRATES: Therefore the double line, boy, has given a space, not twice, but four times as much.
\n\nBOY: True.
" }, { "id": "P34/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## A whole document is not the preparation requested\n\nFor Clearer Notes, the requested preparation is **one paragraph to revise**. Choose that passage and bring it with you.\n\nThe free workshop has **12 places** and takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nKeep the preparation rule precise: one paragraph is the requested preparation. Register before registration closes if you intend to attend. The workshop date is 7 November; the earlier date marks registration closing, not the session itself.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P34\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## A whole document is not the preparation requested\n\nFor Clearer Notes, the requested preparation is **one paragraph to revise**. Choose that passage and bring it with you.\n\nThe free workshop has **12 places** and takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nKeep the preparation rule precise: one paragraph is the requested preparation. Register before registration closes if you intend to attend. The workshop date is 7 November; the earlier date marks registration closing, not the session itself.\n\n", "sha256": "d5eaa71b4141b191e9765f832e24979c4b1c343db5d4ac6b39eec50bca27ad4f", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 11.666666666666666, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7123809523809522, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 28.571428571428573, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 19, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 12.857142857142858, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 70, "prose_sentences": 6, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 2, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "d5eaa71b4141b191e9765f832e24979c4b1c343db5d4ac6b39eec50bca27ad4f", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "For Clearer Notes, the requested preparation is one paragraph to revise. Choose that passage and bring it with you.
\n\nThe free workshop has 12 places and takes place on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nKeep the preparation rule precise: one paragraph is the requested preparation. Register before registration closes if you intend to attend. The workshop date is 7 November; the earlier date marks registration closing, not the session itself.
" }, { "id": "P34/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## Draftline status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P34\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Draftline status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\n", "sha256": "eefb003e08919c752afb68c0564a37ee5a2bc4e38150af3a2dc953c0e1aad0af", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 5.75, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 8.695652173913043, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 23, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 2, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "eefb003e08919c752afb68c0564a37ee5a2bc4e38150af3a2dc953c0e1aad0af", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 4, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P34", "sample_id": "P34/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P34/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "c9dd907bd1e8adc0bbac1caf15d01d00ba02a96b4772a21ab1df281917c5b494", "trimmed_body_sha256": "7139e7af527b9ccf1caf11adeb63cdaf4bc97a3828ec2a482f809fa98af1d424", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The corrected rule is narrower and more useful.", "start": 283, "end": 330, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public/professional wording is neutral and readable, without sustained conversational intimacy or ceremonial convention." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The feature becomes available on **20 October 2026**, retains versions for **30 days**, and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Inclusion and permission are different terms: no additional charge does not mean every person can restore.", "start": 508, "end": 766, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Reading the complete sample shows no intended comic device; factual phrasing and the quoted passage illustrate that restrained posture." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The feature becomes available on **20 October 2026**, retains versions for **30 days**, and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Inclusion and permission are different terms: no additional charge does not mean every person can restore.", "start": 508, "end": 766, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The sample states availability and operating terms without sustained excitement, celebratory wording or energetic encouragement; positive usefulness alone is not enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "It might seem that making an earlier version current would remove the history already stored.", "start": 51, "end": 144, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The quoted passage acknowledges a reader task, likely concern or practical entry point. This is limited reader consideration, below explicit relational care." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Draftline’s **Version history** provides a counterexample", "start": 145, "end": 202, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The operation is explained through ordinary terms and explicit conditions, so little specialist background is required." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 5, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Draftline’s **Version history** provides a counterexample", "start": 145, "end": 202, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The complete piece builds understanding with guiding questions or a model, a mechanism/relationship, and an analogy or countercase; the evidence excerpt shows that developed support." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/tutorials/", "title": "Tutorials", "id": "S43" }, { "url": "https://aclanthology.org/2021.acl-long.185/", "title": "Style is NOT a single variable: Case Studies for Cross-Stylistic Language Understanding", "id": "S12" } ], "researchLimits": "Teaching guidance is practical; the custom counterexample sequence requires its own correctness and learning review.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p34-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p34-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P34/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P34/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P34/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P34.svg", "bundleSha256": "b25b45d99f21a7dc896bb62b853846584c35ae640af523b410d5bcc4ba2cc934", "bundleBytes": 94331 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: recipe, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nUse to refine a plausible but explicitly hypothetical misunderstanding. It suits teaching explanations and training examples. Avoid it when there is no useful contrast, when a learner would be blamed for an invented error, or when an incident notice would become a lecture. The mistaken proposition belongs to the demonstration, not to a fabricated participant.
\n\nOpen with a plausible generalization framed as a possibility, not a report of someone’s mistake. Offer a supplied counterexample, show which part of the rule needs revision, then state the corrected rule. Do not merely announce that the first claim is wrong. The reader needs to see how the counterexample changes the scope. Finish with a positive formulation that can guide action without requiring the reader to remember the erroneous one.
\n\nUse if, suppose or a question to mark the hypothetical case. Put the counterexample near the claim it defeats. Make the corrected rule a complete sentence and repeat the exact technical term. Each paragraph should have a learning function: proposition, test, revised understanding. Limit rhetorical questions to ones actually answered. Avoid mock dialogue, gotcha language and praise that implies the learner was previously incompetent.
\n\nFeature: test the assumption that restoring must erase history, using the supplied nondeletion fact. Workshop: distinguish paragraph revision from bringing a whole document without prescribing extra preparation. Incident: remove the teaching exercise; unavailability is the news, not a hypothetical mistake to interrogate.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “You probably think restoring erases everything. That is a beginner mistake.”
\n\nThe tutor invents the learner’s belief and uses status-based contempt instead of a worked counterexample. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nA restore does not have to erase stored history: in Draftline, restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history.
V06 develops understanding through a sequence of questions. P34 supplies one proposition and a counterexample that revises it. It is a teaching recipe compatible with several voices, not proof of a new personality. P33 maps an analogy; this recipe tests a rule against an exception.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "L15", "title": "Meno (Benjamin Jowett translation)", "author": "Plato; English translation Benjamin Jowett", "year": "1999", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1643", "relationship": "A plausible answer fails against the doubled-square demonstration.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Translated philosophical dialogue", "publicationDate": "1999-02-01" }, { "id": "M02", "title": "Details of the Cloudflare outage on July 2, 2019", "author": "John Graham-Cumming", "year": "2019", "url": "https://blog.cloudflare.com/details-of-the-cloudflare-outage-on-july-2-2019/", "relationship": "The regex discussion tests why a seemingly useful fix still fails.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Technical incident analysis", "publicationDate": "2019-07-12" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Counterexample tutor · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P34.md", "sources": [ { "title": "How to Use the Socratic Method in the Classroom", "url": "https://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/socratic/fourth.html", "relationship": "Primary pedagogical guidance" }, { "title": "Counterargument", "url": "https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/counterargument", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" }, { "title": "Asking Analytical Questions", "url": "https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/asking-analytical-questions", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A teaching module that uses a valid counterexample to revise the scope of a plausible general rule, then replaces it with a more accurate positive formulation.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA plausible generalization, a supplied or verifiable counterexample, and enough context to formulate the corrected rule; parent V06 retained.
\n\nProvisional rule → valid counterexample → failure diagnosis → revised positive rule → new check.
\n\nState a generalization that the counterexample genuinely addresses. Check: Match the counterexample to the rule’s actual quantifiers and scope.
Show precisely why the counterexample defeats or narrows that rule. Check: Identify the failed condition rather than simply announcing disagreement.
Provide a corrected rule the learner can use positively. Check: Test the new rule on the original counterexample.
Use to refine a plausible but explicitly hypothetical misunderstanding. It suits teaching explanations and training examples. Avoid it when there is no useful contrast, when a learner would be blamed for an invented error, or when an incident notice would become a lecture. The mistaken proposition belongs to the demonstration, not to a fabricated participant.
\n\nOpen with a plausible generalization framed as a possibility, not a report of someone’s mistake. Offer a supplied counterexample, show which part of the rule needs revision, then state the corrected rule. Do not merely announce that the first claim is wrong. The reader needs to see how the counterexample changes the scope. Finish with a positive formulation that can guide action without requiring the reader to remember the erroneous one.
\n\nUse if, suppose or a question to mark the hypothetical case. Put the counterexample near the claim it defeats. Make the corrected rule a complete sentence and repeat the exact technical term. Each paragraph should have a learning function: proposition, test, revised understanding. Limit rhetorical questions to ones actually answered. Avoid mock dialogue, gotcha language and praise that implies the learner was previously incompetent.
\n\nFeature: test the assumption that restoring must erase history, using the supplied nondeletion fact. Workshop: distinguish paragraph revision from bringing a whole document without prescribing extra preparation. Incident: remove the teaching exercise; unavailability is the news, not a hypothetical mistake to interrogate.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “You probably think restoring erases everything. That is a beginner mistake.”
\n\nThe tutor invents the learner’s belief and uses status-based contempt instead of a worked counterexample. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nA restore does not have to erase stored history: in Draftline, restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history.
V06 develops understanding through a sequence of questions. P34 supplies one proposition and a counterexample that revises it. It is a teaching recipe compatible with several voices, not proof of a new personality. P33 maps an analogy; this recipe tests a rule against an exception.
\n\nThe example may be simple. Difficulty or adversarial tone is not evidence of intellectual rigor.
\n\nA rule may survive the proposed counterexample. The tutor must acknowledge that rather than forcing a predetermined lesson.
\n\nUse an exception outside the rule’s stated scope. Check: Check whether the supposed refutation changes the question.
Stop after humiliating or disproving the learner. Check: A usable revised understanding must remain.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Constructed teaching facts: an export can be accepted and still queued; completion, not acceptance, makes its file available.
\n\nConstructed exchange. Learner: “Accepted means ready.” Tutor: “What about an accepted export still in the queue?” Learner: “Then my rule is too broad.” Tutor: “What rule survives?” Learner: “Acceptance means queued; completion makes the file available.”
\n\nConstructed exchange. Learner: “Accepted means ready.” Tutor: “Wrong. An accepted export can still be queued. Completion makes the file available. That was a foolish assumption.”
\n\nWhy it differs: The correction contains the facts but abandons the responsive, rule-revising teaching operation for a dismissive pronouncement.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nThe sources support probing and revising reasoning. The exact counterexample-to-positive-rule recipe is local.
\n\nHow to Use the Socratic Method in the Classroom — Primary pedagogical guidance.
Counterargument — University teaching guidance.
Asking Analytical Questions — University teaching guidance.
Draftline’s Version history becomes available on 20 October 2026. Versions are retained for 30 days. The feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.
\n\nOnly workspace editors can restore a version. Open Version history to access the feature. Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. The feature cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled.
\n\nThe documented operation changes which version is current while leaving stored history intact. Plan inclusion describes the charge for the feature; editor permission describes who can restore. Neither term removes the deleted-file boundary.
\n\nThis is an interpretation of the specified operation, not a report of observed user behavior. It supports explaining the distinction but does not establish that readers understand it.
\n\nCan readers describe both the restore result and its recovery limit after reading the explanation? An answer would require actual audience evidence. The record here contains a feature specification, so it can supply the terms for that question without supplying a finding about comprehension.
" }, { "key": "human-r01", "label": "Study participants, quoted by Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke · Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK", "path": "excerpts/R01.md", "source": { "title": "Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK", "author": "Study participants, quoted by Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke", "publicationDate": "2021-10-13", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258344", "locator": "Findings §1: Loss of in-person interaction; participant quotations; Method/Procedure/Analysis for provenance", "rights": "CC BY 4.0", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/", "relationship": "Researchers distinguish interpretation and attributed evidence; not a field-note annotation system.", "edition": "2021-10-13", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "Participant quotations reproduced from the credited research article; omissions are marked. No participant identity is inferred.", "note": "Participant testimony quoted in the research article." }, "markdown": "“I think it’s probably the not socialising like face-to-face.”\n\n(Participant 1, 27-year-old female)\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]\n\n“You sort of don’t realise how sociable you are, or how much of a routine you’re in of seeing people until you physically can’t.”\n\n(Participant 2, 21-year-old female)\n", "id": "P35/human-r01", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "“I think it’s probably the not socialising like face-to-face.”\n\n(Participant 1, 27-year-old female)\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]\n\n“You sort of don’t realise how sociable you are, or how much of a routine you’re in of seeing people until you physically can’t.”\n\n(Participant 2, 21-year-old female)\n", "sha256": "b733476af18b8847db35aa2b16c2ea14e592539673ee4b62902721e90a246d2d", "html": "“I think it’s probably the not socialising like face-to-face.”
\n\n(Participant 1, 27-year-old female)
\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]
\n\n“You sort of don’t realise how sociable you are, or how much of a routine you’re in of seeing people until you physically can’t.”
\n\n(Participant 2, 21-year-old female)
" }, { "key": "human-l11", "label": "Nellie Bly · Ten Days in a Mad-House", "path": "excerpts/L11.md", "source": { "title": "Ten Days in a Mad-House", "author": "Nellie Bly", "publicationDate": "1887", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/59899", "locator": "Chapter I, opening assignment account", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/59899", "relationship": "An observer describes her assignment and experience; modern annotation and consent standards differ.", "edition": "New York: Norman L. Munro, 1887; Gutenberg transcription released 2019-07-10", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "On the 22d of September I was asked by the World if I could have myself committed to one of the asylums for the insane in New York, with a view to writing a plain and unvarnished narrative of the treatment of the patients therein and the methods of management, etc.\n\nDid I think I had the courage to go through such an ordeal as the mission would demand? Could I assume the characteristics of insanity to such a degree that I could pass the doctors, live for a week among the insane without the authorities there finding out that I was only a “chiel amang ’em takin’ notes?” I said I believed I could.\n", "id": "P35/human-l11", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "On the 22d of September I was asked by the World if I could have myself committed to one of the asylums for the insane in New York, with a view to writing a plain and unvarnished narrative of the treatment of the patients therein and the methods of management, etc.\n\nDid I think I had the courage to go through such an ordeal as the mission would demand? Could I assume the characteristics of insanity to such a degree that I could pass the doctors, live for a week among the insane without the authorities there finding out that I was only a “chiel amang ’em takin’ notes?” I said I believed I could.\n", "sha256": "cf227cd83fd6892c102f8f503a8966c186e315cd62028ecb2b441407126ce3a8", "html": "On the 22d of September I was asked by the World if I could have myself committed to one of the asylums for the insane in New York, with a view to writing a plain and unvarnished narrative of the treatment of the patients therein and the methods of management, etc.
\n\nDid I think I had the courage to go through such an ordeal as the mission would demand? Could I assume the characteristics of insanity to such a degree that I could pass the doctors, live for a week among the insane without the authorities there finding out that I was only a “chiel amang ’em takin’ notes?” I said I believed I could.
" }, { "key": "human-r01-abstract", "label": "Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke · Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK — Abstract", "path": "excerpts/R01-abstract.md", "source": { "title": "Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK — Abstract", "author": "Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke", "publicationDate": "2021-10-13", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258344", "locator": "Complete author-written Abstract; original section headings retained.", "rights": "CC BY 4.0", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/", "relationship": "Connects the research question, method and findings in a compact summary.", "edition": "2021-10-13", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke. Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK — Abstract. PLOS ONE (2021). CC BY 4.0. Retained abstract with original headings.", "note": "" }, "markdown": "## Abstract\n\nThe COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated physical distancing which is expected to continue in some form for the foreseeable future. Physical distancing policies have increased reliance on digital forms of social connection and there are widespread concerns about social isolation and mental health in this context. This qualitative study sought to understand how loneliness was experienced during physical distancing in the initial national UK COVID-19 lockdown. Eight individuals who reported feeling lonely during the initial lockdown were interviewed in May 2020. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Four main themes were identified: (1) Loss of in-person interaction causing loneliness, (2) Constrained freedom, (3) Challenging emotions, and (4) Coping with loneliness. The loss of in-person interaction contributed to feelings of loneliness and digital interaction was viewed as an insufficient alternative. Social freedom could be constrained by distancing policies and by social contacts, contributing to strained personal relationships and feelings of frustration as part of loneliness. Fluctuations in mood and difficult emotions were experienced alongside loneliness, and distraction and seeking reconnection were commonly reported methods of coping, although they were less accessible. These findings indicate that physical distancing measures can impact loneliness due to the limitations they impose on in-person social contact and the perceived insufficiency of digital contact as a substitute.\n", "id": "P35/human-r01-abstract", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "## Abstract\n\nThe COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated physical distancing which is expected to continue in some form for the foreseeable future. Physical distancing policies have increased reliance on digital forms of social connection and there are widespread concerns about social isolation and mental health in this context. This qualitative study sought to understand how loneliness was experienced during physical distancing in the initial national UK COVID-19 lockdown. Eight individuals who reported feeling lonely during the initial lockdown were interviewed in May 2020. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Four main themes were identified: (1) Loss of in-person interaction causing loneliness, (2) Constrained freedom, (3) Challenging emotions, and (4) Coping with loneliness. The loss of in-person interaction contributed to feelings of loneliness and digital interaction was viewed as an insufficient alternative. Social freedom could be constrained by distancing policies and by social contacts, contributing to strained personal relationships and feelings of frustration as part of loneliness. Fluctuations in mood and difficult emotions were experienced alongside loneliness, and distraction and seeking reconnection were commonly reported methods of coping, although they were less accessible. These findings indicate that physical distancing measures can impact loneliness due to the limitations they impose on in-person social contact and the perceived insufficiency of digital contact as a substitute.\n", "sha256": "30d2e00dc0145e78034210174c7deeb04ca10604a328f9638b599642e7255824", "html": "The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated physical distancing which is expected to continue in some form for the foreseeable future. Physical distancing policies have increased reliance on digital forms of social connection and there are widespread concerns about social isolation and mental health in this context. This qualitative study sought to understand how loneliness was experienced during physical distancing in the initial national UK COVID-19 lockdown. Eight individuals who reported feeling lonely during the initial lockdown were interviewed in May 2020. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Four main themes were identified: (1) Loss of in-person interaction causing loneliness, (2) Constrained freedom, (3) Challenging emotions, and (4) Coping with loneliness. The loss of in-person interaction contributed to feelings of loneliness and digital interaction was viewed as an insufficient alternative. Social freedom could be constrained by distancing policies and by social contacts, contributing to strained personal relationships and feelings of frustration as part of loneliness. Fluctuations in mood and difficult emotions were experienced alongside loneliness, and distraction and seeking reconnection were commonly reported methods of coping, although they were less accessible. These findings indicate that physical distancing measures can impact loneliness due to the limitations they impose on in-person social contact and the perceived insufficiency of digital contact as a substitute.
" }, { "key": "human-r02-abstract", "label": "Ilaria Falvo; Maria Caiata Zufferey; Emiliano Albanese; Marta Fadda · Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study — Abstract", "path": "excerpts/R02-abstract.md", "source": { "title": "Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study — Abstract", "author": "Ilaria Falvo; Maria Caiata Zufferey; Emiliano Albanese; Marta Fadda", "publicationDate": "2021-06-23", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252101", "locator": "Complete author-written Abstract; original section headings retained.", "rights": "CC BY 4.0", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/", "relationship": "Connects the research question, method and findings in a compact summary.", "edition": "2021-06-23", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "Ilaria Falvo; Maria Caiata Zufferey; Emiliano Albanese; Marta Fadda. Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study — Abstract. PLOS ONE (2021). CC BY 4.0. Retained abstract with original headings.", "note": "" }, "markdown": "## Background and aim\n\nPublic health measures used to mitigate the COVID-19 epidemic may have unintended, detrimental consequences particularly on older adults, whose voices and perspectives are often silent or silenced. The aim of this study was to explore the lived experiences of individuals aged 64 or older during the first COVID-19 lockdown.\n\n## Methods\n\nWe conducted a qualitative study in a convenience sample of 19 older adults (aged 64+) living at home in the Italian-speaking region of Switzerland during the first COVID-19 lockdown, between April and May 2020. Participants varied in terms of gender, education, age, nationality, and socio-economic status. We conducted semi-structured phone interviews to elicit emotions, expectations and hopes in relation to the present situation, and the post-pandemic world. We inquired about opinions on the enforced public health measures, including those specifically targeting older adults, and on the societal portrayal of older adults.\n\n## Findings\n\nWe found that the epidemic and the public health response to it had both generated a variety of resentments and a high degree of ambivalence at the individual, micro-, meso- and macro-social levels. We also found that labelling older adults as an at-risk sub-population inevitably contributed to public and self-stigmatization.\n\n## Discussion\n\nWe conducted an in-depth qualitative investigation of lived experiences of older adults during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in one of the most gravely hit region in Europe. Our findings on the complexity of unintended, detrimental consequences of outbreak responses on older adults have relevant implications for local adaptions of public health measures, and suggest that public health authorities should engage vulnerable sub-populations and promote bi-directional communication to inform and support communities.\n", "id": "P35/human-r02-abstract", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "## Background and aim\n\nPublic health measures used to mitigate the COVID-19 epidemic may have unintended, detrimental consequences particularly on older adults, whose voices and perspectives are often silent or silenced. The aim of this study was to explore the lived experiences of individuals aged 64 or older during the first COVID-19 lockdown.\n\n## Methods\n\nWe conducted a qualitative study in a convenience sample of 19 older adults (aged 64+) living at home in the Italian-speaking region of Switzerland during the first COVID-19 lockdown, between April and May 2020. Participants varied in terms of gender, education, age, nationality, and socio-economic status. We conducted semi-structured phone interviews to elicit emotions, expectations and hopes in relation to the present situation, and the post-pandemic world. We inquired about opinions on the enforced public health measures, including those specifically targeting older adults, and on the societal portrayal of older adults.\n\n## Findings\n\nWe found that the epidemic and the public health response to it had both generated a variety of resentments and a high degree of ambivalence at the individual, micro-, meso- and macro-social levels. We also found that labelling older adults as an at-risk sub-population inevitably contributed to public and self-stigmatization.\n\n## Discussion\n\nWe conducted an in-depth qualitative investigation of lived experiences of older adults during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in one of the most gravely hit region in Europe. Our findings on the complexity of unintended, detrimental consequences of outbreak responses on older adults have relevant implications for local adaptions of public health measures, and suggest that public health authorities should engage vulnerable sub-populations and promote bi-directional communication to inform and support communities.\n", "sha256": "962b0fd4a653aad8e016368ad85ce32ddad6a1ec52f593a98e812ef12995329f", "html": "Public health measures used to mitigate the COVID-19 epidemic may have unintended, detrimental consequences particularly on older adults, whose voices and perspectives are often silent or silenced. The aim of this study was to explore the lived experiences of individuals aged 64 or older during the first COVID-19 lockdown.
\n\nWe conducted a qualitative study in a convenience sample of 19 older adults (aged 64+) living at home in the Italian-speaking region of Switzerland during the first COVID-19 lockdown, between April and May 2020. Participants varied in terms of gender, education, age, nationality, and socio-economic status. We conducted semi-structured phone interviews to elicit emotions, expectations and hopes in relation to the present situation, and the post-pandemic world. We inquired about opinions on the enforced public health measures, including those specifically targeting older adults, and on the societal portrayal of older adults.
\n\nWe found that the epidemic and the public health response to it had both generated a variety of resentments and a high degree of ambivalence at the individual, micro-, meso- and macro-social levels. We also found that labelling older adults as an at-risk sub-population inevitably contributed to public and self-stigmatization.
\n\nWe conducted an in-depth qualitative investigation of lived experiences of older adults during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in one of the most gravely hit region in Europe. Our findings on the complexity of unintended, detrimental consequences of outbreak responses on older adults have relevant implications for local adaptions of public health measures, and suggest that public health authorities should engage vulnerable sub-populations and promote bi-directional communication to inform and support communities.
" }, { "id": "P35/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## Clearer Notes: event record\n\n**Task:** attendees bring one paragraph to revise.\n\n**Date and time:** 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.\n\n**Terms:** the workshop is free and has 12 places. Registration closes on 5 November.\n\nIf you intend to attend, register before registration closes and bring your selected paragraph. The event date and the registration deadline are different entries: the deadline precedes the workshop.\n\nThis record gives the practical terms for participation. It does not describe attendance already recorded or results from a completed workshop.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P35\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Clearer Notes: event record\n\n**Task:** attendees bring one paragraph to revise.\n\n**Date and time:** 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.\n\n**Terms:** the workshop is free and has 12 places. Registration closes on 5 November.\n\nIf you intend to attend, register before registration closes and bring your selected paragraph. The event date and the registration deadline are different entries: the deadline precedes the workshop.\n\nThis record gives the practical terms for participation. It does not describe attendance already recorded or results from a completed workshop.\n\n", "sha256": "1d79fd13b7e6c5376d331b6a82f792f2932c1d46ccdabe47afccf8cf6d2971ee", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 9.375, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7630769230769231, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 26.666666666666668, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 12, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 6.666666666666667, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 75, "prose_sentences": 8, "prose_paragraphs": 5, "reader_address_events": 2, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 5, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "1d79fd13b7e6c5376d331b6a82f792f2932c1d46ccdabe47afccf8cf6d2971ee", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Task: attendees bring one paragraph to revise.
\n\nDate and time: 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.
\n\nTerms: the workshop is free and has 12 places. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nIf you intend to attend, register before registration closes and bring your selected paragraph. The event date and the registration deadline are different entries: the deadline precedes the workshop.
\n\nThis record gives the practical terms for participation. It does not describe attendance already recorded or results from a completed workshop.
" }, { "id": "P35/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## Draftline status record\n\n**Known:** new uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read.\n\n**Unknown:** the cause.\n\n**Next update:** 3 p.m.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P35\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Draftline status record\n\n**Known:** new uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read.\n\n**Unknown:** the cause.\n\n**Next update:** 3 p.m.\n\n", "sha256": "334ed635b5558dffb0ce87339c5ef17e75816026e80562995448d0549e3c7819", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 6, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 4, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 22.22222222222222, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 18, "prose_sentences": 3, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 4, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "334ed635b5558dffb0ce87339c5ef17e75816026e80562995448d0549e3c7819", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Known: new uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read.
\n\nUnknown: the cause.
\n\nNext update: 3 p.m.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P35", "sample_id": "P35/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P35/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "4c5620cfde1eaf4262c68363f3496fc5a857bd94972c74ee67667f1845cfdf76", "trimmed_body_sha256": "32c68e5ed6528dc7b53a9238c46672e2b33e3933e9208a58b0fc8b9257f6de12", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The documented operation changes which version is current while leaving stored history intact.", "start": 522, "end": 616, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Precise evidentiary or specification framing places this above neutral professional prose, while it remains below ceremonial/institutional convention." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Draftline’s **Version history** becomes available on **20 October 2026**. Versions are retained for **30 days**. The feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.", "start": 38, "end": 222, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Reading the complete sample shows no intended comic device; factual phrasing and the quoted passage illustrate that restrained posture." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Draftline’s **Version history** becomes available on **20 October 2026**. Versions are retained for **30 days**. The feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.", "start": 38, "end": 222, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The sample states availability and operating terms without sustained excitement, celebratory wording or energetic encouragement; positive usefulness alone is not enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The record here contains a feature specification", "start": 1145, "end": 1193, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The reader relationship is primarily impersonal and task/evidence focused; no passage establishes relational acknowledgment beyond operating guidance." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Plan inclusion describes the charge for the feature; editor permission describes who can restore.", "start": 617, "end": 714, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The sample lightly assumes familiarity with workspace/editor/version terminology, while explaining the consequential relations; it does not require dense specialist knowledge." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Plan inclusion describes the charge for the feature; editor permission describes who can restore.", "start": 617, "end": 714, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The complete piece develops multiple related conditions and explains why a distinction matters, beyond selected statements; the cited passage supports that intermediate level." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session", "title": "Analyse a research session", "id": "S46" }, { "url": "https://oralhistory.org/principles-and-best-practices-revised-2018/", "title": "OHA Principles and Best Practices", "id": "S49" } ], "researchLimits": "Observation handling is supported by primary guidance; a record-like layout does not establish fieldwork.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p35-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p35-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P35/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P35/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P35/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P35.svg", "bundleSha256": "507fea4a5ffc4d70e1f8091d050d4e6ee18d27e38fc646d044b8d17080cc88c2", "bundleBytes": 101582 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: evidence-labeling module, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nUse when readers must distinguish a supplied record from an interpretation and a future question. It suits field notes only when observations actually exist; it also suits specification analysis. Avoid it as decoration for a simple invitation or as a way to make synthetic material look like witnessed research. Missing observations remain missing.
\n\nOpen by identifying the kind of record available. Describe only what that record shows, then separate interpretation from a question that could test it. Each layer answers a different question: what is supplied, what follows from it, what remains unknown. Do not call a specification an observation of user behavior. End with a question whose answer would genuinely change the interpretation, rather than an ornamental suggestion for more research.
\n\nLabels such as Record, Interpretation and Question are useful when they identify actual evidence classes. Use complete sentences for inferences and short factual clauses for records. Keep source scope in the subject of the sentence. Paragraphs should not switch unannounced from described behavior to measured outcomes. A question mark can preserve an unresolved issue, but it does not excuse a leading question that assumes the desired answer.
\n\nFeature: analyze the specification and ask about comprehension without asserting fieldwork. Workshop: use an event record if the module is retained, and recognize that an ordinary invitation may fit better. Incident: Known and Unknown can aid retrieval; add no supposed observation time, response team or diagnostic conclusion.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “Observed: every user felt reassured as soon as history appeared.”
\n\nThe evidence label makes invented participant feelings appear observed. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nRecord: versions are retained for 30 days. Question: can readers explain the retention limit? No participant observations are supplied.
V13 admits provisional notes and connections. P35 adds evidence labels and a stricter separation among record, inference and future question. It is a module applicable to notebook or research voices, not a demonstrated independent voice. P48 requires participant evidence; this module can work with a specification instead.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "R01", "title": "Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK", "author": "Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke", "year": "2021", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258344", "relationship": "Researchers distinguish interpretation and attributed evidence; not a field-note annotation system.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Qualitative research article containing transcribed speech", "publicationDate": "2021-10-13" }, { "id": "L11", "title": "Ten Days in a Mad-House", "author": "Nellie Bly", "year": "1887", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/59899", "relationship": "An observer describes her assignment and experience; modern annotation and consent standards differ.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Undercover investigative reportage", "publicationDate": "1887" }, { "id": "R01-abstract", "title": "Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK — Abstract", "author": "Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke", "year": "2021", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258344", "relationship": "Connects the research question, method and findings in a compact summary.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Qualitative research abstract", "publicationDate": "2021-10-13" }, { "id": "R02-abstract", "title": "Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study — Abstract", "author": "Ilaria Falvo; Maria Caiata Zufferey; Emiliano Albanese; Marta Fadda", "year": "2021", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252101", "relationship": "Connects the research question, method and findings in a compact summary.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Qualitative research abstract", "publicationDate": "2021-06-23" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Annotated field observer · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P35.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Analyse a research session", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session", "relationship": "Government practitioner guidance" }, { "title": "OHA Statement on Ethics", "url": "https://oralhistory.org/oha-statement-on-ethics/", "relationship": "Professional association ethics guidance" }, { "title": "Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research — registry record", "url": "https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/srqr/", "relationship": "Reporting-guideline registry" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A research-and-annotation combination that keeps the record, observation, interpretation, and next discriminating question visibly separate. Documentary-looking notes are not automatically field evidence.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nActual field material or a declared synthetic record; method and source context; parent V12. Manifest combination status is retained despite guide-header drift.
\n\nSource record → bounded observation → marked interpretation → rival reading or missing evidence → next question.
\n\nIdentify the record’s provenance and evidence class. Check: Distinguish participant data, design specification, and synthetic exercise.
Keep observation and interpretation separately labeled or unmistakable. Check: A reader must be able to recover what happened without adopting the interpretation.
Name a question or observation that could discriminate between interpretations. Check: Specify what further evidence would be informative.
Use when readers must distinguish a supplied record from an interpretation and a future question. It suits field notes only when observations actually exist; it also suits specification analysis. Avoid it as decoration for a simple invitation or as a way to make synthetic material look like witnessed research. Missing observations remain missing.
\n\nOpen by identifying the kind of record available. Describe only what that record shows, then separate interpretation from a question that could test it. Each layer answers a different question: what is supplied, what follows from it, what remains unknown. Do not call a specification an observation of user behavior. End with a question whose answer would genuinely change the interpretation, rather than an ornamental suggestion for more research.
\n\nLabels such as Record, Interpretation and Question are useful when they identify actual evidence classes. Use complete sentences for inferences and short factual clauses for records. Keep source scope in the subject of the sentence. Paragraphs should not switch unannounced from described behavior to measured outcomes. A question mark can preserve an unresolved issue, but it does not excuse a leading question that assumes the desired answer.
\n\nFeature: analyze the specification and ask about comprehension without asserting fieldwork. Workshop: use an event record if the module is retained, and recognize that an ordinary invitation may fit better. Incident: Known and Unknown can aid retrieval; add no supposed observation time, response team or diagnostic conclusion.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “Observed: every user felt reassured as soon as history appeared.”
\n\nThe evidence label makes invented participant feelings appear observed. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nRecord: versions are retained for 30 days. Question: can readers explain the retention limit? No participant observations are supplied.
V13 admits provisional notes and connections. P35 adds evidence labels and a stricter separation among record, inference and future question. It is a module applicable to notebook or research voices, not a demonstrated independent voice. P48 requires participant evidence; this module can work with a specification instead.
\n\nA compact annotation can pass. A full ethnography or exhaustive coding table is not required for every application.
\n\nResolve the manifest/guide taxonomy disagreement before installation. This dossier does not silently turn P35 into an independent voice.
\n\nTreat a planned interface behavior as observed user behavior. Check: Check whether the record contains an actual participant event.
Erase relevant contrary or isolated evidence merely because it complicates a theme. Check: Document exclusions and preserve consequential minority cases.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Synthetic record: one of four volunteers asks, “Does accepted mean ready?” There are no comparison or timing data. This is invented research material for a diagnostic.
\n\nSynthetic record: one of four volunteers asked, “Does accepted mean ready?”\nObservation: the question distinguishes two possible meanings.\nInterpretation: the label may leave completion status unclear.\nLimit: this does not establish prevalence.\nNext question: does the same uncertainty appear when the task and status wording are held constant with other participants?
\n\nSynthetic field insight: users are confused by “accepted.” One of four volunteers asked whether it meant ready, and there are no comparison or timing data. The label is bad.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second transforms a bounded observation into a generalized verdict and collapses record, interpretation, and evaluation.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nGDS directly distinguishes observation from interpretation. SRQR is only a reporting-guideline lead; the combination’s exact parent decomposition still requires owner reconciliation.
\n\nAnalyse a research session — Government practitioner guidance.
OHA Statement on Ethics — Professional association ethics guidance.
Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research — registry record — Reporting-guideline registry.
Only workspace editors can restore a version in Draftline’s Version history. Inclusion on an existing plan does not expand that permission to every person using a workspace.
\n\nVersion history becomes available on 20 October 2026. It retains versions for 30 days and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Open Version history to access the feature.
\n\nWithin that scope, an editor’s restore makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. The available operation is to make a retained version current; the history already stored remains in place.
\n\nThe recovery boundary is equally direct: Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. That condition should accompany any explanation of what restoring can do. Neither the launch date nor the lack of an additional charge removes it.
\n\nKeep the two limits separate when describing the capability. Editor permission governs who can restore. The retained history and the pre-enablement deletion boundary govern the task this feature can support. Both are part of the explanation, rather than qualifications to negotiate after an unsupported promise.
" }, { "key": "human-l12", "label": "Abraham Lincoln · Letter to Ulysses S. Grant", "path": "excerpts/L12.md", "source": { "title": "Letter to Ulysses S. Grant", "author": "Abraham Lincoln", "publicationDate": "1863-07-13", "url": "https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/vicksburg.htm", "locator": "Quoted letter body beginning “I do not remember”", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/vicksburg.htm", "relationship": "Respectful acknowledgment is a boundary-adjacent correspondence case.", "edition": "Historical letter as transcribed by the U.S. National Park Service", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "I do not remember that you and I ever met personally. I write this now as a grateful acknowledgement for the almost inestimable service you have done the country. I wish to say a word further. When you first reached the vicinity of Vicksburg, I thought you should do, what you finally did - march the troops across the neck, run the batteries with the transports, and thus go below; and I never had any faith, except a general hope that you knew better than I, that the Yazoo Pass expedition, and the like, could succeed. When you got below, and took Port-Gibson, Grand Gulf, and vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and join Gen. Banks; and when you turned Northward East of the Big Black, I feared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong.\n", "id": "P36/human-l12", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "I do not remember that you and I ever met personally. I write this now as a grateful acknowledgement for the almost inestimable service you have done the country. I wish to say a word further. When you first reached the vicinity of Vicksburg, I thought you should do, what you finally did - march the troops across the neck, run the batteries with the transports, and thus go below; and I never had any faith, except a general hope that you knew better than I, that the Yazoo Pass expedition, and the like, could succeed. When you got below, and took Port-Gibson, Grand Gulf, and vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and join Gen. Banks; and when you turned Northward East of the Big Black, I feared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong.\n", "sha256": "5ac4f51688d21ac0980cfecb2c7d8bbc4b9ba245cf9d5eb20fdd52529f838b70", "html": "I do not remember that you and I ever met personally. I write this now as a grateful acknowledgement for the almost inestimable service you have done the country. I wish to say a word further. When you first reached the vicinity of Vicksburg, I thought you should do, what you finally did - march the troops across the neck, run the batteries with the transports, and thus go below; and I never had any faith, except a general hope that you knew better than I, that the Yazoo Pass expedition, and the like, could succeed. When you got below, and took Port-Gibson, Grand Gulf, and vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and join Gen. Banks; and when you turned Northward East of the Big Black, I feared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong.
" }, { "id": "P36/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## Clearer Notes: registration closes 5 November\n\nClearer Notes takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** The workshop is free and has **12 places**.\n\nAttendees bring **one paragraph to revise**. If you intend to attend, register before registration closes on **5 November**, and bring the passage you want to work on.\n\nThe registration closing date is part of the workshop’s terms. Keep it distinct from the event date when planning. The invitation gives the closing date and capacity; it does not describe an exception or a late-registration arrangement.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P36\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Clearer Notes: registration closes 5 November\n\nClearer Notes takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** The workshop is free and has **12 places**.\n\nAttendees bring **one paragraph to revise**. If you intend to attend, register before registration closes on **5 November**, and bring the passage you want to work on.\n\nThe registration closing date is part of the workshop’s terms. Keep it distinct from the event date when planning. The invitation gives the closing date and capacity; it does not describe an exception or a late-registration arrangement.\n\n", "sha256": "875ea24a4c0cf37ea97602c2da1ffb0fb3fda2b6b034e4956b0db89acbea52f3", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 13.166666666666666, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.744, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 25.31645569620253, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 26, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 11.39240506329114, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 79, "prose_sentences": 6, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 2, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 1, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "875ea24a4c0cf37ea97602c2da1ffb0fb3fda2b6b034e4956b0db89acbea52f3", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Clearer Notes takes place on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. The workshop is free and has 12 places.
\n\nAttendees bring one paragraph to revise. If you intend to attend, register before registration closes on 5 November, and bring the passage you want to work on.
\n\nThe registration closing date is part of the workshop’s terms. Keep it distinct from the event date when planning. The invitation gives the closing date and capacity; it does not describe an exception or a late-registration arrangement.
" }, { "id": "P36/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## Draftline upload status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P36\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Draftline upload status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\n", "sha256": "c28b209cfc8eed552e0960feac7a048cfb4db8f2fc588fa8cadefa7d48cca683", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 5.75, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 8.695652173913043, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 23, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 2, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "c28b209cfc8eed552e0960feac7a048cfb4db8f2fc588fa8cadefa7d48cca683", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P36", "sample_id": "P36/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P36/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "1e3d28df7f203ca6c4a3c998f03bb18b7a5a16b902d4b79724dbb80e15edae14", "trimmed_body_sha256": "810dc74ff18dd94371239d88e1191ac553b48169fb9b4db0805a75d9ba2e0b7a", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Both are part of the explanation, rather than qualifications to negotiate after an unsupported promise.", "start": 1107, "end": 1210, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public/professional wording is neutral and readable, without sustained conversational intimacy or ceremonial convention." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Version history becomes available on **20 October 2026**. It retains versions for **30 days** and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Open Version history to access the feature.", "start": 214, "end": 415, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Reading the complete sample shows no intended comic device; factual phrasing and the quoted passage illustrate that restrained posture." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Version history becomes available on **20 October 2026**. It retains versions for **30 days** and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Open Version history to access the feature.", "start": 214, "end": 415, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The sample states availability and operating terms without sustained excitement, celebratory wording or energetic encouragement; positive usefulness alone is not enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Restore access has a limit", "start": 3, "end": 29, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The reader relationship is primarily impersonal and task/evidence focused; no passage establishes relational acknowledgment beyond operating guidance." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Editor permission governs who can restore.", "start": 960, "end": 1002, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The sample lightly assumes familiarity with workspace/editor/version terminology, while explaining the consequential relations; it does not require dense specialist knowledge." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Editor permission governs who can restore.", "start": 960, "end": 1002, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The complete piece develops multiple related conditions and explains why a distinction matters, beyond selected statements; the cited passage supports that intermediate level." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://styleguide.mailchimp.com/voice-and-tone/", "title": "Voice and Tone", "id": "S18" }, { "url": "https://developers.google.com/style/tone", "title": "Tone", "id": "S20" } ], "researchLimits": "Tone guidance does not establish authority to deny a request or promise an exception.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p36-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p36-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P36/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P36/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P36/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P36.svg", "bundleSha256": "102a62e07165502a802f9099371654d92a0452eed172e80862fd645dbecf89b3", "bundleBytes": 89247 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: modifier, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nUse when a limit must be stated directly and respectfully. It suits permission explanations, support boundaries and professional refusals. Avoid it when no limit is relevant, or where an invented alternative would soften a restriction misleadingly. The modifier regulates firmness and dignity; it does not authorize a policy or create an exception.
\n\nOpen with the limit when it governs the reader’s action. Explain the exact scope, place any genuinely available alternative beside it, then close without negotiating away the condition. A boundary can coexist with a helpful route, but the route must be supplied. Do not open with apology so extensive that the condition becomes hard to find. When there is no alternative, a precise status and next checkpoint are enough.
\n\nUse direct declaratives and named roles. Only, cannot and closes are necessary words when they match the source. Keep reasons separate from limits if no reason has been supplied. Paragraphs should pair a condition with the action it governs. Avoid moral judgment, implied blame and repeated apologetic hedges. A short boundary sentence followed by a factual explanation is firmer and clearer than a threat or an unsupported promise.
\n\nFeature: state editor-only access and the deleted-file boundary; do not invent an exception process. Workshop: state closing date and capacity without guessing eligibility or late-registration policy. Incident: describe upload unavailability without framing it as a user violation, then give the unknown cause and update time.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “We might make an exception so anyone can restore any file if they ask nicely.”
\n\nThe modifier invents an exception and changes the permission and recovery boundaries. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nOnly workspace editors can restore a version. Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled.
V18 handles disagreement through reasons and constructive alternatives. P36 modifies the handling of a limit; it can apply without disagreement and without an available alternative. It is a stance modifier, not an independently demonstrated voice. P31 concerns optional participation; P36 concerns conditions that remain in force.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "M05", "title": "Maker’s Schedule, Manager’s Schedule", "author": "Paul Graham", "year": "2009", "url": "https://paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html", "relationship": "Same negotiated-boundary evidence as canonical V18.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Conversational explanatory essay", "publicationDate": "2009-07" }, { "id": "L12", "title": "Letter to Ulysses S. Grant", "author": "Abraham Lincoln", "year": "1863", "url": "https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/vicksburg.htm", "relationship": "Respectful acknowledgment is a boundary-adjacent correspondence case.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Professional personal correspondence", "publicationDate": "1863-07-13" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Calm boundary setter · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P36.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Brand voice: Above all, simple and human", "url": "https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/style-guide/brand-voice-above-all-simple-human", "relationship": "Organization-owned house style" }, { "title": "Counterargument", "url": "https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/counterargument", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" }, { "title": "Stylistic Editing", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/stylistic-editing/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A boundary-emphasizing alias of V18. The writer states a real limit clearly and respectfully without diluting it through invented alternatives or apologetic ambiguity.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA real boundary, its scope, the speaker’s actual authority, and any feasible alternative; canonical V18.
\n\nBoundary → scope and reason → genuine alternative if available → retained limit.
\n\nResolve membership through V18 rather than creating a second base profile. Check: Check canonical identity and evaluation counts.
State the limit early and specify what it applies to. Check: A reviewer must be able to tell what is refused or unavailable.
Maintain the same boundary through the closing. Check: A warm ending must not reverse or blur the refusal.
Use when a limit must be stated directly and respectfully. It suits permission explanations, support boundaries and professional refusals. Avoid it when no limit is relevant, or where an invented alternative would soften a restriction misleadingly. The modifier regulates firmness and dignity; it does not authorize a policy or create an exception.
\n\nOpen with the limit when it governs the reader’s action. Explain the exact scope, place any genuinely available alternative beside it, then close without negotiating away the condition. A boundary can coexist with a helpful route, but the route must be supplied. Do not open with apology so extensive that the condition becomes hard to find. When there is no alternative, a precise status and next checkpoint are enough.
\n\nUse direct declaratives and named roles. Only, cannot and closes are necessary words when they match the source. Keep reasons separate from limits if no reason has been supplied. Paragraphs should pair a condition with the action it governs. Avoid moral judgment, implied blame and repeated apologetic hedges. A short boundary sentence followed by a factual explanation is firmer and clearer than a threat or an unsupported promise.
\n\nFeature: state editor-only access and the deleted-file boundary; do not invent an exception process. Workshop: state closing date and capacity without guessing eligibility or late-registration policy. Incident: describe upload unavailability without framing it as a user violation, then give the unknown cause and update time.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “We might make an exception so anyone can restore any file if they ask nicely.”
\n\nThe modifier invents an exception and changes the permission and recovery boundaries. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nOnly workspace editors can restore a version. Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled.
V18 handles disagreement through reasons and constructive alternatives. P36 modifies the handling of a limit; it can apply without disagreement and without an available alternative. It is a stance modifier, not an independently demonstrated voice. P31 concerns optional participation; P36 concerns conditions that remain in force.
\n\nA calm boundary may be one sentence. An apology or shared-goal preamble is not compulsory.
\n\nA clear V18 passage can satisfy this alias without additional traits. Do not penalize overlap that the manifest intentionally creates.
\n\nSuggest an alternative that is not actually available. Check: Verify every proposed route.
Use excessive apology to make the boundary undecidable. Check: Ask the reader to identify the final answer.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional boundary: editor cannot approve a workshop until staffing is confirmed; no alternative approver is supplied.
\n\nI cannot approve the workshop while staffing is unconfirmed. No alternative approval route has been specified. Please return with the staffing confirmation before requesting approval.
\n\nStaffing is unconfirmed, and no alternative approval route has been specified. Approval is something we should approach carefully, and I am sorry for any difficulty this might create.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second retains context but fails to communicate the actual boundary.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nRespectful tone and precise disagreement are relevant. The alias identity remains owned by the library manifest.
\n\nBrand voice: Above all, simple and human — Organization-owned house style.
Counterargument — University teaching guidance.
Stylistic Editing — Professional association standards.
For understanding Draftline’s Version history, the consequential terms are the operation, the permission and the reach. The feature becomes available on 20 October 2026, retains versions for 30 days, and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.
\n\nRestoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. This earns attention because it distinguishes changing what is current from removing the record. Open Version history to access the feature.
\n\nOnly workspace editors can restore a version. Keep this beside the operation. Inclusion on every existing plan describes the charge; it does not grant restore permission to every person.
\n\nVersion history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. Read that boundary with the 30-day retention period. Together, they prevent a retained-draft capability from sounding like unrestricted file recovery.
\n\nThese selected relationships explain the feature’s documented scope. They are a reading guide to its terms, not an account of first-hand testing or a comparison with other recovery products.
" }, { "key": "human-l22", "label": "R. M. Leonard (editor; preface author) · The Book-lovers’ Anthology — Preface", "path": "excerpts/L22.md", "source": { "title": "The Book-lovers’ Anthology — Preface", "author": "R. M. Leonard (editor; preface author)", "publicationDate": "1911", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46609/46609-h/46609-h.htm", "locator": "Preface, two non-adjacent paragraphs on exclusions and grouping; omission explicitly marked.", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46609", "relationship": "The preface explicitly states selection, exclusion and grouping criteria.", "edition": "1911", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "Scores of poems have been prefixed to volumes or addressed in apology to possible readers, but these, and colophons, interesting though they may be, do not fit in with my scheme.\n\n[One intervening paragraph and one short paragraph omitted.]\n\nThe passages will be found grouped more or less according to subjects, though the dividing lines are fine, and chronological order within the limits of the groups has been a secondary consideration.\n", "id": "P37/human-l22", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "Scores of poems have been prefixed to volumes or addressed in apology to possible readers, but these, and colophons, interesting though they may be, do not fit in with my scheme.\n\n[One intervening paragraph and one short paragraph omitted.]\n\nThe passages will be found grouped more or less according to subjects, though the dividing lines are fine, and chronological order within the limits of the groups has been a secondary consideration.\n", "sha256": "4c7b6f5eb64a3861c960a58df959f9e75b8bcb0499b8d6b50ed6e86338b43434", "html": "Scores of poems have been prefixed to volumes or addressed in apology to possible readers, but these, and colophons, interesting though they may be, do not fit in with my scheme.
\n\n[One intervening paragraph and one short paragraph omitted.]
\n\nThe passages will be found grouped more or less according to subjects, though the dividing lines are fine, and chronological order within the limits of the groups has been a secondary consideration.
" }, { "id": "P37/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## Clearer Notes: preparation and dates\n\nThe detail to begin with is the task: bring **one paragraph to revise** to Clearer Notes. It makes the invitation concrete before you decide whether to attend.\n\nThe workshop is free, has **12 places**, and takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nKeep the dates together when planning, with the deadline first and the workshop second. If you intend to attend, register before registration closes and bring the paragraph you selected.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P37\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Clearer Notes: preparation and dates\n\nThe detail to begin with is the task: bring **one paragraph to revise** to Clearer Notes. It makes the invitation concrete before you decide whether to attend.\n\nThe workshop is free, has **12 places**, and takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nKeep the dates together when planning, with the deadline first and the workshop second. If you intend to attend, register before registration closes and bring the paragraph you selected.\n\n", "sha256": "731fe2ed504cc6f485e86a8c3ba8b4198417067cc8053414495b68ce58d41303", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 14.6, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7633333333333331, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 41.0958904109589, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 27, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 12.32876712328767, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 73, "prose_sentences": 5, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 3, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "731fe2ed504cc6f485e86a8c3ba8b4198417067cc8053414495b68ce58d41303", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "The detail to begin with is the task: bring one paragraph to revise to Clearer Notes. It makes the invitation concrete before you decide whether to attend.
\n\nThe workshop is free, has 12 places, and takes place on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nKeep the dates together when planning, with the deadline first and the workshop second. If you intend to attend, register before registration closes and bring the paragraph you selected.
" }, { "id": "P37/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## Draftline status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P37\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Draftline status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\n", "sha256": "bc0df0c9b995af58056297896ee64d1372183d32b6893cdb0df1c10537b8092e", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 5.75, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 8.695652173913043, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 23, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 2, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "bc0df0c9b995af58056297896ee64d1372183d32b6893cdb0df1c10537b8092e", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
" }, { "id": "P37/probe-H04", "key": "probe-H04", "briefId": "H04", "label": "Separate mechanism probe", "markdown": "## Workshop Briefings: two items for sign-in planning\n\nThis fictional digest selects for **relevance to planning a volunteer sign-in process**. Two of the three supplied items earn space in the main digest.\n\n**Sign-in options** lists a paper sheet and a shared spreadsheet. It belongs here because it names two possible ways to record sign-in. It reports **no comparison results**, so the digest does not rank one above the other.\n\n**Shift roles** defines a greeter who receives volunteers and a recorder who enters attendance. It belongs here because sign-in planning includes who receives people and who records their attendance. It reports **no staffing trial**.\n\n**Omitted from the main digest: Poster colors.** It lists three poster colors but gives no sign-in procedure relevant to the reader criterion. That is the reason for omission, rather than a verdict on poster design.\n\nWorkshop Briefings covers only these three supplied items. This selection is **not exhaustive**.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P37\nbrief_id: H04\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\ncohort: separate-heldout-mechanism-probe\n---\n\n\n## Workshop Briefings: two items for sign-in planning\n\nThis fictional digest selects for **relevance to planning a volunteer sign-in process**. Two of the three supplied items earn space in the main digest.\n\n**Sign-in options** lists a paper sheet and a shared spreadsheet. It belongs here because it names two possible ways to record sign-in. It reports **no comparison results**, so the digest does not rank one above the other.\n\n**Shift roles** defines a greeter who receives volunteers and a recorder who enters attendance. It belongs here because sign-in planning includes who receives people and who records their attendance. It reports **no staffing trial**.\n\n**Omitted from the main digest: Poster colors.** It lists three poster colors but gives no sign-in procedure relevant to the reader criterion. That is the reason for omission, rather than a verdict on poster design.\n\nWorkshop Briefings covers only these three supplied items. This selection is **not exhaustive**.\n\n", "sha256": "4e1fd8474937b77526e2b18023520fca75e0613b808566a87e7544f46a95db08", "measurement": null, "html": "This fictional digest selects for relevance to planning a volunteer sign-in process. Two of the three supplied items earn space in the main digest.
\n\nSign-in options lists a paper sheet and a shared spreadsheet. It belongs here because it names two possible ways to record sign-in. It reports no comparison results, so the digest does not rank one above the other.
\n\nShift roles defines a greeter who receives volunteers and a recorder who enters attendance. It belongs here because sign-in planning includes who receives people and who records their attendance. It reports no staffing trial.
\n\nOmitted from the main digest: Poster colors. It lists three poster colors but gives no sign-in procedure relevant to the reader criterion. That is the reason for omission, rather than a verdict on poster design.
\n\nWorkshop Briefings covers only these three supplied items. This selection is not exhaustive.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P37", "sample_id": "P37/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P37/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "6f1745746aeb62d756570ef6852a9366f5122bc287b78ee2bde425fd4aa7811d", "trimmed_body_sha256": "f3c0a1febb4cf0025e941e60deda5504b2e095020782384b3a6c3c32eaac308a", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "These selected relationships explain the feature’s documented scope.", "start": 1011, "end": 1079, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public/professional wording is neutral and readable, without sustained conversational intimacy or ceremonial convention." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "For understanding Draftline’s **Version history**, the consequential terms are the operation, the permission and the reach. The feature becomes available on **20 October 2026**, retains versions for **30 days**, and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.", "start": 39, "end": 314, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Reading the complete sample shows no intended comic device; factual phrasing and the quoted passage illustrate that restrained posture." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "For understanding Draftline’s **Version history**, the consequential terms are the operation, the permission and the reach. The feature becomes available on **20 October 2026**, retains versions for **30 days**, and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.", "start": 39, "end": 314, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The sample states availability and operating terms without sustained excitement, celebratory wording or energetic encouragement; positive usefulness alone is not enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Three terms worth keeping together", "start": 3, "end": 37, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The reader relationship is primarily impersonal and task/evidence focused; no passage establishes relational acknowledgment beyond operating guidance." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "This earns attention because it distinguishes changing what is current from removing the record.", "start": 409, "end": 505, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The sample lightly assumes familiarity with workspace/editor/version terminology, while explaining the consequential relations; it does not require dense specialist knowledge." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "This earns attention because it distinguishes changing what is current from removing the record.", "start": 409, "end": 505, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The complete piece develops multiple related conditions and explains why a distinction matters, beyond selected statements; the cited passage supports that intermediate level." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/explanation/", "title": "Explanation", "id": "S42" }, { "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session", "title": "Analyse a research session", "id": "S46" } ], "researchLimits": "Sources constrain interpretation and scope; the independent curation mechanism is a design hypothesis without supplied examples.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p37-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p37-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P37/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P37/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P37/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P37.svg", "bundleSha256": "a41d9dba86722cc207eb4f0ec9d59669d6aeb0b83b2a7c533a41594bcc3bcf84", "bundleBytes": 74317 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: voice candidate, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nUse when readers need a small selection of consequential details and an explanation of why those details deserve attention. It suits roundups, recommendations and annotated guides. Avoid implying exhaustive coverage or first-hand testing. If all facts are mandatory, selection means ordering and grouping them; it cannot mean discarding inconvenient terms.
\n\nOpen with a declared selection criterion. Choose the few relationships most consequential under that criterion, explain each selection and retain the necessary boundary. A capability explanation might prioritize action, permission and reach. The reader should see why each item earns attention, rather than merely see a list of favored things. End by returning to the criterion so the selection remains accountable and revisable.
\n\nUse compact headings that name the reason for an item’s inclusion. Follow a selected fact with a concise why-it-matters sentence. Paragraphs can balance description and evaluation without merging them. Avoid vague curator praise such as essential, outstanding or must-read. Repeated labels should aid navigation. Keep unsupported judgments out of factual headings, and do not let a polished roundup imply a test that never happened.
\n\nFeature: select relationships while preserving all eight facts; feature explanation is not a product review. Workshop: foreground preparation and dates without inventing quality or demand. Incident: selection cannot drop any status fact, and evaluative commentary should disappear.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “After testing every option, this is the essential recovery system for everyone.”
\n\nThe claim implies exhaustive first-hand testing and a universal recommendation without evidence. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nThe consequential terms are restore permission, retention and recovery scope. These explain what Version history can do; they do not establish a comparative product result.
V22 evaluates a work against criteria. This candidate uses criteria to select and order attention before evaluating. It remains close to reflective criticism and may be a curation recipe rather than a separate voice. The useful distinction is the selection operation, not the authority implied by the word curator.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "M07", "title": "The Greatest Science Books of 2016", "author": "Maria Popova", "year": "2016", "url": "https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/12/07/best-science-books-2016/", "relationship": "Selected books receive reasons; superlative framing conflicts with the guide’s restraint.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Editorial book curation", "publicationDate": "2016-12-07" }, { "id": "L22", "title": "The Book-lovers’ Anthology — Preface", "author": "R. M. Leonard (editor; preface author)", "year": "1911", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46609/46609-h/46609-h.htm", "relationship": "The preface explicitly states selection, exclusion and grouping criteria.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Anthology editorial preface", "publicationDate": "1911" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Editorial curator · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P37.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Book Reviews", "url": "https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/book-reviews/", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" }, { "title": "Plain Language Guide Series", "url": "https://digital.gov/guides/plain-language", "relationship": "Government guidance" }, { "title": "Fundamentals of Editing", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/fundamentals-editing/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A selective guide that allocates attention through an explicit criterion, explains why chosen items belong, and admits what the selection leaves out.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA defined audience or decision, actual candidate materials, a selection criterion, and known coverage limits.
\n\nSelection purpose → criterion → ordered choices with reasons → exclusions and limits → revisit condition.
\n\nDeclare the criterion that governs inclusion or priority. Check: A reader must know what makes an item relevant here.
Explain the selected items in relation to that criterion. Check: Each inclusion needs a reason beyond fame or personal enthusiasm.
Acknowledge material exclusions or coverage limits. Check: The list must not imply an exhaustive search without evidence.
Use when readers need a small selection of consequential details and an explanation of why those details deserve attention. It suits roundups, recommendations and annotated guides. Avoid implying exhaustive coverage or first-hand testing. If all facts are mandatory, selection means ordering and grouping them; it cannot mean discarding inconvenient terms.
\n\nOpen with a declared selection criterion. Choose the few relationships most consequential under that criterion, explain each selection and retain the necessary boundary. A capability explanation might prioritize action, permission and reach. The reader should see why each item earns attention, rather than merely see a list of favored things. End by returning to the criterion so the selection remains accountable and revisable.
\n\nUse compact headings that name the reason for an item’s inclusion. Follow a selected fact with a concise why-it-matters sentence. Paragraphs can balance description and evaluation without merging them. Avoid vague curator praise such as essential, outstanding or must-read. Repeated labels should aid navigation. Keep unsupported judgments out of factual headings, and do not let a polished roundup imply a test that never happened.
\n\nFeature: select relationships while preserving all eight facts; feature explanation is not a product review. Workshop: foreground preparation and dates without inventing quality or demand. Incident: selection cannot drop any status fact, and evaluative commentary should disappear.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “After testing every option, this is the essential recovery system for everyone.”
\n\nThe claim implies exhaustive first-hand testing and a universal recommendation without evidence. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nThe consequential terms are restore permission, retention and recovery scope. These explain what Version history can do; they do not establish a comparative product result.
V22 evaluates a work against criteria. This candidate uses criteria to select and order attention before evaluating. It remains close to reflective criticism and may be a curation recipe rather than a separate voice. The useful distinction is the selection operation, not the authority implied by the word curator.
\n\nThere is no universal maximum number of selections. Fewer items help only when the criterion still covers the need.
\n\nA single recommendation can be a curated result only if the selection context is visible; one unexplained favorite is not enough.
\n\nTreat a collection of links as self-explanatory curation. Check: Remove titles and inspect whether useful selection logic remains.
Invent comparative testing or rankings. Check: Separate inspected features from unmeasured effectiveness.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Synthetic candidate resources: Guide A explains exact export status terms; Guide B teaches a complete task; Guide C is an unreviewed broad directory. Audience needs to decode a status message.
\n\nFor decoding an export status, start with Guide A: its scope is the exact status terms. Use Guide B when you need the whole task, not just a definition. I have not reviewed Guide C, so I am not ranking it against the others. This selection favors immediate lookup over breadth.
\n\nUseful resources: Guide A explains status terms. Guide B teaches a task. Guide C is a broad directory and has not been reviewed. All are worth exploring.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second preserves descriptions but avoids selection, priority, and an applied audience criterion.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nReview and audience guidance are relevant, but no universal authority for this exact curatorial voice was located.
\n\nBook Reviews — University teaching guidance.
Plain Language Guide Series — Government guidance.
Fundamentals of Editing — Professional association standards.
Draftline’s Version history can return a retained version to the present without deleting stored history. The time-travel comparison stops there: the operation is specific, and its limits matter.
\n\nThe feature becomes available on 20 October 2026. Versions are retained for 30 days, and the feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.
\n\nOpen Version history to access it. Only workspace editors can restore a version. Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. In literal terms, what is current changes; the stored history remains.
\n\nThe feature cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled. Revisiting a retained version is different from recovering every missing file from the past.
\n\nTo restore a retained version, a workspace editor opens Version history. The restore makes a new current version while stored history remains.
" }, { "key": "human-l03", "label": "Silvanus P. Thompson (published as F. R. S.) · Calculus Made Easy", "path": "excerpts/L03.md", "source": { "title": "Calculus Made Easy", "author": "Silvanus P. Thompson (published as F. R. S.)", "publicationDate": "1914", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33283", "locator": "Prologue", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33283", "relationship": "Comic stance and Chapter I’s notation teaching combine; the bundled prologue alone is not a mechanical explanation.", "edition": "Second edition, enlarged, Macmillan 1914; first edition 1910", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "CONSIDERING how many fools can calculate, it is surprising that it should be thought either a difficult or a tedious task for any other fool to learn how to master the same tricks.\n\nSome calculus-tricks are quite easy. Some are enormously difficult. The fools who write the textbooks of advanced mathematics—and they are mostly clever fools-seldom take the trouble to show you how easy the easy calculations are. On the contrary, they seem to desire to impress you with their tremendous cleverness by going about it in the most difficult way.\n\nBeing myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had to unteach myself the difficulties, and now beg to present to my fellow fools the parts that are not hard. Master these thoroughly, and the rest will follow. What one fool can do, another can.\n", "id": "P38/human-l03", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "CONSIDERING how many fools can calculate, it is surprising that it should be thought either a difficult or a tedious task for any other fool to learn how to master the same tricks.\n\nSome calculus-tricks are quite easy. Some are enormously difficult. The fools who write the textbooks of advanced mathematics—and they are mostly clever fools-seldom take the trouble to show you how easy the easy calculations are. On the contrary, they seem to desire to impress you with their tremendous cleverness by going about it in the most difficult way.\n\nBeing myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had to unteach myself the difficulties, and now beg to present to my fellow fools the parts that are not hard. Master these thoroughly, and the rest will follow. What one fool can do, another can.\n", "sha256": "2ae6251eef5d02e1e0a9f84325c5e8909c23f333423364389a14819afe6f7869", "html": "CONSIDERING how many fools can calculate, it is surprising that it should be thought either a difficult or a tedious task for any other fool to learn how to master the same tricks.
\n\nSome calculus-tricks are quite easy. Some are enormously difficult. The fools who write the textbooks of advanced mathematics—and they are mostly clever fools-seldom take the trouble to show you how easy the easy calculations are. On the contrary, they seem to desire to impress you with their tremendous cleverness by going about it in the most difficult way.
\n\nBeing myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had to unteach myself the difficulties, and now beg to present to my fellow fools the parts that are not hard. Master these thoroughly, and the rest will follow. What one fool can do, another can.
" }, { "key": "human-l02", "label": "Michael Faraday; edited by William Crookes · The Chemical History of a Candle", "path": "excerpts/L02.md", "source": { "title": "The Chemical History of a Candle", "author": "Michael Faraday; edited by William Crookes", "publicationDate": "1861", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14474", "locator": "Lecture I, opening address", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14474", "relationship": "Lecture I connects familiar objects and mechanisms; humor is less central than the module requires.", "edition": "1908 New Impression, edited by William Crookes; Project Gutenberg digital release 2004-12-26", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "I purpose, in return for the honour you do us by coming to see what are our proceedings here, to bring before you, in the course of these lectures, the Chemical History of a Candle. I have taken this subject on a former occasion; and were it left to my own will, I should prefer to repeat it almost every year—so abundant is the interest that attaches itself to the subject, so wonderful are the varieties of outlet which it offers into the various departments of philosophy.\n\nThere is not a law under which any part of this universe is governed which does not come into play, and is touched upon in these phenomena. There is no better, there is no more open door by which you can enter into the study of natural philosophy, than by considering the physical phenomena of a candle.\n", "id": "P38/human-l02", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "I purpose, in return for the honour you do us by coming to see what are our proceedings here, to bring before you, in the course of these lectures, the Chemical History of a Candle. I have taken this subject on a former occasion; and were it left to my own will, I should prefer to repeat it almost every year—so abundant is the interest that attaches itself to the subject, so wonderful are the varieties of outlet which it offers into the various departments of philosophy.\n\nThere is not a law under which any part of this universe is governed which does not come into play, and is touched upon in these phenomena. There is no better, there is no more open door by which you can enter into the study of natural philosophy, than by considering the physical phenomena of a candle.\n", "sha256": "608c3a587457b26d2a6ac2802aec1cff839dba741faf44cfcfb3472ad42a0865", "html": "I purpose, in return for the honour you do us by coming to see what are our proceedings here, to bring before you, in the course of these lectures, the Chemical History of a Candle. I have taken this subject on a former occasion; and were it left to my own will, I should prefer to repeat it almost every year—so abundant is the interest that attaches itself to the subject, so wonderful are the varieties of outlet which it offers into the various departments of philosophy.
\n\nThere is not a law under which any part of this universe is governed which does not come into play, and is touched upon in these phenomena. There is no better, there is no more open door by which you can enter into the study of natural philosophy, than by considering the physical phenomena of a candle.
" }, { "id": "P38/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## A paragraph need not arrive dressed for publication\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise** to Clearer Notes. Choose the passage you would like to work on; the task is revision, so the paragraph is the starting point.\n\nThe workshop is free and has **12 places**. It takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nIf you would like to attend, register before registration closes and bring that paragraph. Keep the earlier registration date in your plans alongside the workshop itself.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P38\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## A paragraph need not arrive dressed for publication\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise** to Clearer Notes. Choose the passage you would like to work on; the task is revision, so the paragraph is the starting point.\n\nThe workshop is free and has **12 places**. It takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nIf you would like to attend, register before registration closes and bring that paragraph. Keep the earlier registration date in your plans alongside the workshop itself.\n\n", "sha256": "f47461fd99d2d66594e557002c0ab14af5c69c4b6ae5e24616a5d34249e42927", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 12, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.708695652173913, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 41.666666666666664, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 26, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 12.5, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 72, "prose_sentences": 6, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 3, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "f47461fd99d2d66594e557002c0ab14af5c69c4b6ae5e24616a5d34249e42927", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Bring one paragraph to revise to Clearer Notes. Choose the passage you would like to work on; the task is revision, so the paragraph is the starting point.
\n\nThe workshop is free and has 12 places. It takes place on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nIf you would like to attend, register before registration closes and bring that paragraph. Keep the earlier registration date in your plans alongside the workshop itself.
" }, { "id": "P38/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## Draftline status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P38\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Draftline status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\n", "sha256": "061f7ccc773dac8fec11185b73a64ef6c6ece531004868e8e9fc39fb5478ac1c", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 5.75, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 8.695652173913043, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 23, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 2, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "061f7ccc773dac8fec11185b73a64ef6c6ece531004868e8e9fc39fb5478ac1c", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P38", "sample_id": "P38/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P38/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "e2de695021f925e7c1f0fe7658f7da6fdad407416e2c4e2335a254c9d4ba54a5", "trimmed_body_sha256": "f89cdb7c69ed760d0ba1d14345d7a2170c4b23ac842661ebbba5c9f02a6d918d", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The time-travel comparison stops there", "start": 147, "end": 185, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current whole piece uses edited public/professional wording, without ceremonial convention or sustained intimate conversation." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Retained drafts, not time travel", "start": 3, "end": 35, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The short time-travel comparison shows mild intended playfulness, with a literal boundary. It does not sustain jokes across the explanation." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The feature becomes available on **20 October 2026**. Versions are retained for **30 days**, and the feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.", "start": 238, "end": 406, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current availability and operating terms are matter-of-fact. There is no sustained excitement or celebratory framing; useful content alone does not establish enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Retained drafts, not time travel", "start": 3, "end": 35, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current reader relationship is primarily impersonal and task/evidence focused. Clear instruction alone does not establish relational care." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "In literal terms, what is current changes; the stored history remains.", "start": 567, "end": 637, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current operation and boundary are explained in ordinary terms, with little specialist prerequisite." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Revisiting a retained version is different from recovering every missing file from the past.", "start": 707, "end": 799, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current piece develops linked conditions or an explanatory relation and clarifies its boundary/source status, beyond a list of selected statements." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://www.nngroup.com/articles/tone-of-voice-dimensions/", "title": "The Four Dimensions of Tone of Voice", "id": "S17" }, { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/explanation/", "title": "Explanation", "id": "S42" } ], "researchLimits": "Humor framework is contextual; the mechanical account must remain correct when the joke is removed.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p38-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p38-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P38/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P38/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P38/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P38.svg", "bundleSha256": "a14fcb71d366ed194c0b548b318852a0c1d7cbbd31098debfd27e53e509b6b43", "bundleBytes": 94700 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: composite, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nUse when a small playful comparison can clarify a real operation for readers open to lightness. It suits some educational and product explanations. Avoid humor during service failures, sensitive decisions or exact requirements that would be obscured by a joke. The playful element must do explanatory work; it is not a decorative quota.
\n\nOpen with a small comparison or understated reversal, explain the literal mechanism immediately, and show where the comparison stops. The movement allows the reader a moment of recognition without making them decode a performance. A joke that suggests universal recovery is worse than no joke. End with the precise rule that remains once the playfulness has been removed. If the rule cannot stand alone, the explanation is unfinished.
\n\nKeep the playful sentence short. Use exact nouns and verbs in the next sentence rather than prolonging figurative substitutes. A paragraph can contain comparison and correction; separate permission or scope where it needs emphasis. Avoid mock dialogue, exaggerated punctuation and several jokes in sequence. A concrete physical comparison may illuminate a relationship, but it must not describe undocumented product internals.
\n\nFeature: use at most one comparison, then preserve retention, permission and recovery limits. Workshop: a light observation about a paragraph may welcome participation without shaming writers. Incident: remove every joke and analogy; the availability facts and next update take priority.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “A magical rewind button: nothing is ever lost, and time travel is now free.”
\n\nThe joke turns limited retention into an unlimited recovery guarantee. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nThink retained drafts, not time travel. Version history retains versions for 30 days and cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled.
V08 supplies wry observation; V11 or P29 supplies explanation. P38 combines those devices for a particular purpose. It is honestly a composite unless transfer evidence shows more than the overlay of humor on an explanatory recipe. A serious incident should resemble plain service prose, not preserve novelty at the reader’s expense.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "L03", "title": "Calculus Made Easy", "author": "Silvanus P. Thompson (published as F. R. S.)", "year": "1914", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33283", "relationship": "Comic stance and Chapter I’s notation teaching combine; the bundled prologue alone is not a mechanical explanation.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Mathematics instruction", "publicationDate": "1914" }, { "id": "L02", "title": "The Chemical History of a Candle", "author": "Michael Faraday; edited by William Crookes", "year": "1861", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14474", "relationship": "Lecture I connects familiar objects and mechanisms; humor is less central than the module requires.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Edited public science lectures", "publicationDate": "1861" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Playful mechanical explainer · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P38.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Simile", "url": "https://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/S/simile.htm", "relationship": "University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference" }, { "title": "Voice and Tone", "url": "https://styleguide.mailchimp.com/voice-and-tone/", "relationship": "Organization-owned house style" }, { "title": "Explanation", "url": "https://diataxis.fr/explanation/", "relationship": "Originator/practitioner framework" }, { "title": "Voice and tone", "url": "https://developers.google.com/style/tone", "relationship": "Organization-owned house style" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A small playful device that makes a mechanical distinction easier to grasp, immediately returns to literal behavior, and marks where the joke or analogy stops working.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nDocumented behavior, an audience for whom humor is suitable, and a grounded analogy or mismatch; parent V08.
\n\nSmall playful comparison → literal mechanism → comparison boundary → exact operating rule.
\n\nConnect the playful device to an actual mechanical distinction. Check: State what the reader learns from the device.
Translate the device promptly into the literal rule. Check: The actual operation must be explicit, not only implied.
Mark a consequential limit of the comparison or joke. Check: Prevent a plausible but unsupported imported mechanic.
Use when a small playful comparison can clarify a real operation for readers open to lightness. It suits some educational and product explanations. Avoid humor during service failures, sensitive decisions or exact requirements that would be obscured by a joke. The playful element must do explanatory work; it is not a decorative quota.
\n\nOpen with a small comparison or understated reversal, explain the literal mechanism immediately, and show where the comparison stops. The movement allows the reader a moment of recognition without making them decode a performance. A joke that suggests universal recovery is worse than no joke. End with the precise rule that remains once the playfulness has been removed. If the rule cannot stand alone, the explanation is unfinished.
\n\nKeep the playful sentence short. Use exact nouns and verbs in the next sentence rather than prolonging figurative substitutes. A paragraph can contain comparison and correction; separate permission or scope where it needs emphasis. Avoid mock dialogue, exaggerated punctuation and several jokes in sequence. A concrete physical comparison may illuminate a relationship, but it must not describe undocumented product internals.
\n\nFeature: use at most one comparison, then preserve retention, permission and recovery limits. Workshop: a light observation about a paragraph may welcome participation without shaming writers. Incident: remove every joke and analogy; the availability facts and next update take priority.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “A magical rewind button: nothing is ever lost, and time travel is now free.”
\n\nThe joke turns limited retention into an unlimited recovery guarantee. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nThink retained drafts, not time travel. Version history retains versions for 30 days and cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled.
V08 supplies wry observation; V11 or P29 supplies explanation. P38 combines those devices for a particular purpose. It is honestly a composite unless transfer evidence shows more than the overlay of humor on an explanatory recipe. A serious incident should resemble plain service prose, not preserve novelty at the reader’s expense.
\n\nOne playful clause may be sufficient. A funny narrator or a stream of jokes is not required.
\n\nA memorable joke can still fail if it causes a reader to infer the wrong condition. Humor recognition and task understanding require separate checks.
\n\nUse humor near science without explaining any mechanism. Check: Delete the joke and assess whether its original role was instructional.
Sacrifice exact labels or behavior to preserve the punchline. Check: Compare technical tokens and conditions with the source.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional export: 202 means queued, not completed; scheduling order is undocumented.
\n\nA 202 response is a queue ticket, not a trophy. It means the export is queued, not completed. The ticket comparison does not tell us the scheduling order—that is undocumented. Wait for completion before treating the file as ready.
\n\nExports are very funny. A 202 response means queued, not completed, and scheduling order is undocumented. Computers do the funniest things.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second retains the mechanics but its amusement explains no relation or boundary.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nThe sources support comparison, restrained humor, and contextual clarity; they do not jointly establish a universal playful-explainer genre.
\n\nSimile — University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference.
Voice and Tone — Organization-owned house style.
Explanation — Originator/practitioner framework.
Voice and tone — Organization-owned house style.
Draftline’s Version history becomes available on 20 October 2026, included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Versions are retained for 30 days.
\n\nThe capability is specific: a workspace editor can restore a retained version as a new current version. Restoring does not delete stored history. If an earlier retained draft is the one you need to make current, that is the operation the feature provides.
\n\nOpen Version history to access it. Only workspace editors can restore a version. Feature inclusion on a plan and permission to perform the restore remain separate terms.
\n\nVersion history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. Availability from the stated date does not make that earlier deletion recoverable.
" }, { "key": "human-h04", "label": "18F; front-matter author handle alison · Announcing FBOpen: Government opportunities made easier", "path": "excerpts/H04.md", "source": { "title": "Announcing FBOpen: Government opportunities made easier", "author": "18F; front-matter author handle alison", "publicationDate": "2014-03-31", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-03-31-announcing-fbopen-government-opportunities-made-easier.md", "locator": "Opening three paragraphs; link destinations omitted", "rights": "CC0 · 18F staff prose", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/", "relationship": "Names users and capabilities; promotional exaggerations weaken calibration.", "edition": "18F repository snapshot df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5 (2021-12-30)", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "Today we're announcing our first product launch: FBOpen, a set of open-source tools to help small businesses search for opportunities to work with the U.S. government.\n\nOn the surface, fbopen.gsa.gov is a simple, Google-style page where you can search available federal contracts and grants. We’ve used the latest in search technology to make finding opportunities easier and more effective for everybody.\n\nFBOpen is more than a search website, however. For those who want to dig deeper, FBOpen is also an API (documented at http://docs.fbopen.apiary.io) that you can use to build custom query pages and analysis tools. Additionally, the codebase is open-source and available at our GitHub repository, so you can build your own FBOpen server, customize your own version of the API, add your own opportunity listings — the sky's the limit.\n", "id": "P39/human-h04", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "Today we're announcing our first product launch: FBOpen, a set of open-source tools to help small businesses search for opportunities to work with the U.S. government.\n\nOn the surface, fbopen.gsa.gov is a simple, Google-style page where you can search available federal contracts and grants. We’ve used the latest in search technology to make finding opportunities easier and more effective for everybody.\n\nFBOpen is more than a search website, however. For those who want to dig deeper, FBOpen is also an API (documented at http://docs.fbopen.apiary.io) that you can use to build custom query pages and analysis tools. Additionally, the codebase is open-source and available at our GitHub repository, so you can build your own FBOpen server, customize your own version of the API, add your own opportunity listings — the sky's the limit.\n", "sha256": "a481f7af63a0f9af96eb1d9cb15d0654219e1210b7b6d170b678e2f2291170e3", "html": "Today we're announcing our first product launch: FBOpen, a set of open-source tools to help small businesses search for opportunities to work with the U.S. government.
\n\nOn the surface, fbopen.gsa.gov is a simple, Google-style page where you can search available federal contracts and grants. We’ve used the latest in search technology to make finding opportunities easier and more effective for everybody.
\n\nFBOpen is more than a search website, however. For those who want to dig deeper, FBOpen is also an API (documented at http://docs.fbopen.apiary.io) that you can use to build custom query pages and analysis tools. Additionally, the codebase is open-source and available at our GitHub repository, so you can build your own FBOpen server, customize your own version of the API, add your own opportunity listings — the sky's the limit.
" }, { "key": "human-h09", "label": "18F: leah and gray (frontmatter author handles) · Announcing the /Developer Program: a new hub for federal API creators", "path": "excerpts/H09.md", "source": { "title": "Announcing the /Developer Program: a new hub for federal API creators", "author": "18F: leah and gray (frontmatter author handles)", "publicationDate": "2014-05-29", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-05-29-announcing-the-developer-program-a-new-hub-for.md", "locator": "Opening two paragraphs; Markdown links removed.", "rights": "CC0 · 18F staff prose", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/", "relationship": "Defines the resource and qualifies what “launched” means in the continuation.", "edition": "18F repository snapshot df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "We recently launched our /Developer Program (pronounced \"slash developer\") to help federal agencies develop useful, robust APIs. The Program is a collection of educational resources, opportunities to engage the community for help and feedback, and tools that can help you build APIs — essentially an ever-growing knowledge base curated by 18F.\n\nWe affectionately named the /Developer Program after the common practice of providing API documentation and links on government websites at website.gov/developer.\n", "id": "P39/human-h09", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "We recently launched our /Developer Program (pronounced \"slash developer\") to help federal agencies develop useful, robust APIs. The Program is a collection of educational resources, opportunities to engage the community for help and feedback, and tools that can help you build APIs — essentially an ever-growing knowledge base curated by 18F.\n\nWe affectionately named the /Developer Program after the common practice of providing API documentation and links on government websites at website.gov/developer.\n", "sha256": "e98998081b56d059cc8e823233340756158b6fa737af56b9df48ffa2a510d1ea", "html": "We recently launched our /Developer Program (pronounced "slash developer") to help federal agencies develop useful, robust APIs. The Program is a collection of educational resources, opportunities to engage the community for help and feedback, and tools that can help you build APIs — essentially an ever-growing knowledge base curated by 18F.
\n\nWe affectionately named the /Developer Program after the common practice of providing API documentation and links on government websites at website.gov/developer.
" }, { "id": "P39/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## Clearer Notes on 7 November\n\nClearer Notes takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** The workshop is free and has **12 places**.\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise**. Choose the passage you want to work on and bring it to the workshop.\n\nRegistration closes on **5 November**. If you would like to attend, register before registration closes.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P39\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Clearer Notes on 7 November\n\nClearer Notes takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** The workshop is free and has **12 places**.\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise**. Choose the passage you want to work on and bring it to the workshop.\n\nRegistration closes on **5 November**. If you would like to attend, register before registration closes.\n\n", "sha256": "b9c4007f09b750b185587dd263fd485d7da646198b99310a0955865fa8df3909", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 9.6, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 41.666666666666664, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 15, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 18.75, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 48, "prose_sentences": 5, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 2, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "b9c4007f09b750b185587dd263fd485d7da646198b99310a0955865fa8df3909", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Clearer Notes takes place on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. The workshop is free and has 12 places.
\n\nBring one paragraph to revise. Choose the passage you want to work on and bring it to the workshop.
\n\nRegistration closes on 5 November. If you would like to attend, register before registration closes.
" }, { "id": "P39/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## Draftline upload status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P39\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Draftline upload status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\n", "sha256": "1b9d7dd4dce32234c564994f48b9529c49a4116a24a8aef661be3593785e0f82", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 5.75, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 8.695652173913043, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 23, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 2, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "1b9d7dd4dce32234c564994f48b9529c49a4116a24a8aef661be3593785e0f82", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P39", "sample_id": "P39/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P39/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "d3ab8c68fb825dcb6f19a68e1ee5c086f453b49c09947cb3bdcc51e8147e6bf9", "trimmed_body_sha256": "a3d1158b33cc00b5b07f5ed817ae5643d6150c656e44ccd815ee01ae7e8ebf68", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The capability is specific: a workspace editor can restore a retained version as a new current version.", "start": 218, "end": 321, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current whole piece uses edited public/professional wording, without ceremonial convention or sustained intimate conversation." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "## Version history arrives on 20 October 2026", "start": 0, "end": 45, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current whole piece contains no intended comic device; its factual/evidential phrasing is restrained." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "## Version history arrives on 20 October 2026", "start": 0, "end": 45, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current availability and operating terms are matter-of-fact. There is no sustained excitement or celebratory framing; useful content alone does not establish enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "If an earlier retained draft is the one you need to make current", "start": 368, "end": 432, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The cited passage recognizes a practical reader need or the limited significance of revisiting work. It offers modest acknowledgment, below overt relational care." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Feature inclusion on a plan and permission to perform the restore remain separate terms.", "start": 564, "end": 652, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current operation and boundary are explained in ordinary terms, with little specialist prerequisite." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Feature inclusion on a plan and permission to perform the restore remain separate terms.", "start": 564, "end": 652, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current piece adds selected clarifications and reasons to its terms, without developing a sustained model or worked test." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://styleguide.mailchimp.com/voice-and-tone/", "title": "Voice and Tone", "id": "S18" }, { "url": "https://digital.gov/guides/plain-language", "title": "Plain language guide series", "id": "S48" } ], "researchLimits": "Brand and plain-language guidance do not prove adoption, customer results or superiority.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p39-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p39-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P39/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P39/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P39/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P39.svg", "bundleSha256": "2d3c865ca7c1a408dc2a49ef344cdb890416e3d9c27b9a607eefabd3825bf886", "bundleBytes": 89718 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: recipe, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nUse to explain an upcoming capability through its practical change and documented limits. It suits feature announcements and program launches with supplied terms. Avoid it when availability is uncertain, when launch status is only proposed, or when the task is an incident. A launch announcement is not evidence of customer benefit.
\n\nOpen with the change and its availability status. Explain the new operation in a concrete use case, then place eligibility and scope beside it. Close with the supported access action or planning detail. Do not use future capability as proof of future success. The movement is change, operation, conditions, route. If there is no supplied before-state, describe what becomes available without inventing how the product previously behaved.
\n\nUse future or present tense according to the supplied status. Name the capability consistently. One paragraph can group availability and inclusion, another the operation, another the limit. Choose exact verbs over superlatives. A launch heading should carry the change, not a boast. Keep illustrative needs conditional so they do not masquerade as customer stories. End without a fabricated adoption request or urgency claim.
\n\nFeature: the supplied date is availability; no beta, rollout or previous limitation is known. Workshop: announce the upcoming event and concrete preparation, not a newly founded program. Incident: suppress launch energy and persuasive framing; report current service status.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “Draftline’s revolutionary launch ends lost work forever.”
\n\nThe launch language invents superiority and a permanent outcome. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nFrom 20 October 2026, Draftline’s Version history retains versions for 30 days. It cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled.
V17 provides news hierarchy. P39 adds a capability-use explanation and launch-specific checks; it is a recipe rather than a demonstrated independent voice. P47 recommends in a sales context, while this resource can explain availability without asking for adoption.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "H04", "title": "Announcing FBOpen: Government opportunities made easier", "author": "18F; front-matter author handle alison", "year": "2014", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-03-31-announcing-fbopen-government-opportunities-made-easier.md", "relationship": "Names users and capabilities; promotional exaggerations weaken calibration.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Government digital-service blog", "publicationDate": "2014-03-31" }, { "id": "H09", "title": "Announcing the /Developer Program: a new hub for federal API creators", "author": "18F: leah and gray (frontmatter author handles)", "year": "2014", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-05-29-announcing-the-developer-program-a-new-hub-for.md", "relationship": "Defines the resource and qualifies what “launched” means in the continuation.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Product/resource launch", "publicationDate": "2014-05-29" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Measured launch narrator · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P39.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Reuters Journalistic Standards", "url": "https://reutersagency.com/about/standards-values/", "relationship": "Organization-owned professional standards" }, { "title": "FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation", "url": "https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/ftc-policy-statement-regarding-advertising-substantiation", "relationship": "U.S. regulatory policy" }, { "title": "Plain Language Guide Series", "url": "https://digital.gov/guides/plain-language", "relationship": "Government guidance" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A launch-specific news module that states what changed, who can use it now, and how the documented capability works, without turning availability into evidence of benefit.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nActual launch or availability status, eligibility, supported capability, and genuine access route; parent V17.
\n\nChange and availability → use case and operation → eligibility and limits → access route.
\n\nState whether the feature is proposed, in trial, or generally available. Check: Check that the lead does not imply a wider release than the source.
Describe a supported use and its operation. Check: Separate capability from an unmeasured benefit.
Make eligibility and the real access route visible. Check: An interested reader must not infer unavailable access.
Use to explain an upcoming capability through its practical change and documented limits. It suits feature announcements and program launches with supplied terms. Avoid it when availability is uncertain, when launch status is only proposed, or when the task is an incident. A launch announcement is not evidence of customer benefit.
\n\nOpen with the change and its availability status. Explain the new operation in a concrete use case, then place eligibility and scope beside it. Close with the supported access action or planning detail. Do not use future capability as proof of future success. The movement is change, operation, conditions, route. If there is no supplied before-state, describe what becomes available without inventing how the product previously behaved.
\n\nUse future or present tense according to the supplied status. Name the capability consistently. One paragraph can group availability and inclusion, another the operation, another the limit. Choose exact verbs over superlatives. A launch heading should carry the change, not a boast. Keep illustrative needs conditional so they do not masquerade as customer stories. End without a fabricated adoption request or urgency claim.
\n\nFeature: the supplied date is availability; no beta, rollout or previous limitation is known. Workshop: announce the upcoming event and concrete preparation, not a newly founded program. Incident: suppress launch energy and persuasive framing; report current service status.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “Draftline’s revolutionary launch ends lost work forever.”
\n\nThe launch language invents superiority and a permanent outcome. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nFrom 20 October 2026, Draftline’s Version history retains versions for 30 days. It cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled.
V17 provides news hierarchy. P39 adds a capability-use explanation and launch-specific checks; it is a recipe rather than a demonstrated independent voice. P47 recommends in a sales context, while this resource can explain availability without asking for adoption.
\n\nA launch can be interesting without superlatives. A measured tone does not require concealing a genuine benefit supported by evidence.
\n\nA proposed feature should be described as proposed. Do not force present availability to complete a launch template.
\n\nInvent a previous product state to dramatize progress. Check: Only use before/after comparisons with documented baselines.
Claim superiority, time savings, or adoption without supporting evidence. Check: Audit implied as well as explicit promotional claims.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Synthetic announcement: a trial export feature is available to editors. It creates CSV files. Access is through the Export menu. No speed or adoption results are supplied.
\n\nThe CSV export trial is now available to editors through the Export menu. It creates a CSV file from the supported export workflow. The announcement contains no measured speed or adoption results; this is trial availability, not a claim of proven improvement.
\n\nOur exciting export future has arrived. Editors can access the CSV trial through the Export menu. It creates CSV files, and no speed or adoption results are supplied. This is the next chapter in innovation.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second preserves the facts but lets promotional framing stand in for a clear change-and-use lead.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nJournalistic sourcing and advertising-substantiation policy inform restraint. They do not validate the product or its launch outcomes.
\n\nReuters Journalistic Standards — Organization-owned professional standards.
FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation — U.S. regulatory policy.
Plain Language Guide Series — Government guidance.
An earlier version can matter because it contains a different form of the draft. Draftline’s Version history provides an operation for making a retained version current.
\n\nThe feature becomes available on 20 October 2026. It retains versions for 30 days and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.
\n\nOpen Version history to access the feature. Only workspace editors can restore a version. Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. The retained record stays in place while the current version changes.
\n\nThere is a limit to what can be revisited. Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. Making a retained version current is different from recovering every earlier file.
" }, { "key": "human-l06", "label": "W. E. B. Du Bois · The Souls of Black Folk", "path": "excerpts/L06.md", "source": { "title": "The Souls of Black Folk", "author": "W. E. B. Du Bois", "publicationDate": "1903", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/408", "locator": "Chapter XI “Of the Passing of the First-Born”; one paragraph", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/408", "relationship": "A real autobiographical relationship is carried by particular detail.", "edition": "1903", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "How beautiful he was, with his olive-tinted flesh and dark gold ringlets, his eyes of mingled blue and brown, his perfect little limbs, and the soft voluptuous roll which the blood of Africa had moulded into his features! I held him in my arms, after we had sped far away from our Southern home,—held him, and glanced at the hot red soil of Georgia and the breathless city of a hundred hills, and felt a vague unrest. Why was his hair tinted with gold? An evil omen was golden hair in my life. Why had not the brown of his eyes crushed out and killed the blue?—for brown were his father’s eyes, and his father’s father’s. And thus in the Land of the Color-line I saw, as it fell across my baby, the shadow of the Veil.\n", "id": "P40/human-l06", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "How beautiful he was, with his olive-tinted flesh and dark gold ringlets, his eyes of mingled blue and brown, his perfect little limbs, and the soft voluptuous roll which the blood of Africa had moulded into his features! I held him in my arms, after we had sped far away from our Southern home,—held him, and glanced at the hot red soil of Georgia and the breathless city of a hundred hills, and felt a vague unrest. Why was his hair tinted with gold? An evil omen was golden hair in my life. Why had not the brown of his eyes crushed out and killed the blue?—for brown were his father’s eyes, and his father’s father’s. And thus in the Land of the Color-line I saw, as it fell across my baby, the shadow of the Veil.\n", "sha256": "346ae27827eb2df52f6bce2f4f6c60dc26cb3533a56eef5cebe514077653e60d", "html": "How beautiful he was, with his olive-tinted flesh and dark gold ringlets, his eyes of mingled blue and brown, his perfect little limbs, and the soft voluptuous roll which the blood of Africa had moulded into his features! I held him in my arms, after we had sped far away from our Southern home,—held him, and glanced at the hot red soil of Georgia and the breathless city of a hundred hills, and felt a vague unrest. Why was his hair tinted with gold? An evil omen was golden hair in my life. Why had not the brown of his eyes crushed out and killed the blue?—for brown were his father’s eyes, and his father’s father’s. And thus in the Land of the Color-line I saw, as it fell across my baby, the shadow of the Veil.
" }, { "key": "human-l18", "label": "Helen Keller · The Story of My Life", "path": "excerpts/L18.md", "source": { "title": "The Story of My Life", "author": "Helen Keller", "publicationDate": "1903", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2397/pg2397-images.html", "locator": "Part I, Chapter IV, well-house paragraph; Helen Keller’s narrative, not the later editor or Sullivan letters.", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2397", "relationship": "A remembered sensory episode has a named human relationship and consequence.", "edition": "1903", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "We walked down the path to the well-house, attracted by the fragrance of the honeysuckle with which it was covered. Some one was drawing water and my teacher placed my hand under the spout. As the cool stream gushed over one hand she spelled into the other the word water, first slowly, then rapidly. I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motions of her fingers.\n", "id": "P40/human-l18", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "We walked down the path to the well-house, attracted by the fragrance of the honeysuckle with which it was covered. Some one was drawing water and my teacher placed my hand under the spout. As the cool stream gushed over one hand she spelled into the other the word water, first slowly, then rapidly. I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motions of her fingers.\n", "sha256": "c594f9037ed4b0082d330e655181c5aff2f03c205bb3a133bda5800df12c26f8", "html": "We walked down the path to the well-house, attracted by the fragrance of the honeysuckle with which it was covered. Some one was drawing water and my teacher placed my hand under the spout. As the cool stream gushed over one hand she spelled into the other the word water, first slowly, then rapidly. I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motions of her fingers.
" }, { "id": "P40/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## A paragraph you would like to return to\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise** to Clearer Notes. Choose a passage you would like to work on and bring that passage to the workshop.\n\nClearer Notes is free and has **12 places**. It takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nIf you would like to attend, register before registration closes. The paragraph you bring gives the invitation its concrete starting point; the stated task is revision of that passage.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P40\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## A paragraph you would like to return to\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise** to Clearer Notes. Choose a passage you would like to work on and bring that passage to the workshop.\n\nClearer Notes is free and has **12 places**. It takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nIf you would like to attend, register before registration closes. The paragraph you bring gives the invitation its concrete starting point; the stated task is revision of that passage.\n\n", "sha256": "e34b0d2ce9cff59f2d5ef5cb083b5b74d502cfd231fd54c1d0cff952bb9c886e", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 11.833333333333334, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7190909090909091, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 42.25352112676056, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 24, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 12.67605633802817, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 71, "prose_sentences": 6, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 3, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "e34b0d2ce9cff59f2d5ef5cb083b5b74d502cfd231fd54c1d0cff952bb9c886e", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Bring one paragraph to revise to Clearer Notes. Choose a passage you would like to work on and bring that passage to the workshop.
\n\nClearer Notes is free and has 12 places. It takes place on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nIf you would like to attend, register before registration closes. The paragraph you bring gives the invitation its concrete starting point; the stated task is revision of that passage.
" }, { "id": "P40/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## Draftline upload status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P40\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Draftline upload status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\n", "sha256": "1269cbf616f24a8a90756f739e8bb9c5c3a8445eb5b87b669af7138a537cded0", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 5.75, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 8.695652173913043, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 23, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 2, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "1269cbf616f24a8a90756f739e8bb9c5c3a8445eb5b87b669af7138a537cded0", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P40", "sample_id": "P40/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P40/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "62a203376a4bedc0f19fec85a51d1a2885c1adf8f9bc9a7e7ec54a190bff2939", "trimmed_body_sha256": "6d7915ecacb2a46f4a9f1e3b5f112b966bd090ddeabed3a570f087b4217b4517", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Draftline’s **Version history** provides an operation for making a retained version current.", "start": 119, "end": 211, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current whole piece uses edited public/professional wording, without ceremonial convention or sustained intimate conversation." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The feature becomes available on **20 October 2026**. It retains versions for **30 days** and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.", "start": 213, "end": 366, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current whole piece contains no intended comic device; its factual/evidential phrasing is restrained." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The feature becomes available on **20 October 2026**. It retains versions for **30 days** and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.", "start": 213, "end": 366, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current availability and operating terms are matter-of-fact. There is no sustained excitement or celebratory framing; useful content alone does not establish enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "An earlier version can matter because it contains a different form of the draft.", "start": 38, "end": 118, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The cited passage recognizes a practical reader need or the limited significance of revisiting work. It offers modest acknowledgment, below overt relational care." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The retained record stays in place while the current version changes.", "start": 536, "end": 605, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current operation and boundary are explained in ordinary terms, with little specialist prerequisite." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Making a retained version current is different from recovering every earlier file.", "start": 731, "end": 813, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current piece adds selected clarifications and reasons to its terms, without developing a sustained model or worked test." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://oralhistory.org/principles-and-best-practices-revised-2018/", "title": "OHA Principles and Best Practices", "id": "S49" }, { "url": "https://aclanthology.org/2021.acl-long.185/", "title": "Style is NOT a single variable: Case Studies for Cross-Stylistic Language Understanding", "id": "S12" } ], "researchLimits": "Narrator respect constrains provenance; no private calibration, permission to use memories or literary efficacy is established here.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p40-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p40-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P40/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P40/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P40/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P40.svg", "bundleSha256": "fd1de20f135275152fab4ffabb3696fec3448cd2df5e6a4da6f52e1a4320febf", "bundleBytes": 90953 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: voice candidate with source prerequisite, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nUse only when an authorized memory, its concrete details and the speaker’s relationship are supplied. It suits remembrance, memoir and personal reflection. It is unsuitable for these feature, workshop and incident fixtures as genuine remembrance: none supplies a personal memory. The examples therefore demonstrate a restrained external fallback, not validated transfer of the full mechanism.
\n\nWith a real memory, open on a small authorized detail, develop the significance through its relation to the remembered person or event, and leave room for meaning that is not settled. Do not enlarge a minor detail into a symbolic certainty the speaker did not express. With no memory source, omit the remembrance mechanism. Describe the supplied object or event externally and keep feeling modest. A graceful refusal to manufacture a memory is part of this resource’s use, not a failure to produce sentiment.
\n\nUse concrete nouns before evaluative adjectives. Moderate sentences can hold detail and reflection; a short sentence can leave a thought open. Paragraphs should move from detail to meaning without leaping into invented dialogue. First person requires authorized authorship and experience. Avoid stock keepsake imagery, simulated grief and claims that an object preserved a moment forever. Do not substitute a fictitious observer to conceal the missing memory source.
\n\nFeature: no past draft or personal history is supplied; describe retained versions without memoir. Workshop: invite gently without remembered classrooms or imagined attendees. Incident: drop tenderness as a literary device and communicate direct status; uncertainty must not become an elegy.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “I still remember the quiet afternoon when Draftline saved our treasured words.”
\n\nThe first person fabricates a memory, a shared relationship and a successful recovery event. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nDraftline’s Version history retains versions for 30 days. No personal memory is supplied for this explanation.
V20 is addressed correspondence grounded in a present relationship. This candidate would center a sourced memory and open meaning. Its distinctiveness cannot be tested with the current fixtures. Retain the resource with its source prerequisite and do not mistake the external fallback samples for evidence of memoir generalization.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "L06", "title": "The Souls of Black Folk", "author": "W. E. B. Du Bois", "year": "1903", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/408", "relationship": "A real autobiographical relationship is carried by particular detail.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Autobiographical and sociological essay collection", "publicationDate": "1903" }, { "id": "L18", "title": "The Story of My Life", "author": "Helen Keller", "year": "1903", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2397/pg2397-images.html", "relationship": "A remembered sensory episode has a named human relationship and consequence.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Memoir", "publicationDate": "1903" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Tender concrete remembrance · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P40.md", "sources": [ { "title": "OHA Statement on Ethics", "url": "https://oralhistory.org/oha-statement-on-ethics/", "relationship": "Professional association ethics guidance" }, { "title": "The Lyric Essay", "url": "https://senecareview.hws.edu/the-lyric-essay", "relationship": "Primary literary editorial statement" }, { "title": "Stylistic Editing", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/stylistic-editing/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A remembrance module that lets an authorized concrete memory carry emotional significance without inventing biography or forcing a tidy lesson from loss or affection.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA genuine supplied memory and permission to voice it, or an explicitly fictional first-person speaker; parent V20.
\n\nParticular remembered detail → relationship → emotional implication → room for unresolved meaning.
\n\nWhen authorized memory is supplied, anchor in it. Otherwise describe the object or event externally. Check: Do not imply personal memory or mourning without a source.
Make its relation to the remembered person or occasion intelligible. Check: Explain why this detail matters to this speaker.
Allow the remembered detail to carry feeling without asserting unsupported psychology. Check: Distinguish the speaker’s response from claims about another person’s inner state.
Use only when an authorized memory, its concrete details and the speaker’s relationship are supplied. It suits remembrance, memoir and personal reflection. It is unsuitable for these feature, workshop and incident fixtures as genuine remembrance: none supplies a personal memory. The examples therefore demonstrate a restrained external fallback, not validated transfer of the full mechanism.
\n\nWith a real memory, open on a small authorized detail, develop the significance through its relation to the remembered person or event, and leave room for meaning that is not settled. Do not enlarge a minor detail into a symbolic certainty the speaker did not express. With no memory source, omit the remembrance mechanism. Describe the supplied object or event externally and keep feeling modest. A graceful refusal to manufacture a memory is part of this resource’s use, not a failure to produce sentiment.
\n\nUse concrete nouns before evaluative adjectives. Moderate sentences can hold detail and reflection; a short sentence can leave a thought open. Paragraphs should move from detail to meaning without leaping into invented dialogue. First person requires authorized authorship and experience. Avoid stock keepsake imagery, simulated grief and claims that an object preserved a moment forever. Do not substitute a fictitious observer to conceal the missing memory source.
\n\nFeature: no past draft or personal history is supplied; describe retained versions without memoir. Workshop: invite gently without remembered classrooms or imagined attendees. Incident: drop tenderness as a literary device and communicate direct status; uncertainty must not become an elegy.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “I still remember the quiet afternoon when Draftline saved our treasured words.”
\n\nThe first person fabricates a memory, a shared relationship and a successful recovery event. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nDraftline’s Version history retains versions for 30 days. No personal memory is supplied for this explanation.
V20 is addressed correspondence grounded in a present relationship. This candidate would center a sourced memory and open meaning. Its distinctiveness cannot be tested with the current fixtures. Retain the resource with its source prerequisite and do not mistake the external fallback samples for evidence of memoir generalization.
\n\nTenderness can be restrained or ambivalent. Sensory intensity and explicit emotion words are not required.
\n\nDo not infer death, estrangement, reconciliation, or trauma from absence. The fixture intentionally leaves the reason unspecified.
\n\nInvent a remembered incident to satisfy the template. Check: A blank memory field must remain blank.
Force grief, affection, or uncertainty into a compulsory inspirational moral. Check: The ending need not declare healing or closure.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Entirely fictional first-person memory: Mira folded the corners of shopping lists. The invented speaker still has one list. No other biography or cause of absence is specified.
\n\nFictional remembrance: Mira folded the corner of every shopping list. I still have one. The fold is such a small thing to keep noticing; the rest of the paper could belong to anyone, but that corner brings me back to her. I do not need it to explain more than that.
\n\nFictional remembrance: Mira folded the corners of shopping lists, and I still have one. People are special and memories are important. We should always treasure everyone because life teaches us wonderful lessons.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second retains the detail but abandons its particular significance for generic, compulsory sentiment.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nTestimony ethics and literary craft provide relevant constraints. No organization owns this exact remembrance style.
\n\nOHA Statement on Ethics — Professional association ethics guidance.
The Lyric Essay — Primary literary editorial statement.
Stylistic Editing — Professional association standards.
Subject: Draftline Version history — availability and restore terms
\n\nVersion history becomes available on 20 October 2026. It retains versions for 30 days and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.
\n\nOpen Version history to access the feature. Only workspace editors can restore a version. Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history.
\n\nThe recovery limit: Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled.
" }, { "key": "human-l12", "label": "Abraham Lincoln · Letter to Ulysses S. Grant", "path": "excerpts/L12.md", "source": { "title": "Letter to Ulysses S. Grant", "author": "Abraham Lincoln", "publicationDate": "1863-07-13", "url": "https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/vicksburg.htm", "locator": "Quoted letter body beginning “I do not remember”", "rights": "Public domain in the USA", "rightsUrl": "https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/vicksburg.htm", "relationship": "Brief acknowledgment preserves context but is less compressed than the first source.", "edition": "Historical letter as transcribed by the U.S. National Park Service", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "I do not remember that you and I ever met personally. I write this now as a grateful acknowledgement for the almost inestimable service you have done the country. I wish to say a word further. When you first reached the vicinity of Vicksburg, I thought you should do, what you finally did - march the troops across the neck, run the batteries with the transports, and thus go below; and I never had any faith, except a general hope that you knew better than I, that the Yazoo Pass expedition, and the like, could succeed. When you got below, and took Port-Gibson, Grand Gulf, and vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and join Gen. Banks; and when you turned Northward East of the Big Black, I feared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong.\n", "id": "P41/human-l12", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "I do not remember that you and I ever met personally. I write this now as a grateful acknowledgement for the almost inestimable service you have done the country. I wish to say a word further. When you first reached the vicinity of Vicksburg, I thought you should do, what you finally did - march the troops across the neck, run the batteries with the transports, and thus go below; and I never had any faith, except a general hope that you knew better than I, that the Yazoo Pass expedition, and the like, could succeed. When you got below, and took Port-Gibson, Grand Gulf, and vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and join Gen. Banks; and when you turned Northward East of the Big Black, I feared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong.\n", "sha256": "5ac4f51688d21ac0980cfecb2c7d8bbc4b9ba245cf9d5eb20fdd52529f838b70", "html": "I do not remember that you and I ever met personally. I write this now as a grateful acknowledgement for the almost inestimable service you have done the country. I wish to say a word further. When you first reached the vicinity of Vicksburg, I thought you should do, what you finally did - march the troops across the neck, run the batteries with the transports, and thus go below; and I never had any faith, except a general hope that you knew better than I, that the Yazoo Pass expedition, and the like, could succeed. When you got below, and took Port-Gibson, Grand Gulf, and vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and join Gen. Banks; and when you turned Northward East of the Big Black, I feared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong.
" }, { "id": "P41/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "**Subject: Clearer Notes — paragraph workshop**\n\nClearer Notes is a free workshop on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**, with **12 places**.\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise**. Registration closes on **5 November**. If you would like to attend, register before registration closes.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P41\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n**Subject: Clearer Notes — paragraph workshop**\n\nClearer Notes is a free workshop on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**, with **12 places**.\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise**. Registration closes on **5 November**. If you would like to attend, register before registration closes.\n\n", "sha256": "54ca724199b5aad83ee9fc8e26045c93fe85b5b493da44ac98035c0d9fdc2586", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 7.2, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 27.77777777777778, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 12, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 38.888888888888886, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 36, "prose_sentences": 5, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 1, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 14, "headings": 0, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "54ca724199b5aad83ee9fc8e26045c93fe85b5b493da44ac98035c0d9fdc2586", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Subject: Clearer Notes — paragraph workshop
\n\nClearer Notes is a free workshop on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m., with 12 places.
\n\nBring one paragraph to revise. Registration closes on 5 November. If you would like to attend, register before registration closes.
" }, { "id": "P41/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "**Subject: Draftline upload status**\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read. The cause is not yet known.\n\nThe next update is at **3 p.m.**", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P41\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n**Subject: Draftline upload status**\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read. The cause is not yet known.\n\nThe next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\n", "sha256": "79c33e5e820b03a1b75452ad0d7f41dc5932fcc65440fd9aba35b60fc99d3d03", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 5.4, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 7, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 22.22222222222222, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 27, "prose_sentences": 5, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 6, "headings": 0, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "79c33e5e820b03a1b75452ad0d7f41dc5932fcc65440fd9aba35b60fc99d3d03", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Subject: Draftline upload status
\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read. The cause is not yet known.
\n\nThe next update is at 3 p.m.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P41", "sample_id": "P41/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P41/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "243f6f37c50f4ff1eed35d6d2d99bc85fafc94d43fd72f096446b42b7379d409", "trimmed_body_sha256": "81427cbf21410c26802c3fa77666580010ec95da58002c9f7aaf1150edf4a164", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**Subject: Draftline Version history — availability and restore terms**", "start": 0, "end": 71, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current whole piece uses edited public/professional wording, without ceremonial convention or sustained intimate conversation." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Version history becomes available on **20 October 2026**. It retains versions for **30 days** and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.", "start": 73, "end": 230, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current whole piece contains no intended comic device; its factual/evidential phrasing is restrained." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Version history becomes available on **20 October 2026**. It retains versions for **30 days** and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.", "start": 73, "end": 230, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current availability and operating terms are matter-of-fact. There is no sustained excitement or celebratory framing; useful content alone does not establish enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**Only workspace editors can restore a version.**", "start": 280, "end": 329, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current reader relationship is primarily impersonal and task/evidence focused. Clear instruction alone does not establish relational care." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**Only workspace editors can restore a version.**", "start": 280, "end": 329, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current piece assumes limited familiarity with workspace/editor/version or evidence-account terminology, while explaining the consequential relation; this is below dense specialist expertise." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history.", "start": 330, "end": 403, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The compact piece mainly states the required facts and action. Its reduced explanation is appropriate for a complete transactional note and is not a judgment of usefulness." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://developers.google.com/style/tone", "title": "Tone", "id": "S20" }, { "url": "https://styleguide.mailchimp.com/voice-and-tone/", "title": "Voice and Tone", "id": "S18" } ], "researchLimits": "Guidance does not prescribe an optimal word count; brevity cannot remove necessary facts.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p41-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p41-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P41/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P41/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P41/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P41.svg", "bundleSha256": "eb45ea0ba80230a913de0eee57ef18283559e29077f9e201ec55f4b86546d309", "bundleBytes": 88859 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: format, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nUse for an interpersonal message that needs a compact request, context and conditions. It suits email notes and brief professional exchanges. Avoid compression when the terms require a longer explanation or when an addressed relationship has not been supplied. Shortness is a format choice; it does not establish warmth, familiarity or a personal sender.
\n\nOpen with the purpose of the note. Give the minimum context necessary to understand the action, preserve every governing condition and close at the request or next checkpoint. Compression should reduce repetition, not fact coverage. When no actual sender or recipient is known, use a subject line and neutral message rather than fabricating a salutation and signature. A public feature explanation can adopt note structure without becoming an authentic piece of correspondence.
\n\nUse a descriptive subject and short coherent paragraphs. Combine parallel terms in a single sentence when doing so preserves their relationships. A colon can connect purpose and detail, but chained semicolons often hide the request. Repeat an exact label where needed. Avoid conversational filler that spends the limited space before the purpose arrives. Do not use fragments that make an eligibility condition sound optional.
\n\nFeature: preserve all terms even if the result exceeds a typical short message; source completeness outranks compression. Workshop: purpose, task, timing, cost, capacity and deadline fit a compact note. Incident: the format can be extremely short because all four facts fit without additional correspondence ritual.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “Quick note: history arrives soon, and you can restore anything. Cheers!”
\n\nCompression removes the date and role condition while expanding recovery beyond the feature’s scope. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nVersion history becomes available on 20 October 2026. Only workspace editors can restore a version; files deleted before enablement cannot be recovered with it.
V20 supplies relationship and addressed accountability. P41 is a format that can carry V20 or another voice; compression alone is not a new voice. The present fixtures provide no sender-recipient relationship, so their examples use neutral note forms and explicitly do not demonstrate intimate correspondence.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "L24", "title": "Letter to Grace Bedell", "author": "Abraham Lincoln", "year": "1860", "url": "https://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/25339", "relationship": "A complete personal reply remains short and noncommittal.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Personal correspondence", "publicationDate": "1860-10-19" }, { "id": "L12", "title": "Letter to Ulysses S. Grant", "author": "Abraham Lincoln", "year": "1863", "url": "https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/vicksburg.htm", "relationship": "Brief acknowledgment preserves context but is less compressed than the first source.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Professional personal correspondence", "publicationDate": "1863-07-13" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Compressed correspondence · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P41.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Brand voice: Above all, simple and human", "url": "https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/style-guide/brand-voice-above-all-simple-human", "relationship": "Organization-owned house style" }, { "title": "Stylistic Editing", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/stylistic-editing/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" }, { "title": "Plain Language Guide Series", "url": "https://digital.gov/guides/plain-language", "relationship": "Government guidance" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A compressed correspondence module that keeps the reason for writing, necessary context, and requested response while discarding ceremony rather than governing conditions.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nAn actual addressee or addressed interaction, present purpose, conditions, and request; parent V20.
\n\nPurpose first → minimum sufficient context → conditions → specific response or stop.
\n\nState why the message is being sent promptly. Check: The opening should identify the transaction or request.
Retain every condition necessary for the recipient’s response. Check: Compare a compressed draft against the fact and condition ledger.
End with the specific response needed or an explicit no-response status. Check: A recipient should not have to infer the next step.
Use for an interpersonal message that needs a compact request, context and conditions. It suits email notes and brief professional exchanges. Avoid compression when the terms require a longer explanation or when an addressed relationship has not been supplied. Shortness is a format choice; it does not establish warmth, familiarity or a personal sender.
\n\nOpen with the purpose of the note. Give the minimum context necessary to understand the action, preserve every governing condition and close at the request or next checkpoint. Compression should reduce repetition, not fact coverage. When no actual sender or recipient is known, use a subject line and neutral message rather than fabricating a salutation and signature. A public feature explanation can adopt note structure without becoming an authentic piece of correspondence.
\n\nUse a descriptive subject and short coherent paragraphs. Combine parallel terms in a single sentence when doing so preserves their relationships. A colon can connect purpose and detail, but chained semicolons often hide the request. Repeat an exact label where needed. Avoid conversational filler that spends the limited space before the purpose arrives. Do not use fragments that make an eligibility condition sound optional.
\n\nFeature: preserve all terms even if the result exceeds a typical short message; source completeness outranks compression. Workshop: purpose, task, timing, cost, capacity and deadline fit a compact note. Incident: the format can be extremely short because all four facts fit without additional correspondence ritual.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “Quick note: history arrives soon, and you can restore anything. Cheers!”
\n\nCompression removes the date and role condition while expanding recovery beyond the feature’s scope. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nVersion history becomes available on 20 October 2026. Only workspace editors can restore a version; files deleted before enablement cannot be recovered with it.
V20 supplies relationship and addressed accountability. P41 is a format that can carry V20 or another voice; compression alone is not a new voice. The present fixtures provide no sender-recipient relationship, so their examples use neutral note forms and explicitly do not demonstrate intimate correspondence.
\n\nA salutation and sign-off are optional if the channel already identifies participants. Politeness need not add several sentences.
\n\nA brief refusal can pass if it preserves the boundary and necessary context; a friendly opening is not mandatory.
\n\nRemove a qualifying condition solely to shorten the message. Check: Deletion must not change eligibility, status, deadline, or scope.
Invent familiarity to compensate for brevity. Check: Check greetings and personal references against known context.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional correspondence: Mira lent a notebook; it will be returned Tuesday; sender needs a location for leaving it.
\n\nMira, I will return your notebook Tuesday. Where would you like me to leave it?
\n\nMira, I am writing with regard to the notebook that you lent me. There is a forthcoming return of the notebook, which will take place Tuesday. In connection with that return, I am seeking information concerning the location where it should be left.
\n\nWhy it differs: Both communicate the same task; the second retains ceremony rather than achieving purposeful compression.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nClarity and appropriate editing support compression. No external authority establishes a universal word limit for correspondence.
\n\nBrand voice: Above all, simple and human — Organization-owned house style.
Stylistic Editing — Professional association standards.
Plain Language Guide Series — Government guidance.
When explaining Draftline’s Version history, keep restore permission and recovery scope beside the operation. This is a recommendation for a future explanation, not a finding from observed use.
\n\nThe feature becomes available on 20 October 2026, retains versions for 30 days, and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Open Version history to access it. Only workspace editors can restore a version. Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history.
\n\nThose terms describe different parts of the capability. Inclusion gives the charge; permission gives the authorized role; restoring gives the change to the current version. Keeping the terms together avoids wording that would describe a broader operation than the one supplied.
\n\nThe recovery limit must remain explicit: Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. A retained-draft operation should not be presented as unrestricted recovery.
\n\nFor the next explanation, state the operation and its conditions as one connected account. Whether that account improves readers’ understanding remains a question for actual observation. The documented terms support the recommendation to preserve scope; they do not supply a result from a completed release or explanation.
" }, { "key": "human-m01", "label": "GitLab institutional byline; CEO apology within text · Postmortem of database outage of January 31", "path": "excerpts/M01.md", "source": { "title": "Postmortem of database outage of January 31", "author": "GitLab institutional byline; CEO apology within text", "publicationDate": "2017-02-10", "url": "https://about.gitlab.com/blog/postmortem-of-database-outage-of-january-31/", "locator": "Opening: paragraph2 firstsentence; paragraph3 firstsentence. Timeline is a separate source section, not included in this short extract.", "rights": "Short attributed quotation · copyright retained", "rightsUrl": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/marketing/digital-experience/gitlab-blog/-/issues/159", "relationship": "The event leads into analysis and corrective commitments.", "edition": "Dated publisher/author webpage; no immutable pre-2022 snapshot acquired", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "GitLab, Postmortem of database outage of January 31, 10 February 2017. Copyright retained; selected short quotation.", "note": "Only a short incident-impact/acknowledgment aspect. P45 chronology is in the linkedTimeline; this extract does not itself demonstrate the whole timeline module." }, "markdown": "This incident caused the GitLab.com service to be unavailable for many hours.\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]\n\nLosing production data is unacceptable.\n", "id": "P42/human-m01", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "This incident caused the GitLab.com service to be unavailable for many hours.\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]\n\nLosing production data is unacceptable.\n", "sha256": "ee84ba2b31db9f8407ce90ae66b4b122a3e05471b5010ac9089d365acb6b9070", "html": "This incident caused the GitLab.com service to be unavailable for many hours.
\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]
\n\nLosing production data is unacceptable.
" }, { "key": "human-h05", "label": "18F; front-matter author handles chrisc, mhz and nick · User-centered design at 18F: a design studio for natural resource revenues", "path": "excerpts/H05.md", "source": { "title": "User-centered design at 18F: a design studio for natural resource revenues", "author": "18F; front-matter author handles chrisc, mhz and nick", "publicationDate": "2014-09-25", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-09-25-design-studio-onrr.md", "locator": "“What’s next?”; links reduced to visible labels", "rights": "CC0 · 18F staff prose", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/", "relationship": "The workshop account ends with what to build and test next.", "edition": "18F repository snapshot df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5 (2021-12-30)", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "Exhausted, but excited, the group walked away at the end of the session with clear direction for designs that we can build and then test with real users. Work on this project has just begun, and user-centered design requires more than theorizing. It requires continual testing of our design decisions and assumptions to ensure the needs of users are being met.\n\n18F will also continue to work on this project in the open and in public. That means quickly moving beyond designing for the public to designing with the public.\n\nWe’re interested in finding out ways to work with you that go beyond the software code to how the things we’re building actually work. Look out for upcoming opportunities to collaborate! To stay up to date on our work on this project and others, follow us on Twitter.\n", "id": "P42/human-h05", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "Exhausted, but excited, the group walked away at the end of the session with clear direction for designs that we can build and then test with real users. Work on this project has just begun, and user-centered design requires more than theorizing. It requires continual testing of our design decisions and assumptions to ensure the needs of users are being met.\n\n18F will also continue to work on this project in the open and in public. That means quickly moving beyond designing for the public to designing with the public.\n\nWe’re interested in finding out ways to work with you that go beyond the software code to how the things we’re building actually work. Look out for upcoming opportunities to collaborate! To stay up to date on our work on this project and others, follow us on Twitter.\n", "sha256": "616e3dd4835f4a960485d02bfca307d6d135118bdade78efa6a44a15d690ebd8", "html": "Exhausted, but excited, the group walked away at the end of the session with clear direction for designs that we can build and then test with real users. Work on this project has just begun, and user-centered design requires more than theorizing. It requires continual testing of our design decisions and assumptions to ensure the needs of users are being met.
\n\n18F will also continue to work on this project in the open and in public. That means quickly moving beyond designing for the public to designing with the public.
\n\nWe’re interested in finding out ways to work with you that go beyond the software code to how the things we’re building actually work. Look out for upcoming opportunities to collaborate! To stay up to date on our work on this project and others, follow us on Twitter.
" }, { "id": "P42/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## Choose the paragraph before the workshop\n\nFor Clearer Notes, the preparation is concrete: bring **one paragraph to revise**. Choose the passage you would like to work on and bring it to the session.\n\nThe workshop is free, has **12 places**, and takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nIf you plan to attend, keep the registration deadline and the paragraph together in your preparation. Register before registration closes, then bring the selected passage to the workshop.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P42\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Choose the paragraph before the workshop\n\nFor Clearer Notes, the preparation is concrete: bring **one paragraph to revise**. Choose the passage you would like to work on and bring it to the session.\n\nThe workshop is free, has **12 places**, and takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nIf you plan to attend, keep the registration deadline and the paragraph together in your preparation. Register before registration closes, then bring the selected passage to the workshop.\n\n", "sha256": "31dfc041912b18beb56fee3752d4445650858ea232f588f4042c13dfc822da4c", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 14.4, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7086956521739131, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 41.666666666666664, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 27, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 12.5, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 72, "prose_sentences": 5, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 3, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "31dfc041912b18beb56fee3752d4445650858ea232f588f4042c13dfc822da4c", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "For Clearer Notes, the preparation is concrete: bring one paragraph to revise. Choose the passage you would like to work on and bring it to the session.
\n\nThe workshop is free, has 12 places, and takes place on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nIf you plan to attend, keep the registration deadline and the paragraph together in your preparation. Register before registration closes, then bring the selected passage to the workshop.
" }, { "id": "P42/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## Draftline: present status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P42\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Draftline: present status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\n", "sha256": "67355a4c1597a0354bcf2e5cc2f5eb1f5b9d044218c1c7f7a45e2f403c19cdae", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 5.75, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 8.695652173913043, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 23, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 2, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "67355a4c1597a0354bcf2e5cc2f5eb1f5b9d044218c1c7f7a45e2f403c19cdae", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P42", "sample_id": "P42/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P42/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "944adceec3427c3920e58640f47c1f20ec90251528ea688c817c3aebc858e50d", "trimmed_body_sha256": "75e0b8ef0bbded8c2efde8b15111b15fccfae85d12e76f4b6f0e5cc067520e1c", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "This is a recommendation for a future explanation, not a finding from observed use.", "start": 153, "end": 236, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Precise evidentiary or specification framing places this above neutral professional prose, while it remains below ceremonial/institutional convention." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The feature becomes available on **20 October 2026**, retains versions for **30 days**, and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Open Version history to access it. **Only workspace editors can restore a version.** Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history.", "start": 238, "end": 548, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Reading the complete sample shows no intended comic device; factual phrasing and the quoted passage illustrate that restrained posture." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The feature becomes available on **20 October 2026**, retains versions for **30 days**, and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Open Version history to access it. **Only workspace editors can restore a version.** Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history.", "start": 238, "end": 548, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The sample states availability and operating terms without sustained excitement, celebratory wording or energetic encouragement; positive usefulness alone is not enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Whether that account improves readers’ understanding remains a question for actual observation.", "start": 1120, "end": 1215, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The reader relationship is primarily impersonal and task/evidence focused; no passage establishes relational acknowledgment beyond operating guidance." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Inclusion gives the charge; permission gives the authorized role; restoring gives the change to the current version.", "start": 606, "end": 722, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The sample lightly assumes familiarity with workspace/editor/version terminology, while explaining the consequential relations; it does not require dense specialist knowledge." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Inclusion gives the charge; permission gives the authorized role; restoring gives the change to the current version.", "start": 606, "end": 722, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The complete piece develops multiple related conditions and explains why a distinction matters, beyond selected statements; the cited passage supports that intermediate level." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://sre.google/sre-book/postmortem-culture/", "title": "Postmortem Culture: Learning from Failure", "id": "S45" }, { "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session", "title": "Analyse a research session", "id": "S46" } ], "researchLimits": "Postmortem and research guidance do not prove that an action item has been carried out or improved results.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p42-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p42-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P42/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P42/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P42/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P42.svg", "bundleSha256": "1effa591cc2b55fc6958f55782fe486b969d32fb0a0650edb1bc98f6ee1054ab", "bundleBytes": 101459 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: recipe, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nUse when an actual event, observations and a possible adjustment are supplied. It suits retrospectives and learning notes. The current fixtures have no completed workshop, feature-use observations or incident resolution. They support a prospective reflection on documented terms, not a fabricated after-action account. Avoid claiming that an adjustment has already improved anything.
\n\nFor a sourced retrospective, open with the consequential event or observation, interpret it against a stated aim and propose a specific adjustment for next time. Separate event, meaning and proposed action. With prospective material, label the change as a recommendation for future explanation rather than an outcome of experience. The movement can examine how terms should be communicated without pretending that communication has already been tested. End with what would need observing before claiming improvement.
\n\nUse tense to distinguish past evidence from future adjustment. Phrases such as next time need a real prior event; otherwise name the next explanation or planned task. Paragraphs should separate description, interpretation and recommendation. Repeat the aim so the adjustment has a reason. Avoid a triumphant lesson statement that turns an assumption into a measured result. Reflective language does not supply missing observations.
\n\nFeature: propose keeping permission and recovery limits with the operation; no release results. Workshop: frame preparation prospectively, not as lessons from a previous session. Incident: no hindsight, cause story or process improvement is available; issue a present status notice and defer retrospective analysis.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “After the outage, we learned that the fix made uploads more reliable.”
\n\nThe retrospective invents resolution and a measured reliability improvement. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nNew uploads are unavailable, and the cause is not yet known. An after-action conclusion requires evidence not supplied in this status snapshot.
V14 braids related strands into reflection. P42 imposes event-to-interpretation-to-adjustment order and is a retrospective recipe. It cannot demonstrate that full order without event evidence. The prospective samples are honest fit-limited adaptations, not successful retrospective transfers or measured improvements.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "M01", "title": "Postmortem of database outage of January 31", "author": "GitLab institutional byline; CEO apology within text", "year": "2017", "url": "https://about.gitlab.com/blog/postmortem-of-database-outage-of-january-31/", "relationship": "The event leads into analysis and corrective commitments.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Incident postmortem and recovery FAQ", "publicationDate": "2017-02-10" }, { "id": "H05", "title": "User-centered design at 18F: a design studio for natural resource revenues", "author": "18F; front-matter author handles chrisc, mhz and nick", "year": "2014", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-09-25-design-studio-onrr.md", "relationship": "The workshop account ends with what to build and test next.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Government digital-service blog", "publicationDate": "2014-09-25" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Reflective after-action · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P42.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Postmortem Culture: Learning from Failure", "url": "https://sre.google/workbook/postmortem-culture/", "relationship": "Primary practitioner manual with worked contrasts" }, { "title": "Analyse a research session", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session", "relationship": "Government practitioner guidance" }, { "title": "Counterargument", "url": "https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/counterargument", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A retrospective research module that compares an actual event with its aim, distinguishes observation from interpretation, and proposes a justified adjustment for a future attempt.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nAn event that actually occurred or is explicitly synthetic, an aim, observations, and relevant limits; parent V12.
\n\nEvent and aim → observation → comparison → bounded interpretation → future adjustment.
\n\nEstablish the completed event and aim when supplied; otherwise label the account as prospective. Check: Do not turn a recommendation into a retrospective result.
Compare observed events with the aim only when observations are supplied. Check: Otherwise identify what would need observing.
Tie a future adjustment to a bounded interpretation of the comparison. Check: The proposed change should address the observed issue without claiming it is proven.
Use when an actual event, observations and a possible adjustment are supplied. It suits retrospectives and learning notes. The current fixtures have no completed workshop, feature-use observations or incident resolution. They support a prospective reflection on documented terms, not a fabricated after-action account. Avoid claiming that an adjustment has already improved anything.
\n\nFor a sourced retrospective, open with the consequential event or observation, interpret it against a stated aim and propose a specific adjustment for next time. Separate event, meaning and proposed action. With prospective material, label the change as a recommendation for future explanation rather than an outcome of experience. The movement can examine how terms should be communicated without pretending that communication has already been tested. End with what would need observing before claiming improvement.
\n\nUse tense to distinguish past evidence from future adjustment. Phrases such as next time need a real prior event; otherwise name the next explanation or planned task. Paragraphs should separate description, interpretation and recommendation. Repeat the aim so the adjustment has a reason. Avoid a triumphant lesson statement that turns an assumption into a measured result. Reflective language does not supply missing observations.
\n\nFeature: propose keeping permission and recovery limits with the operation; no release results. Workshop: frame preparation prospectively, not as lessons from a previous session. Incident: no hindsight, cause story or process improvement is available; issue a present status notice and defer retrospective analysis.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “After the outage, we learned that the fix made uploads more reliable.”
\n\nThe retrospective invents resolution and a measured reliability improvement. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nNew uploads are unavailable, and the cause is not yet known. An after-action conclusion requires evidence not supplied in this status snapshot.
V14 braids related strands into reflection. P42 imposes event-to-interpretation-to-adjustment order and is a retrospective recipe. It cannot demonstrate that full order without event evidence. The prospective samples are honest fit-limited adaptations, not successful retrospective transfers or measured improvements.
\n\nAn after-action review may conclude that no change is supported. Reflection is not a mandatory confession of failure.
\n\nA future plan can be useful and fact-faithful while failing after-action membership. Record those outcomes separately.
\n\nInvent a past event or results to create a lesson. Check: Check occurrence and observations separately.
Turn hindsight into certainty about cause. Check: Distinguish plausible explanation from demonstrated mechanism.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Synthetic completed workshop: aim was for four volunteers to finish an export task; three completed, one stopped after acceptance because the file was not ready. No comparison data exist.
\n\nSynthetic after-action note: The workshop aimed for four volunteers to finish an export task; three did. One stopped after acceptance while the file was still unavailable. This suggests that the completion check needs clearer treatment in the next workshop. It does not establish that revised wording will solve the problem; that is an adjustment to test.
\n\nSynthetic plan: We aim for four volunteers to finish an export task. We will watch for stopping after acceptance and consider a clearer completion check. No comparison data are available.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second is a coherent prospective plan but cannot satisfy the retrospective identity because the event is not presented as completed.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nPostmortem and analysis guidance provide relevant models. The local module can apply outside incidents without importing every SRE field.
\n\nPostmortem Culture: Learning from Failure — Primary practitioner manual with worked contrasts.
Analyse a research session — Government practitioner guidance.
Counterargument — University teaching guidance.
Availability: Draftline’s Version history becomes available on 20 October 2026.
\n\nRetention: versions are retained for 30 days. The period is part of the feature’s scope, not a decorative number.
\n\nInclusion: the feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.
\n\nRestore permission: only workspace editors can restore a version. Plan inclusion is not permission; those terms answer different questions.
\n\nOpen Version history to access the feature. Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. The current version changes; the stored record remains.
\n\nRecovery limit: the feature cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled. A launch date does not retrospectively remove that boundary.
" }, { "key": "human-t01", "label": "Scott Bradner · RFC 2119: Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", "path": "excerpts/T01.md", "source": { "title": "RFC 2119: Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", "author": "Scott Bradner", "publicationDate": "1997-03", "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.html", "locator": "Section 2, MUST NOT definition", "rights": "Short attributed quotation", "rightsUrl": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt", "relationship": "Defines an obligation level precisely in one compact entry.", "edition": "Dated publisher/author webpage; no immutable pre-2022 snapshot acquired", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "Scott Bradner, RFC 2119, IETF, March 1997, section 2.", "note": "Demonstrates technical reference and concise annotation; the definition does not make IETF the writing library’s rule owner." }, "markdown": "MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase \"SHALL NOT\", mean that the definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.\n", "id": "P43/human-t01", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase \"SHALL NOT\", mean that the definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.\n", "sha256": "64d010bdd99d712a1da3f202dceec9ddcc091fc019e87f3239cd941c28220c6d", "html": "MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.
" }, { "id": "P43/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## Clearer Notes: event terms\n\n**Workshop:** Clearer Notes.\n\n**Date and time:** 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.\n\n**Cost and capacity:** free; 12 places.\n\n**Preparation:** bring one paragraph to revise.\n\n**Registration:** closes on 5 November.\n\nThe preparation is one paragraph. The two dates have different jobs: 5 November is the registration closing date, and 7 November is the workshop. If you intend to attend, register before registration closes and bring the paragraph you selected.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P43\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Clearer Notes: event terms\n\n**Workshop:** Clearer Notes.\n\n**Date and time:** 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.\n\n**Cost and capacity:** free; 12 places.\n\n**Preparation:** bring one paragraph to revise.\n\n**Registration:** closes on 5 November.\n\nThe preparation is one paragraph. The two dates have different jobs: 5 November is the registration closing date, and 7 November is the workshop. If you intend to attend, register before registration closes and bring the paragraph you selected.\n\n", "sha256": "3ac1a561c7e1d92c4f678ac2738290fc4865905347c534577029edc546ff49bf", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 7.625, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.655, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 32.78688524590164, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 5.5, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 14.754098360655737, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 61, "prose_sentences": 8, "prose_paragraphs": 6, "reader_address_events": 2, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "3ac1a561c7e1d92c4f678ac2738290fc4865905347c534577029edc546ff49bf", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Workshop: Clearer Notes.
\n\nDate and time: 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.
\n\nCost and capacity: free; 12 places.
\n\nPreparation: bring one paragraph to revise.
\n\nRegistration: closes on 5 November.
\n\nThe preparation is one paragraph. The two dates have different jobs: 5 November is the registration closing date, and 7 November is the workshop. If you intend to attend, register before registration closes and bring the paragraph you selected.
" }, { "id": "P43/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## Draftline status\n\n**New uploads:** unavailable.\n\n**Existing documents:** can still be read.\n\n**Cause:** not yet known.\n\n**Next update:** 3 p.m.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P43\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Draftline status\n\n**New uploads:** unavailable.\n\n**Existing documents:** can still be read.\n\n**Cause:** not yet known.\n\n**Next update:** 3 p.m.\n\n", "sha256": "32478f4132112ba9e208e54b93badccf9dc166eccbf0df6c1869d0f6e20a3ced", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 4.25, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 4, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 41.1764705882353, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 17, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 4, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 7, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "32478f4132112ba9e208e54b93badccf9dc166eccbf0df6c1869d0f6e20a3ced", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads: unavailable.
\n\nExisting documents: can still be read.
\n\nCause: not yet known.
\n\nNext update: 3 p.m.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P43", "sample_id": "P43/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P43/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "ee562ac95b9c540575f75a9462b25a9e6c697e3032c837756f42b6a61a0b40e7", "trimmed_body_sha256": "7cd10aeeef6e7ce36fdde805aa88fd41336a083b9b96c07f5dec23f03dad2998", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**Restore permission:** only workspace editors can restore a version.", "start": 337, "end": 406, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current piece uses precise reference/evidence labels and explicit source distinctions, above a neutral edited register but below ceremonial formality." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**Availability:** Draftline’s Version history becomes available on **20 October 2026**.", "start": 37, "end": 124, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current whole piece contains no intended comic device; its factual/evidential phrasing is restrained." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**Availability:** Draftline’s Version history becomes available on **20 October 2026**.", "start": 37, "end": 124, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current availability and operating terms are matter-of-fact. There is no sustained excitement or celebratory framing; useful content alone does not establish enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**Inclusion:** the feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.", "start": 249, "end": 335, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current reader relationship is primarily impersonal and task/evidence focused. Clear instruction alone does not establish relational care." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Plan inclusion is not permission; those terms answer different questions.", "start": 407, "end": 480, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current piece assumes limited familiarity with workspace/editor/version or evidence-account terminology, while explaining the consequential relation; this is below dense specialist expertise." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "A launch date does not retrospectively remove that boundary.", "start": 749, "end": 809, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current piece develops linked conditions or an explanatory relation and clarifies its boundary/source status, beyond a list of selected statements." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/reference/", "title": "Reference", "id": "S44" }, { "url": "https://www.nngroup.com/articles/tone-of-voice-dimensions/", "title": "The Four Dimensions of Tone of Voice", "id": "S17" } ], "researchLimits": "Reference neutrality can conflict with humor; compatibility is task-dependent rather than universally desirable.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p43-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p43-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P43/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P43/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P43/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P43.svg", "bundleSha256": "c75b7bf6d028a12f52d5a8b3bcb9064d8486d890045def11d37713b3b29415b6", "bundleBytes": 94191 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: voice candidate, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nUse where exact operating terms benefit from a sparse clarifying annotation. It suits documentation and reference explanations. Avoid it when a joke could change the meaning of a requirement or when critical service status needs no commentary. The writer’s dryness is a restraint on performance, not a claim of technical authority.
\n\nOpen with the operative term or rule, then add a brief annotation that prevents a likely misreading. Keep literal requirements in primary position. Return to the exact operation after each annotation. The movement is rule, clarification, boundary. The commentary earns its space only if it makes a condition easier to remember without changing it. Do not turn every line into a clever aside; readers must be able to retrieve terms without disentangling humor.
\n\nUse compact declaratives and occasional parenthetical notes for genuinely secondary material. A decisive limit needs an ordinary sentence, not an aside. Labels can identify availability, retention and permission. Short dry comments should follow rather than interrupt technical terms. Paragraphs group one operational relation. Avoid quotation marks that imply interface labels beyond the supplied action name, invented commands or humorous substitutes for units.
\n\nFeature: annotate the distinction between included plans and editor-only restore access. Workshop: preserve dates and task with minimal commentary; no invented instructions. Incident: suppress dryness as humor, retain literal current status and the next update time.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “History lasts forever-ish; any user can hit the magic undo thing.”
\n\nThe comic substitutes alter retention, permission and the exact interface label. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nVersions are retained for 30 days. Only workspace editors can restore a version. The interface action is Version history.
V10 gives exact retrieval-oriented reference prose. This candidate adds sparse editorial annotations that expose a boundary, drawing partly on V08. It may be a dry-tone modifier on technical reference rather than an independent voice. The distinction must survive without replacing literal rules with quips.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "L16", "title": "The King’s English", "author": "H. W. Fowler and F. G. Fowler", "year": "1924", "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75439", "relationship": "A compact annotation locates a syntactic fault precisely.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Usage guide with annotated source examples", "publicationDate": "1924" }, { "id": "T01", "title": "RFC 2119: Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", "author": "Scott Bradner", "year": "1997", "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.html", "relationship": "Defines an obligation level precisely in one compact entry.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Standards reference", "publicationDate": "1997-03" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Dry technical annotator · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P43.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Reference", "url": "https://diataxis.fr/reference/", "relationship": "Originator/practitioner framework" }, { "title": "Voice and tone", "url": "https://developers.google.com/style/tone", "relationship": "Organization-owned house style" }, { "title": "Voice and Tone", "url": "https://styleguide.mailchimp.com/voice-and-tone/", "relationship": "Organization-owned house style" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A dry annotation module attached to an exact technical reference: literal behavior comes first, and a sparse aside prevents a specific misreading without becoming a joke-led explanation.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA documented rule, a real likely misreading, an appropriate house context, and parent V10.
\n\nExact rule → brief dry anti-misreading aside → literal operational consequence.
\n\nPlace the exact technical rule before the aside. Check: A lookup reader must obtain the rule without reading a joke.
Aim the aside at a specific plausible misinterpretation. Check: Explain which mistaken inference the aside prevents.
Preserve all technical tokens and conditions. Check: Compare identifiers, status, and quantities with the source.
Use where exact operating terms benefit from a sparse clarifying annotation. It suits documentation and reference explanations. Avoid it when a joke could change the meaning of a requirement or when critical service status needs no commentary. The writer’s dryness is a restraint on performance, not a claim of technical authority.
\n\nOpen with the operative term or rule, then add a brief annotation that prevents a likely misreading. Keep literal requirements in primary position. Return to the exact operation after each annotation. The movement is rule, clarification, boundary. The commentary earns its space only if it makes a condition easier to remember without changing it. Do not turn every line into a clever aside; readers must be able to retrieve terms without disentangling humor.
\n\nUse compact declaratives and occasional parenthetical notes for genuinely secondary material. A decisive limit needs an ordinary sentence, not an aside. Labels can identify availability, retention and permission. Short dry comments should follow rather than interrupt technical terms. Paragraphs group one operational relation. Avoid quotation marks that imply interface labels beyond the supplied action name, invented commands or humorous substitutes for units.
\n\nFeature: annotate the distinction between included plans and editor-only restore access. Workshop: preserve dates and task with minimal commentary; no invented instructions. Incident: suppress dryness as humor, retain literal current status and the next update time.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “History lasts forever-ish; any user can hit the magic undo thing.”
\n\nThe comic substitutes alter retention, permission and the exact interface label. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nVersions are retained for 30 days. Only workspace editors can restore a version. The interface action is Version history.
V10 gives exact retrieval-oriented reference prose. This candidate adds sparse editorial annotations that expose a boundary, drawing partly on V08. It may be a dry-tone modifier on technical reference rather than an independent voice. The distinction must survive without replacing literal rules with quips.
\n\nAn aside can be a few words. A witty voice across every line is neither required nor appropriate.
\n\nThe literal entry alone can be correct reference but not an expressed P43 module. Suppression is not a hidden success.
\n\nLet wit replace the literal rule. Check: Remove the aside and check reference completeness.
Humiliate a user for misunderstanding the system. Check: Target the semantic mismatch rather than the reader’s competence.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional reference fact: HTTP 202 in this interface means an export is queued, not completed.
\n\n202 — Export queued, not completed. Acceptance is not a victory lap; do not offer the file until completion is confirmed.
\n\nAcceptance is not a victory lap. Computers enjoy making us wait. Somewhere in that process, 202 means the export is queued rather than completed.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second preserves the key fact but buries it beneath a joke-led narrative and adds an ungrounded anthropomorphic distraction.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nThe source combination deliberately exposes tension: a strict technical house guide may reject the aside even when the local module permits it.
\n\nReference — Originator/practitioner framework.
Voice and tone — Organization-owned house style.
Voice and Tone — Organization-owned house style.
Draftline’s Version history lets a workspace editor restore a retained version. Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. The current version changes while the stored record remains.
\n\nThe feature becomes available on 20 October 2026. It is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Versions are retained for 30 days.
\n\nOnly workspace editors can restore. Inclusion on a plan describes the charge for the feature; it does not expand restore permission to everyone in the workspace.
\n\nNo. Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. That recovery request falls outside the documented scope. Keep this limit with the retention period when deciding whether the operation fits your task.
\n\nOpen Version history. Use the feature for the retained-version operation described above, with editor permission and the stated recovery limit in view.
" }, { "key": "human-m01", "label": "GitLab institutional byline; CEO apology within text · Postmortem of database outage of January 31", "path": "excerpts/M01.md", "source": { "title": "Postmortem of database outage of January 31", "author": "GitLab institutional byline; CEO apology within text", "publicationDate": "2017-02-10", "url": "https://about.gitlab.com/blog/postmortem-of-database-outage-of-january-31/", "locator": "Opening: paragraph2 firstsentence; paragraph3 firstsentence. Timeline is a separate source section, not included in this short extract.", "rights": "Short attributed quotation · copyright retained", "rightsUrl": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/marketing/digital-experience/gitlab-blog/-/issues/159", "relationship": "Troubleshooting FAQ is organized around user recovery questions.", "edition": "Dated publisher/author webpage; no immutable pre-2022 snapshot acquired", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "GitLab, Postmortem of database outage of January 31, 10 February 2017. Copyright retained; selected short quotation.", "note": "Only a short incident-impact/acknowledgment aspect. P45 chronology is in the linkedTimeline; this extract does not itself demonstrate the whole timeline module." }, "markdown": "This incident caused the GitLab.com service to be unavailable for many hours.\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]\n\nLosing production data is unacceptable.\n", "id": "P44/human-m01", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "This incident caused the GitLab.com service to be unavailable for many hours.\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]\n\nLosing production data is unacceptable.\n", "sha256": "ee84ba2b31db9f8407ce90ae66b4b122a3e05471b5010ac9089d365acb6b9070", "html": "This incident caused the GitLab.com service to be unavailable for many hours.
\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]
\n\nLosing production data is unacceptable.
" }, { "key": "human-h08", "label": "18F (institutional byline) · 18F Demo Day", "path": "excerpts/H08.md", "source": { "title": "18F Demo Day", "author": "18F (institutional byline)", "publicationDate": "2014-04-28", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-04-28-18f-demo-day-may-9-2014.md", "locator": "Opening Who / What / When / Where / How block; Markdown links removed, wording retained.", "rights": "CC0 · 18F staff prose", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/", "relationship": "Question labels expose event facts, but do not guide a branching field decision.", "edition": "18F repository snapshot df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "Who: GSA’s 18F\n\nWhat: 18F Demo Day\n\nWhen: Friday, May 9, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. (Registration opens at 8:15 a.m.)\n\nWhere: GSA Headquarters; 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, D.C.\n[map]\n\nHow: Open to the government and the public. Space is limited, so please register now.\n", "id": "P44/human-h08", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "Who: GSA’s 18F\n\nWhat: 18F Demo Day\n\nWhen: Friday, May 9, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. (Registration opens at 8:15 a.m.)\n\nWhere: GSA Headquarters; 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, D.C.\n[map]\n\nHow: Open to the government and the public. Space is limited, so please register now.\n", "sha256": "680f5b4e5d00dda093e12e461b0bb68bf34e48d354555965d6001ce7c9c73522", "html": "Who: GSA’s 18F
\n\nWhat: 18F Demo Day
\n\nWhen: Friday, May 9, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. (Registration opens at 8:15 a.m.)
\n\nWhere: GSA Headquarters; 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, D.C.\n[map]
\n\nHow: Open to the government and the public. Space is limited, so please register now.
" }, { "id": "P44/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## When is Clearer Notes?\n\nThe workshop takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It is free and has **12 places**.\n\n## What should I bring?\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise**. Choose the passage you would like to work on and bring it to the workshop.\n\n## When does registration close?\n\nRegistration closes on **5 November**. If you intend to attend, register before registration closes. Keep the registration deadline separate from the later workshop date when planning.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P44\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## When is Clearer Notes?\n\nThe workshop takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** It is free and has **12 places**.\n\n## What should I bring?\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise**. Choose the passage you would like to work on and bring it to the workshop.\n\n## When does registration close?\n\nRegistration closes on **5 November**. If you intend to attend, register before registration closes. Keep the registration deadline separate from the later workshop date when planning.\n\n", "sha256": "d39ba475822201106619a9225d18f5f26c7b35a7c597b778d654c97a2cda12b9", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 9.833333333333334, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.6940000000000001, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 33.898305084745765, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 20, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 15.254237288135593, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 59, "prose_sentences": 6, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 2, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 3, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "d39ba475822201106619a9225d18f5f26c7b35a7c597b778d654c97a2cda12b9", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "The workshop takes place on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. It is free and has 12 places.
\n\nBring one paragraph to revise. Choose the passage you would like to work on and bring it to the workshop.
\n\nRegistration closes on 5 November. If you intend to attend, register before registration closes. Keep the registration deadline separate from the later workshop date when planning.
" }, { "id": "P44/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## Draftline: what is unavailable?\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P44\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Draftline: what is unavailable?\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\n", "sha256": "654b1b31302cc6c79b728dffb184ba2741957b64c3c12cd9a1d6df0d6b90e9e9", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 5.75, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 8.695652173913043, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 23, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 2, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "654b1b31302cc6c79b728dffb184ba2741957b64c3c12cd9a1d6df0d6b90e9e9", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P44", "sample_id": "P44/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P44/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "fd273c720b38d6b0700ceaaa55ca441610ba6a1991917d01b94c84f469aed500", "trimmed_body_sha256": "858942ccfcf22edbc69a2ea4afc991291f88a1db914b7482740afb2c995c1331", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "That recovery request falls outside the documented scope.", "start": 800, "end": 857, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public/professional wording is neutral and readable, without sustained conversational intimacy or ceremonial convention." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The feature becomes available on **20 October 2026**. It is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Versions are retained for **30 days**.", "start": 307, "end": 462, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Reading the complete sample shows no intended comic device; factual phrasing and the quoted passage illustrate that restrained posture." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The feature becomes available on **20 October 2026**. It is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Versions are retained for **30 days**.", "start": 307, "end": 462, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The sample states availability and operating terms without sustained excitement, celebratory wording or energetic encouragement; positive usefulness alone is not enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "when deciding whether the operation fits your task", "start": 900, "end": 950, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The quoted passage acknowledges a reader task, likely concern or practical entry point. This is limited reader consideration, below explicit relational care." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Inclusion on a plan describes the charge for the feature; it does not expand restore permission", "start": 535, "end": 630, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The operation is explained through ordinary terms and explicit conditions, so little specialist background is required." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Inclusion on a plan describes the charge for the feature; it does not expand restore permission", "start": 535, "end": 630, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The complete piece develops multiple related conditions and explains why a distinction matters, beyond selected statements; the cited passage supports that intermediate level." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/explanation/", "title": "Explanation", "id": "S42" }, { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/reference/", "title": "Reference", "id": "S44" } ], "researchLimits": "Question-shaped formatting alone is not responsive dialogue or evidence of successful retrieval.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p44-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p44-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P44/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P44/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P44/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P44.svg", "bundleSha256": "a63a797e5e64fa7c2075ee89fdf323c93b2d3d58403570ffaac1266470bfda92", "bundleBytes": 94221 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: recipe, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nUse when practical reader questions provide a useful retrieval path. It suits onboarding, feature guides and event information. Avoid rhetorical suspense, an FAQ full of invented audience questions, or question headings that delay a critical status notice. The questions should represent genuine information needs in the supplied task.
\n\nOpen with the question most relevant to action, answer it immediately and move through the conditions a reader must understand. The order should follow the task, not the order facts happened to arrive. Group closely related questions so the page does not fragment into tiny units. The answer to the first question must remain true alone. End with the real access action, deadline or unresolved state rather than an unnecessary final question.
\n\nUse literal interrogative headings and direct declarative answers. Echo a key noun from question to answer where needed for retrieval. A paragraph may answer a permission question and explain its relation to plan inclusion. Do not hide the answer behind a conversational preamble. Keep answers proportional to their complexity. Repetition of exact labels is better than playful variation across headings.
\n\nFeature: ask about operation, who can restore, timing and recovery scope, retaining every fact. Workshop: answer when, what to bring and when to register without adding speculative logistics. Incident: state unavailability first; a question heading may support retrieval only if it does not delay status.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “Want the secret to never losing a file? Read on to discover the magic.”
\n\nThe question promises an unsupported secret and recovery guarantee before delivering any useful answer. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nWhat can Version history restore? A workspace editor can restore a retained version; files deleted before the feature was enabled cannot be recovered with it.
V06 uses inquiry to examine assumptions. P44 uses practical questions as navigation, with immediate answers. It is a guide recipe, not an independent voice created by adding question marks. P34 changes a generalization with a counterexample; P44 can simply retrieve supplied terms.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "M01", "title": "Postmortem of database outage of January 31", "author": "GitLab institutional byline; CEO apology within text", "year": "2017", "url": "https://about.gitlab.com/blog/postmortem-of-database-outage-of-january-31/", "relationship": "Troubleshooting FAQ is organized around user recovery questions.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Incident postmortem and recovery FAQ", "publicationDate": "2017-02-10" }, { "id": "H08", "title": "18F Demo Day", "author": "18F (institutional byline)", "year": "2014", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-04-28-18f-demo-day-may-9-2014.md", "relationship": "Question labels expose event facts, but do not guide a branching field decision.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Public event invitation", "publicationDate": "2014-04-28" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Question-led field guide · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P44.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Anthypophora", "url": "https://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/A/anthypophora.htm", "relationship": "University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference" }, { "title": "Plain Language Guide Series", "url": "https://digital.gov/guides/plain-language", "relationship": "Government guidance" }, { "title": "Fundamentals of Editing", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/fundamentals-editing/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A service-writing module in which task-relevant reader questions organize immediate answers in a useful sequence. It is not a simulated argument or an unstructured FAQ dump.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nActual reader tasks, answers and conditions, and an appropriate information architecture; parent V09.
\n\nUseful reader question → immediate answer → relevant condition → next task question.
\n\nUse questions that correspond to genuine reader tasks. Check: Each question must support a recognizable decision or action.
Answer each question immediately enough to serve lookup. Check: Do not make the reader read a story to discover the answer.
Order questions by task dependency or decision relevance. Check: Check prerequisite questions appear before actions that depend on them.
Use when practical reader questions provide a useful retrieval path. It suits onboarding, feature guides and event information. Avoid rhetorical suspense, an FAQ full of invented audience questions, or question headings that delay a critical status notice. The questions should represent genuine information needs in the supplied task.
\n\nOpen with the question most relevant to action, answer it immediately and move through the conditions a reader must understand. The order should follow the task, not the order facts happened to arrive. Group closely related questions so the page does not fragment into tiny units. The answer to the first question must remain true alone. End with the real access action, deadline or unresolved state rather than an unnecessary final question.
\n\nUse literal interrogative headings and direct declarative answers. Echo a key noun from question to answer where needed for retrieval. A paragraph may answer a permission question and explain its relation to plan inclusion. Do not hide the answer behind a conversational preamble. Keep answers proportional to their complexity. Repetition of exact labels is better than playful variation across headings.
\n\nFeature: ask about operation, who can restore, timing and recovery scope, retaining every fact. Workshop: answer when, what to bring and when to register without adding speculative logistics. Incident: state unavailability first; a question heading may support retrieval only if it does not delay status.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “Want the secret to never losing a file? Read on to discover the magic.”
\n\nThe question promises an unsupported secret and recovery guarantee before delivering any useful answer. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nWhat can Version history restore? A workspace editor can restore a retained version; files deleted before the feature was enabled cannot be recovered with it.
V06 uses inquiry to examine assumptions. P44 uses practical questions as navigation, with immediate answers. It is a guide recipe, not an independent voice created by adding question marks. P34 changes a generalization with a counterexample; P44 can simply retrieve supplied terms.
\n\nQuestion marks alone do not establish the module. Not every sentence needs to be a question.
\n\nA genuine FAQ may pass, but a site’s preference for non-question headings is a separate architecture constraint, not a universal ban on this device.
\n\nUse questions merely as promotional hooks. Check: A question must have a substantive, accessible answer.
Hide a governing condition in an unrelated answer. Check: Read each action answer with its own applicable constraints.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Fictional export facts: editors can request export; acceptance queues it; completion makes the file available.
\n\nWho can request an export? Editors.\nDoes acceptance mean the file is ready? No. Acceptance means the job is queued.\nWhen can I download it? After completion.
\n\nReady for an amazing export journey? Editors can request exports. Why wait for the future? Acceptance queues the job. Want to discover more? Completion makes the file available.
\n\nWhy it differs: The factual answers survive, but the questions are promotional rather than useful task labels.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nThe rhetorical reference identifies question-and-answer form; practical ordering and scope are the local service requirements.
\n\nAnthypophora — University-hosted specialist rhetorical reference.
Plain Language Guide Series — Government guidance.
Fundamentals of Editing — Professional association standards.
20 October 2026: Version history becomes available in Draftline. It is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Versions are retained for 30 days.
\n\nA workspace editor accesses Version history and restores a retained version. Only workspace editors can restore a version.
The restore makes a new current version and does not delete stored history.
The numbered entries describe the documented operation, not an account of an actual restore. The date above describes availability; it does not assign a time to any editor’s action.
\n\nVersion history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. Keep this recovery limit distinct from the availability date and the 30-day retention period.
\n\nThe availability date states when the feature can be accessed. The restore sequence changes which version is current while leaving stored history intact.
" }, { "key": "human-m01", "label": "GitLab institutional byline; CEO apology within text · Postmortem of database outage of January 31", "path": "excerpts/M01.md", "source": { "title": "Postmortem of database outage of January 31", "author": "GitLab institutional byline; CEO apology within text", "publicationDate": "2017-02-10", "url": "https://about.gitlab.com/blog/postmortem-of-database-outage-of-january-31/", "locator": "Opening: paragraph2 firstsentence; paragraph3 firstsentence. Timeline is a separate source section, not included in this short extract.", "rights": "Short attributed quotation · copyright retained", "rightsUrl": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/marketing/digital-experience/gitlab-blog/-/issues/159", "relationship": "Names service disruption and acknowledges the unacceptable loss before technical detail.", "edition": "Dated publisher/author webpage; no immutable pre-2022 snapshot acquired", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "GitLab, Postmortem of database outage of January 31, 10 February 2017. Copyright retained; selected short quotation.", "note": "Only a short incident-impact/acknowledgment aspect. P45 chronology is in the linkedTimeline; this extract does not itself demonstrate the whole timeline module." }, "markdown": "This incident caused the GitLab.com service to be unavailable for many hours.\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]\n\nLosing production data is unacceptable.\n", "id": "P45/human-m01", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "This incident caused the GitLab.com service to be unavailable for many hours.\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]\n\nLosing production data is unacceptable.\n", "sha256": "ee84ba2b31db9f8407ce90ae66b4b122a3e05471b5010ac9089d365acb6b9070", "html": "This incident caused the GitLab.com service to be unavailable for many hours.
\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]
\n\nLosing production data is unacceptable.
" }, { "id": "P45/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## Clearer Notes: two dates\n\n**5 November — registration closes.** If you would like to attend the free Clearer Notes workshop, register before registration closes.\n\n**7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. — workshop.** Clearer Notes has **12 places**. Attendees bring **one paragraph to revise**.\n\nThe sequence separates the deadline from the event. Choose the paragraph you want to work on and bring it to the workshop after registering.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P45\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Clearer Notes: two dates\n\n**5 November — registration closes.** If you would like to attend the free Clearer Notes workshop, register before registration closes.\n\n**7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. — workshop.** Clearer Notes has **12 places**. Attendees bring **one paragraph to revise**.\n\nThe sequence separates the deadline from the event. Choose the paragraph you want to work on and bring it to the workshop after registering.\n\n", "sha256": "23aaa5bd8e3b32d3db3acee4764fdafd079ea207eb9521ff93fc09dc9fbaf2ac", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 8, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7142857142857142, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 35.714285714285715, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 18, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 21.428571428571427, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 56, "prose_sentences": 7, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 2, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 12, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "23aaa5bd8e3b32d3db3acee4764fdafd079ea207eb9521ff93fc09dc9fbaf2ac", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "5 November — registration closes. If you would like to attend the free Clearer Notes workshop, register before registration closes.
\n\n7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. — workshop. Clearer Notes has 12 places. Attendees bring one paragraph to revise.
\n\nThe sequence separates the deadline from the event. Choose the paragraph you want to work on and bring it to the workshop after registering.
" }, { "id": "P45/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## Draftline: snapshot and next checkpoint\n\n**Current state:** new uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\n**Cause:** not yet known.\n\n**Next update:** 3 p.m.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P45\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Draftline: snapshot and next checkpoint\n\n**Current state:** new uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\n**Cause:** not yet known.\n\n**Next update:** 3 p.m.\n\n", "sha256": "5ee5ad7a21068a6750fd8b2c8cdc92307a50eb9053c26da89fb3b8f73288ffb4", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 5, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 4, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 25, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 20, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 5, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "5ee5ad7a21068a6750fd8b2c8cdc92307a50eb9053c26da89fb3b8f73288ffb4", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Current state: new uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nCause: not yet known.
\n\nNext update: 3 p.m.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P45", "sample_id": "P45/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P45/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "0de585adf0204bb323b2fb3a65b34ed189a460d7b762c63cd0c8876ed481bc12", "trimmed_body_sha256": "73ba9444b7030400fb49bab78c5a2f4e7e71c2663e0ea4d117f1214bac40721e", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The numbered entries describe the documented operation, not an account of an actual restore.", "start": 502, "end": 594, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current piece uses precise reference/evidence labels and explicit source distinctions, above a neutral edited register but below ceremonial formality." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**20 October 2026:** Version history becomes available in Draftline. It is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Versions are retained for **30 days**.", "start": 74, "end": 244, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current whole piece contains no intended comic device; its factual/evidential phrasing is restrained." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**20 October 2026:** Version history becomes available in Draftline. It is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Versions are retained for **30 days**.", "start": 74, "end": 244, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current availability and operating terms are matter-of-fact. There is no sustained excitement or celebratory framing; useful content alone does not establish enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "### Dated availability", "start": 50, "end": 72, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current reader relationship is primarily impersonal and task/evidence focused. Clear instruction alone does not establish relational care." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The date above describes availability; it does not assign a time to any editor’s action.", "start": 595, "end": 683, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current piece assumes limited familiarity with workspace/editor/version or evidence-account terminology, while explaining the consequential relation; this is below dense specialist expertise." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "2. The restore makes a new current version and does not delete stored history.", "start": 422, "end": 500, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current piece develops linked conditions or an explanatory relation and clarifies its boundary/source status, beyond a list of selected statements." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://sre.google/sre-book/postmortem-culture/", "title": "Postmortem Culture: Learning from Failure", "id": "S45" }, { "url": "https://oralhistory.org/principles-and-best-practices-revised-2018/", "title": "OHA Principles and Best Practices", "id": "S49" } ], "researchLimits": "Incident and oral-history practice do not establish undocumented dates or fill missing source records.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p45-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p45-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P45/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P45/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P45/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P45.svg", "bundleSha256": "e97b1559f3d5641850d6a0ca7a2bb9a19febd843d3f3bb02d4dafcbeb1439ffd", "bundleBytes": 90500 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: format, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nUse when supplied dates or state transitions need to be inspected in sequence. It suits change records, event planning and incident timelines with actual entries. Avoid it when the source provides only a snapshot, or when the visual sequence could suggest causation. Unknown dates should remain unknown rather than be supplied to complete a pleasing layout.
\n\nOpen by stating whether the arrangement is a dated sequence, an undated operation or a current snapshot. Order only the entries that have a verified temporal relation. Keep terms that are not events in a separate section. A retention period is not a dated incident entry. End with the latest supplied checkpoint or an explicit limit to the sequence. This prevents the format from silently creating a beginning, middle and resolution.
\n\nUse date labels and short complete event descriptions. Keep conditional operations clearly conditional. Do not number unrelated terms as if they were successive events. Paragraphs or list entries should contain one state or transition. Add an ordinary explanatory sentence when adjacent entries might imply cause. Source labels identify provenance where actual sources exist; do not invent file numbers, witness records or archival stamps.
\n\nFeature: date availability, then show an undated restore sequence without invented release milestones. Workshop: order registration closing and the session date. Incident: use a snapshot and next-update entry; start time, cause and repair time are unknown, so there is no completed timeline.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “2 p.m.: a deployment failed. 2:05 p.m.: uploads stopped. 3 p.m.: service will be restored.”
\n\nThe timeline fabricates timestamps, cause and a repair deadline; an update time is not resolution. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nCurrent snapshot: new uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read. Cause: not yet known. Next update: 3 p.m.
V21 arranges documentary fragments across evidence types. P45 is a sequence format that can carry that voice or another. It does not create documentary evidence and should not be treated as an independent voice. P26 can narrate verified continuity in prose without timeline formatting.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "M02", "title": "Details of the Cloudflare outage on July 2, 2019", "author": "John Graham-Cumming", "year": "2019", "url": "https://blog.cloudflare.com/details-of-the-cloudflare-outage-on-july-2-2019/", "relationship": "Time-stamped events reveal sequence without removing explanatory context.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Technical incident analysis", "publicationDate": "2019-07-12" }, { "id": "M01", "title": "Postmortem of database outage of January 31", "author": "GitLab institutional byline; CEO apology within text", "year": "2017", "url": "https://about.gitlab.com/blog/postmortem-of-database-outage-of-january-31/", "relationship": "Names service disruption and acknowledges the unacceptable loss before technical detail.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Incident postmortem and recovery FAQ", "publicationDate": "2017-02-10" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Documentary timeline · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P45.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Reuters Journalistic Standards", "url": "https://reutersagency.com/about/standards-values/", "relationship": "Organization-owned professional standards" }, { "title": "Postmortem Culture: Learning from Failure", "url": "https://sre.google/workbook/postmortem-culture/", "relationship": "Primary practitioner manual with worked contrasts" }, { "title": "Analyse a research session", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session", "relationship": "Government practitioner guidance" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A documentary sequencing module that distinguishes actual timestamps from operational order, planned events, and unknown intervals. Chronology cannot be manufactured from a document’s layout.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nRecords with verified time or order, source types, and missing intervals; parent V21.
\n\nDeclared sequence type → dated or ordered records → explicit gaps/non-events → latest checkpoint.
\n\nDeclare whether the sequence is historical time, operational order, or planned order. Check: The reader must not infer dates from a process sequence.
Preserve each record’s known time or order without filling gaps. Check: Compare the sequence with the source ledger.
Separate observations from plans and non-events. Check: A scheduled update must not appear as an accomplished repair.
Use when supplied dates or state transitions need to be inspected in sequence. It suits change records, event planning and incident timelines with actual entries. Avoid it when the source provides only a snapshot, or when the visual sequence could suggest causation. Unknown dates should remain unknown rather than be supplied to complete a pleasing layout.
\n\nOpen by stating whether the arrangement is a dated sequence, an undated operation or a current snapshot. Order only the entries that have a verified temporal relation. Keep terms that are not events in a separate section. A retention period is not a dated incident entry. End with the latest supplied checkpoint or an explicit limit to the sequence. This prevents the format from silently creating a beginning, middle and resolution.
\n\nUse date labels and short complete event descriptions. Keep conditional operations clearly conditional. Do not number unrelated terms as if they were successive events. Paragraphs or list entries should contain one state or transition. Add an ordinary explanatory sentence when adjacent entries might imply cause. Source labels identify provenance where actual sources exist; do not invent file numbers, witness records or archival stamps.
\n\nFeature: date availability, then show an undated restore sequence without invented release milestones. Workshop: order registration closing and the session date. Incident: use a snapshot and next-update entry; start time, cause and repair time are unknown, so there is no completed timeline.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “2 p.m.: a deployment failed. 2:05 p.m.: uploads stopped. 3 p.m.: service will be restored.”
\n\nThe timeline fabricates timestamps, cause and a repair deadline; an update time is not resolution. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nCurrent snapshot: new uploads are unavailable; existing documents can still be read. Cause: not yet known. Next update: 3 p.m.
V21 arranges documentary fragments across evidence types. P45 is a sequence format that can carry that voice or another. It does not create documentary evidence and should not be treated as an independent voice. P26 can narrate verified continuity in prose without timeline formatting.
\n\nA timeline can be text-only. Equal spacing on a visual axis is inappropriate when interval lengths are unknown.
\n\nAn undated but documented workflow can pass only as an operational sequence, not as reconstructed history.
\n\nTreat a duration as a timestamp or infer a missing date. Check: Check units and whether a date was actually supplied.
Make order alone imply causation. Check: Temporal adjacency does not establish mechanism.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Synthetic incident: 09:00 exports stalled; 09:10 worker restarted; 09:18 queue moving; 10:00 update planned. No verified causal finding exists.
\n\nSynthetic event timeline:\n09:00 — Exports stalled.\n09:10 — Worker restarted.\n09:18 — Queue observed moving.\n10:00 — Update planned, not yet delivered.\nThe sequence does not establish that the restart caused recovery.
\n\nSynthetic sequence: exports stalled, worker restarted, queue moving, update at 10:00. The operational story is complete.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second drops known timestamps and fails to distinguish an observed event from a planned update.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nSourcing and incident examples support evidential chronology. The explicit sequence-type schema is a local addition.
\n\nReuters Journalistic Standards — Organization-owned professional standards.
Postmortem Culture: Learning from Failure — Primary practitioner manual with worked contrasts.
Analyse a research session — Government practitioner guidance.
Draftline’s Version history becomes available on 20 October 2026 and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. That inclusion describes the charge for the feature.
\n\nThe restore condition is separate: only workspace editors can restore a version. In practical terms, plan inclusion does not give every person using a workspace permission to perform a restore. Open Version history to access the feature.
\n\nRestoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. The operation changes which version is current while leaving the stored record in place. Versions are retained for 30 days.
\n\nThere is a recovery limit as well: Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. This condition applies to that earlier deletion task; it should not disappear when the feature is described as included on a plan.
\n\nRead the terms by the questions they answer: when the feature becomes available, what charge applies, who can restore and what the restore does. Keeping those questions distinct explains the documented conditions without creating a wider entitlement or a recovery guarantee.
" }, { "key": "human-h07", "label": "18F; author handle gray · Open source and terms of service = a better developer experience", "path": "excerpts/H07.md", "source": { "title": "Open source and terms of service = a better developer experience", "author": "18F; author handle gray", "publicationDate": "2014-04-11", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-04-11-open-source-terms-of-service-a-better-developer.md", "locator": "Second body paragraph", "rights": "CC0 · 18F staff prose", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/", "relationship": "Explains what terms of service do; not a clause-by-clause policy interpretation.", "edition": "18F snapshot df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "This document helps to frame expectations, rights, and responsibilities for any developers who want to use a specific API. Rather than re-invent the wheel, agencies are encouraged to look at existing examples from their sister agencies and repurpose existing language. But that also means that there may be a need for new thinking about the clauses that make up the relationship agencies set up with outside developers.\n", "id": "P46/human-h07", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "This document helps to frame expectations, rights, and responsibilities for any developers who want to use a specific API. Rather than re-invent the wheel, agencies are encouraged to look at existing examples from their sister agencies and repurpose existing language. But that also means that there may be a need for new thinking about the clauses that make up the relationship agencies set up with outside developers.\n", "sha256": "a705a80e167759416a8ab742b13ac7f4dbd3aeccfcbb8b30101c6c945670c6bc", "html": "This document helps to frame expectations, rights, and responsibilities for any developers who want to use a specific API. Rather than re-invent the wheel, agencies are encouraged to look at existing examples from their sister agencies and repurpose existing language. But that also means that there may be a need for new thinking about the clauses that make up the relationship agencies set up with outside developers.
" }, { "key": "human-g01", "label": "Government Digital Service (institutional authorship) · Getting informed consent for user research", "path": "excerpts/G01.md", "source": { "title": "Getting informed consent for user research", "author": "Government Digital Service (institutional authorship)", "publicationDate": "2016-05-24", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/getting-users-consent-for-research", "locator": "Collecting and keeping evidence of consent, opening paragraph", "rights": "Crown copyright · OGL v3.0", "rightsUrl": "https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/", "relationship": "Makes the reader’s language and usable format explicit before procedural detail.", "edition": "2018-11-05", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "GOV.UK, User research community, Getting informed consent for user research, Crown copyright, licensed under OGL v3.0.", "note": "Short service instruction illustrates plain-language guidance and policy action; it is not a complete consent invitation or a full-template benchmark." }, "markdown": "Write your consent form in language your participants can understand, and provide it in a format they can use.\n", "id": "P46/human-g01", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "Write your consent form in language your participants can understand, and provide it in a format they can use.\n", "sha256": "fa156c27ead55372b51e1fa4fcb365a1a2956a30883fe4ba2f89d084a8a3a341", "html": "Write your consent form in language your participants can understand, and provide it in a format they can use.
" }, { "id": "P46/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## Clearer Notes: what the event terms mean\n\nClearer Notes is free and has **12 places**. It takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Attendees bring **one paragraph to revise**.\n\nRegistration closes on **5 November**. If you plan to attend, register before registration closes and bring your selected paragraph to the workshop.\n\nThe dates have separate purposes: 5 November is the registration deadline, and 7 November is the event. The preparation is one paragraph.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P46\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Clearer Notes: what the event terms mean\n\nClearer Notes is free and has **12 places**. It takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Attendees bring **one paragraph to revise**.\n\nRegistration closes on **5 November**. If you plan to attend, register before registration closes and bring your selected paragraph to the workshop.\n\nThe dates have separate purposes: 5 November is the registration deadline, and 7 November is the event. The preparation is one paragraph.\n\n", "sha256": "a6730b575a79f6375296701c485ca8289d4d0e102fb28f7b2427d586d40c7587", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 10.166666666666666, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.6733333333333333, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 32.78688524590164, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 20, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 14.754098360655737, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 61, "prose_sentences": 6, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 2, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "a6730b575a79f6375296701c485ca8289d4d0e102fb28f7b2427d586d40c7587", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Clearer Notes is free and has 12 places. It takes place on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. Attendees bring one paragraph to revise.
\n\nRegistration closes on 5 November. If you plan to attend, register before registration closes and bring your selected paragraph to the workshop.
\n\nThe dates have separate purposes: 5 November is the registration deadline, and 7 November is the event. The preparation is one paragraph.
" }, { "id": "P46/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## Draftline service status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P46\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Draftline service status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\n", "sha256": "4fa0eb29ad99db237ca7ef4070b48b16dbc844ca09b66160963708a50bda8de9", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 5.75, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 8.695652173913043, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 23, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 2, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "4fa0eb29ad99db237ca7ef4070b48b16dbc844ca09b66160963708a50bda8de9", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P46", "sample_id": "P46/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P46/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "f7f7f66c0ccbe2b65cae6dde7aa51e7da91ea0db7cbf61fcd8a04814d7e6c1d2", "trimmed_body_sha256": "a6a5c866eca40d2b6f12825c469839948389201cf9ec28d893b0f703acd18c3d", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "That inclusion describes the charge for the feature.", "start": 199, "end": 251, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public/professional wording is neutral and readable, without sustained conversational intimacy or ceremonial convention." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Draftline’s **Version history** becomes available on **20 October 2026** and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. That inclusion describes the charge for the feature.", "start": 62, "end": 251, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Reading the complete sample shows no intended comic device; factual phrasing and the quoted passage illustrate that restrained posture." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Draftline’s **Version history** becomes available on **20 October 2026** and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. That inclusion describes the charge for the feature.", "start": 62, "end": 251, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The sample states availability and operating terms without sustained excitement, celebratory wording or energetic encouragement; positive usefulness alone is not enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Included on a plan does not mean every person can restore", "start": 3, "end": 60, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The reader relationship is primarily impersonal and task/evidence focused; no passage establishes relational acknowledgment beyond operating guidance." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Read the terms by the questions they answer", "start": 947, "end": 990, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The sample lightly assumes familiarity with workspace/editor/version terminology, while explaining the consequential relations; it does not require dense specialist knowledge." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Read the terms by the questions they answer", "start": 947, "end": 990, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The complete piece develops multiple related conditions and explains why a distinction matters, beyond selected statements; the cited passage supports that intermediate level." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://digital.gov/guides/plain-language", "title": "Plain language guide series", "id": "S48" }, { "url": "https://developers.google.com/style/tone", "title": "Tone", "id": "S20" } ], "researchLimits": "These writing guides provide communication constraints, not policy authority or legal advice.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p46-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p46-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P46/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P46/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P46/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P46.svg", "bundleSha256": "50d4479846f6308f893714bec8d8cec5545844500e89d6e6aaed0d44cc28312d", "bundleBytes": 94525 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: recipe, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nUse to explain a supplied rule and its practical effect for a named audience. It suits service terms, program conditions and public information. Avoid legal advice, a policy summary whose authoritative text has not been supplied, or an interpretation that silently creates eligibility or enforcement rules. The current fixtures supply feature and event conditions, not legal policy.
\n\nOpen with the relevant condition in familiar language. Explain whom or what it governs, give the practical effect and identify ambiguity that actually remains. Keep rule text, paraphrase and recommendation distinct. A statement that only editors can restore supports a permission explanation; it does not support guesses about how roles are assigned or challenged. End with the supported action or the precise unresolved question, without inventing an escalation channel.
\n\nUse explicit subjects and exact modal verbs. Only and cannot must remain attached to the correct operation. Pair each rule with its practical meaning in adjacent sentences. Paragraphs should separate permission from scope and timing. Preserve an exact interface label when translating surrounding language. Avoid legalistic padding and reassuring paraphrases that weaken a restriction. Do not call a feature condition a law or a contractual guarantee.
\n\nFeature: explain plan inclusion versus restore permission without adding role administration. Workshop: explain dates and preparation without inventing cancellation, eligibility or late-registration policy. Incident: state availability conditions as current service facts, not enforcement rules or legal obligations.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “The policy guarantees access and recovery for every account holder.”
\n\nThe interpretation invents a guarantee and a wider entitlement than the supplied terms allow. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nThe feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Only workspace editors can restore a version; these are different conditions.
V09 provides direct service language. P46 adds a rule-to-effect mapping and interpretation limits, making it a recipe. It does not establish legal expertise or a new voice. P36 sets a boundary; this recipe explains the boundary’s practical application when a supplied rule supports it.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "H07", "title": "Open source and terms of service = a better developer experience", "author": "18F; author handle gray", "year": "2014", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-04-11-open-source-terms-of-service-a-better-developer.md", "relationship": "Explains what terms of service do; not a clause-by-clause policy interpretation.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Government practice blog", "publicationDate": "2014-04-11" }, { "id": "G01", "title": "Getting informed consent for user research", "author": "Government Digital Service (institutional authorship)", "year": "2016", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/getting-users-consent-for-research", "relationship": "Makes the reader’s language and usable format explicit before procedural detail.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Plain-language government practice guide", "publicationDate": "2016-05-24" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Plain-language policy interpreter · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P46.md", "sources": [ { "title": "ISO 24495-2:2025 — Plain language, Part 2: Legal communication", "url": "https://www.iso.org/standard/85774.html", "relationship": "Formal standards organization" }, { "title": "Plain Language Guide Series", "url": "https://digital.gov/guides/plain-language", "relationship": "Government guidance" }, { "title": "Fundamentals of Editing", "url": "https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/fundamentals-editing/", "relationship": "Professional association standards" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A policy-interpretation module that distinguishes authoritative rule text, explanatory paraphrase, and practical implication, preserving applicability and known ambiguities.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nAn identifiable policy source and version, relevant scope, actual rule language, and any authority needed to resolve ambiguity; parent V09.
\n\nSource/version → applicable rule → who/what is covered → practical effect → unresolved interpretation.
\n\nIdentify the rule source and version when supplied; state missing information as unknown. Check: Do not infer policy authority or applicability.
Separate rule, paraphrase, and recommendation. Check: Label or make unmistakable which statements carry actual authority.
Preserve the rule’s conditions, exceptions, and scope. Check: Compare who, what, when, negation, and modal force with the source.
Use to explain a supplied rule and its practical effect for a named audience. It suits service terms, program conditions and public information. Avoid legal advice, a policy summary whose authoritative text has not been supplied, or an interpretation that silently creates eligibility or enforcement rules. The current fixtures supply feature and event conditions, not legal policy.
\n\nOpen with the relevant condition in familiar language. Explain whom or what it governs, give the practical effect and identify ambiguity that actually remains. Keep rule text, paraphrase and recommendation distinct. A statement that only editors can restore supports a permission explanation; it does not support guesses about how roles are assigned or challenged. End with the supported action or the precise unresolved question, without inventing an escalation channel.
\n\nUse explicit subjects and exact modal verbs. Only and cannot must remain attached to the correct operation. Pair each rule with its practical meaning in adjacent sentences. Paragraphs should separate permission from scope and timing. Preserve an exact interface label when translating surrounding language. Avoid legalistic padding and reassuring paraphrases that weaken a restriction. Do not call a feature condition a law or a contractual guarantee.
\n\nFeature: explain plan inclusion versus restore permission without adding role administration. Workshop: explain dates and preparation without inventing cancellation, eligibility or late-registration policy. Incident: state availability conditions as current service facts, not enforcement rules or legal obligations.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “The policy guarantees access and recovery for every account holder.”
\n\nThe interpretation invents a guarantee and a wider entitlement than the supplied terms allow. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nThe feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Only workspace editors can restore a version; these are different conditions.
V09 provides direct service language. P46 adds a rule-to-effect mapping and interpretation limits, making it a recipe. It does not establish legal expertise or a new voice. P36 sets a boundary; this recipe explains the boundary’s practical application when a supplied rule supports it.
\n\nPlain language may require retaining a technical or legal term with an explanation. Readability is not permission to change legal effect.
\n\nAn actual exception in the governing source must be included. A template’s preference for simplicity cannot erase it.
\n\nResolve an ambiguous policy through confident stylistic rewriting. Check: Flag uncertainty and the appropriate authority instead.
Broaden permissions or obligations while simplifying language. Check: Check whether “may,” “must,” and “only” retain their force.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Invented internal policy v1: “Only editors may request exports.” No exception or delegation rule is supplied. This is not real legal guidance.
\n\nFictional policy v1 permits only editors to request exports. In practical terms, a viewer does not have that permission under the supplied rule. No exception or delegation process is stated, so this explanation does not add one.
\n\nFictional policy v1 says only editors may request exports. In practice, anyone who really needs a file should be able to request one. No exception or delegation process is supplied.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second reproduces the rule but adds an incompatible permission under the guise of practical interpretation.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nA dedicated ISO legal-communication standard was located but not read in full. The local module uses transparent sourcing rather than claiming ISO or legal compliance.
\n\nISO 24495-2:2025 — Plain language, Part 2: Legal communication — Formal standards organization.
Plain Language Guide Series — Government guidance.
Fundamentals of Editing — Professional association standards.
If a retained version is the one you need to make current, Draftline’s Version history offers that operation. Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. That is the concrete reason to consider it for this task.
\n\nVersion history becomes available on 20 October 2026. It retains versions for 30 days and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.
\n\nOpen Version history to access the feature. Only workspace editors can restore a version. The lack of an additional charge does not remove the permission condition, so keep the editor role with any recommendation to restore.
\n\nThe recovery limit is part of the recommendation too: Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. If that earlier-deletion task is what you need, the feature does not fit it.
\n\nConsider the capability for its documented use: making a retained version current while stored history remains. The availability date, retention period and editor permission give the terms for that choice. A bounded operation can be useful without becoming an unsupported promise about every missing file.
" }, { "key": "human-h04", "label": "18F; front-matter author handle alison · Announcing FBOpen: Government opportunities made easier", "path": "excerpts/H04.md", "source": { "title": "Announcing FBOpen: Government opportunities made easier", "author": "18F; front-matter author handle alison", "publicationDate": "2014-03-31", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-03-31-announcing-fbopen-government-opportunities-made-easier.md", "locator": "Opening three paragraphs; link destinations omitted", "rights": "CC0 · 18F staff prose", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/", "relationship": "Actual capability is explained, but hype and absent comparative evidence weaken earned confidence.", "edition": "18F repository snapshot df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5 (2021-12-30)", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "", "note": "" }, "markdown": "Today we're announcing our first product launch: FBOpen, a set of open-source tools to help small businesses search for opportunities to work with the U.S. government.\n\nOn the surface, fbopen.gsa.gov is a simple, Google-style page where you can search available federal contracts and grants. We’ve used the latest in search technology to make finding opportunities easier and more effective for everybody.\n\nFBOpen is more than a search website, however. For those who want to dig deeper, FBOpen is also an API (documented at http://docs.fbopen.apiary.io) that you can use to build custom query pages and analysis tools. Additionally, the codebase is open-source and available at our GitHub repository, so you can build your own FBOpen server, customize your own version of the API, add your own opportunity listings — the sky's the limit.\n", "id": "P47/human-h04", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "Today we're announcing our first product launch: FBOpen, a set of open-source tools to help small businesses search for opportunities to work with the U.S. government.\n\nOn the surface, fbopen.gsa.gov is a simple, Google-style page where you can search available federal contracts and grants. We’ve used the latest in search technology to make finding opportunities easier and more effective for everybody.\n\nFBOpen is more than a search website, however. For those who want to dig deeper, FBOpen is also an API (documented at http://docs.fbopen.apiary.io) that you can use to build custom query pages and analysis tools. Additionally, the codebase is open-source and available at our GitHub repository, so you can build your own FBOpen server, customize your own version of the API, add your own opportunity listings — the sky's the limit.\n", "sha256": "a481f7af63a0f9af96eb1d9cb15d0654219e1210b7b6d170b678e2f2291170e3", "html": "Today we're announcing our first product launch: FBOpen, a set of open-source tools to help small businesses search for opportunities to work with the U.S. government.
\n\nOn the surface, fbopen.gsa.gov is a simple, Google-style page where you can search available federal contracts and grants. We’ve used the latest in search technology to make finding opportunities easier and more effective for everybody.
\n\nFBOpen is more than a search website, however. For those who want to dig deeper, FBOpen is also an API (documented at http://docs.fbopen.apiary.io) that you can use to build custom query pages and analysis tools. Additionally, the codebase is open-source and available at our GitHub repository, so you can build your own FBOpen server, customize your own version of the API, add your own opportunity listings — the sky's the limit.
" }, { "id": "P47/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## Give one paragraph a revision task\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise** to Clearer Notes, a free workshop on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Choose the passage you would like to work on and bring it with you.\n\nThere are **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**. If the one-paragraph task and the stated time fit your plans, register before registration closes.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P47\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Give one paragraph a revision task\n\nBring **one paragraph to revise** to Clearer Notes, a free workshop on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Choose the passage you would like to work on and bring it with you.\n\nThere are **12 places**. Registration closes on **5 November**. If the one-paragraph task and the stated time fit your plans, register before registration closes.\n\n", "sha256": "fa1a344e869847d69e0ad16f5987564d7b7ab32db8a3eb77efa2c7fde0041f18", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 13, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7600000000000001, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 57.69230769230769, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 17.307692307692307, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 52, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 3, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "fa1a344e869847d69e0ad16f5987564d7b7ab32db8a3eb77efa2c7fde0041f18", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Bring one paragraph to revise to Clearer Notes, a free workshop on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. Choose the passage you would like to work on and bring it with you.
\n\nThere are 12 places. Registration closes on 5 November. If the one-paragraph task and the stated time fit your plans, register before registration closes.
" }, { "id": "P47/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## Draftline upload status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P47\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Draftline upload status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\n", "sha256": "9773d3189dc9573d0caa8d8fcd24579daf53135e73456075e53996d78f877934", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 5.75, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 8.695652173913043, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 23, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 2, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "9773d3189dc9573d0caa8d8fcd24579daf53135e73456075e53996d78f877934", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P47", "sample_id": "P47/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P47/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "6fa25f685430fd9e2085d5a8c162b1e2e6cc40fec4f81afe4d9afc9e36da465f", "trimmed_body_sha256": "a7dc6b2d0fb09131be4e6fa298e68f33da77dff78ea23d0c1782b88e7b8994d5", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "That is the concrete reason to consider it for this task.", "start": 247, "end": 304, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Edited public/professional wording is neutral and readable, without sustained conversational intimacy or ceremonial convention." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Version history becomes available on **20 October 2026**. It retains versions for **30 days** and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.", "start": 306, "end": 463, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "Reading the complete sample shows no intended comic device; factual phrasing and the quoted passage illustrate that restrained posture." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Version history becomes available on **20 October 2026**. It retains versions for **30 days** and is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.", "start": 306, "end": 463, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The sample states availability and operating terms without sustained excitement, celebratory wording or energetic encouragement; positive usefulness alone is not enthusiasm." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "If a retained version is the one you need to make current", "start": 55, "end": 112, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The quoted passage acknowledges a reader task, likely concern or practical entry point. This is limited reader consideration, below explicit relational care." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "If that earlier-deletion task is what you need, the feature does not fit it.", "start": 830, "end": 906, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The operation is explained through ordinary terms and explicit conditions, so little specialist background is required." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 4, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "If that earlier-deletion task is what you need, the feature does not fit it.", "start": 830, "end": 906, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The complete piece develops multiple related conditions and explains why a distinction matters, beyond selected statements; the cited passage supports that intermediate level." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://styleguide.mailchimp.com/voice-and-tone/", "title": "Voice and Tone", "id": "S18" }, { "url": "https://diataxis.fr/explanation/", "title": "Explanation", "id": "S42" } ], "researchLimits": "Brand and explanation practice do not validate commercial outcomes or a separate sales personality.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p47-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p47-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P47/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P47/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P47/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P47.svg", "bundleSha256": "20e818f1112d8b24225c029f6684488630a60c0a642cb61a5d69a1bb904ba11e", "bundleBytes": 94569 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: recipe, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nUse when a reader is considering a capability and a recommendation can be supported by its actual terms. It suits responsible product explanations and proposals. Avoid fabricated testimonials, superiority claims and manufactured urgency. If the source supplies no outcomes, confidence must be about a documented operation rather than predicted satisfaction or success.
\n\nOpen with the concrete use case. Give the supported reason to choose the option, then keep the permission and scope conditions beside that reason. Close with an action that leaves the reader free to assess fit. The movement is useful operation, support, qualification, choice. Earned confidence requires saying exactly what the source licenses, not wrapping a weak claim in an honest-sounding disclaimer. Cost can be a reason to consider a feature, but it cannot erase restrictions.
\n\nUse active verbs and conditional benefits that follow directly from the operation. Keep evaluative words modest and explain their basis. A paragraph should connect a reason to a choice, not accumulate adjectives. State the strongest limitation in normal type and ordinary prose. Avoid social proof, scarcity adjectives and imagined customer reactions. Do not use a sales call to action when the task is a service interruption.
\n\nFeature: recommend retained-draft restoration with access, retention and deleted-file limits. Workshop: invite for the concrete one-paragraph task; 12 places is capacity, not claimed demand. Incident: remove persuasion entirely and report the four status facts without turning readable documents into a sales benefit.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “Never lose work again—trusted by every serious team, with guaranteed recovery.”
\n\nThe sales claim fabricates social proof, permanence and guaranteed recovery. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nReturn to a retained version without deleting stored history. Version history retains versions for 30 days and cannot recover files deleted before enablement.
V01 already puts a choice and its consequence first. P47 adds responsible sales-purpose checks and is best treated as a recipe. P28 provides neutral conditional recommendation; this resource can invite adoption but must keep the same evidence ceiling. Persuasive purpose is not an independent voice by itself.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "M04", "title": "Chairman’s Letter — 1983", "author": "Warren E. Buffett", "year": "1984", "url": "https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1983.html", "relationship": "Acquisition terms qualify a proposition; buyer-side criteria are not a consumer sales guide.", "delivery": "link", "genre": "Shareholder letter", "publicationDate": "1984-03-14" }, { "id": "H04", "title": "Announcing FBOpen: Government opportunities made easier", "author": "18F; front-matter author handle alison", "year": "2014", "url": "https://github.com/18F/18f.gsa.gov/blob/df4263b08793a353d9e73f0d455a48d9dd3d0dd5/_posts/2014-03-31-announcing-fbopen-government-opportunities-made-easier.md", "relationship": "Actual capability is explained, but hype and absent comparative evidence weaken earned confidence.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Government digital-service blog", "publicationDate": "2014-03-31" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Earned-confidence sales guide · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P47.md", "sources": [ { "title": "FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation", "url": "https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/ftc-policy-statement-regarding-advertising-substantiation", "relationship": "U.S. regulatory policy" }, { "title": "Counterargument", "url": "https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/counterargument", "relationship": "University teaching guidance" }, { "title": "Brand voice: Above all, simple and human", "url": "https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/style-guide/brand-voice-above-all-simple-human", "relationship": "Organization-owned house style" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A decision-and-persuasion combination that recommends a product or offer for a supported use case while exposing disqualifying conditions and preserving the reader’s freedom to decline.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA documented offer, audience need, supported reasons to choose it, conditions, and genuine available action; parent V01 with combination status retained.
\n\nFit-based recommendation → supported reason → adjacent limits → who should not choose it → free bounded next step.
\n\nTie the recommendation to a specified use case or reader need. Check: State who the offer is for without asserting universal suitability.
Support the reasons actually communicated, including implied performance claims. Check: Match claim strength to the available evidence.
Keep limitations beside the reason to choose and retain a genuine choice. Check: A reader can understand when not to proceed before committing.
Use when a reader is considering a capability and a recommendation can be supported by its actual terms. It suits responsible product explanations and proposals. Avoid fabricated testimonials, superiority claims and manufactured urgency. If the source supplies no outcomes, confidence must be about a documented operation rather than predicted satisfaction or success.
\n\nOpen with the concrete use case. Give the supported reason to choose the option, then keep the permission and scope conditions beside that reason. Close with an action that leaves the reader free to assess fit. The movement is useful operation, support, qualification, choice. Earned confidence requires saying exactly what the source licenses, not wrapping a weak claim in an honest-sounding disclaimer. Cost can be a reason to consider a feature, but it cannot erase restrictions.
\n\nUse active verbs and conditional benefits that follow directly from the operation. Keep evaluative words modest and explain their basis. A paragraph should connect a reason to a choice, not accumulate adjectives. State the strongest limitation in normal type and ordinary prose. Avoid social proof, scarcity adjectives and imagined customer reactions. Do not use a sales call to action when the task is a service interruption.
\n\nFeature: recommend retained-draft restoration with access, retention and deleted-file limits. Workshop: invite for the concrete one-paragraph task; 12 places is capacity, not claimed demand. Incident: remove persuasion entirely and report the four status facts without turning readable documents into a sales benefit.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “Never lose work again—trusted by every serious team, with guaranteed recovery.”
\n\nThe sales claim fabricates social proof, permanence and guaranteed recovery. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nReturn to a retained version without deleting stored history. Version history retains versions for 30 days and cannot recover files deleted before enablement.
V01 already puts a choice and its consequence first. P47 adds responsible sales-purpose checks and is best treated as a recipe. P28 provides neutral conditional recommendation; this resource can invite adoption but must keep the same evidence ceiling. Persuasive purpose is not an independent voice by itself.
\n\nPersuasion may be direct. Earned confidence does not require hedging a genuinely supported claim or disguising commercial intent.
\n\nNo supported reason to prefer the offer exists: explain the evidence gap or compare needs rather than fabricating a sales argument.
\n\nInvent scarcity, testimonials, comparative superiority, or first-hand testing. Check: Check every proof cue and urgency cue.
Treat polished confidence as a substitute for substantiation. Check: Remove confident adjectives and inspect the remaining reasons.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Synthetic offer: editors can try a CSV export feature through the Export menu; it is a trial, with no speed or adoption evidence. Appropriate need: an editor who needs CSV output.
\n\nFor an editor who needs CSV output, the export trial is a relevant option to evaluate through the Export menu. Its supported capability is CSV creation; no speed or adoption benefit is established here. Choose the trial only for that bounded need, not as a proven productivity improvement.
\n\nThe export trial is an exciting option. Editors can access CSV creation through the Export menu. No speed or adoption evidence is supplied. You should choose it because great tools deserve confidence.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second has the correct capability facts but asks for commitment on generic enthusiasm rather than a supported fit-based reason.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nFTC substantiation policy provides direct authority over U.S. advertising claims, not a complete definition of good sales guidance or a universal legal regime.
\n\nFTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation — U.S. regulatory policy.
Counterargument — University teaching guidance.
Brand voice: Above all, simple and human — Organization-owned house style.
Draftline’s Version history becomes available on 20 October 2026. Versions are retained for 30 days, and the feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.
\n\nOpen Version history to access the feature. Only workspace editors can restore a version. Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. The current version changes while the stored record remains.
\n\nVersion history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. Inclusion on a plan and editor permission do not remove that limit.
" }, { "key": "human-r01", "label": "Study participants, quoted by Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke · Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK", "path": "excerpts/R01.md", "source": { "title": "Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK", "author": "Study participants, quoted by Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke", "publicationDate": "2021-10-13", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258344", "locator": "Findings §1: Loss of in-person interaction; participant quotations; Method/Procedure/Analysis for provenance", "rights": "CC BY 4.0", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/", "relationship": "Attributed testimony and analysis alternate in Results; the whole paper is not participant-first.", "edition": "2021-10-13", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "Participant quotations reproduced from the credited research article; omissions are marked. No participant identity is inferred.", "note": "Participant testimony quoted in the research article." }, "markdown": "“I think it’s probably the not socialising like face-to-face.”\n\n(Participant 1, 27-year-old female)\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]\n\n“You sort of don’t realise how sociable you are, or how much of a routine you’re in of seeing people until you physically can’t.”\n\n(Participant 2, 21-year-old female)\n", "id": "P48/human-r01", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "“I think it’s probably the not socialising like face-to-face.”\n\n(Participant 1, 27-year-old female)\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]\n\n“You sort of don’t realise how sociable you are, or how much of a routine you’re in of seeing people until you physically can’t.”\n\n(Participant 2, 21-year-old female)\n", "sha256": "b733476af18b8847db35aa2b16c2ea14e592539673ee4b62902721e90a246d2d", "html": "“I think it’s probably the not socialising like face-to-face.”
\n\n(Participant 1, 27-year-old female)
\n\n[Non-contiguous excerpt break]
\n\n“You sort of don’t realise how sociable you are, or how much of a routine you’re in of seeing people until you physically can’t.”
\n\n(Participant 2, 21-year-old female)
" }, { "key": "human-r02", "label": "Study participants, quoted by Ilaria Falvo; Maria Caiata Zufferey; Emiliano Albanese; Marta Fadda · Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study", "path": "excerpts/R02.md", "source": { "title": "Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study", "author": "Study participants, quoted by Ilaria Falvo; Maria Caiata Zufferey; Emiliano Albanese; Marta Fadda", "publicationDate": "2021-06-23", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252101", "locator": "Results: Impact on the individual level; Method: consent and translation", "rights": "CC BY 4.0", "rightsUrl": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/", "relationship": "Published participant words carry variation; English is a documented researcher translation.", "edition": "2021-06-23", "delivery": "excerpt", "credit": "Participant quotations reproduced from the credited research article; omissions are marked. No participant identity is inferred.", "note": "Participant testimony quoted in the research article." }, "markdown": "I am locked inside my house and I am afraid to go out. I must stay at home because of the federal ordinance. Those who are over 65 cannot even go out to buy their groceries. Here at home, I don’t see anyone… This is how it works here. People are afraid to go out. (P2, male, 74, secondary school, living alone in a flat)\n", "id": "P48/human-r02", "briefId": "HUMAN-READING", "kind": "human", "measurement": null, "sourceMarkdown": "I am locked inside my house and I am afraid to go out. I must stay at home because of the federal ordinance. Those who are over 65 cannot even go out to buy their groceries. Here at home, I don’t see anyone… This is how it works here. People are afraid to go out. (P2, male, 74, secondary school, living alone in a flat)\n", "sha256": "a155575bc770c4e8d81ec3a87262e9abe17aae3c200333409622cdb91a31888f", "html": "I am locked inside my house and I am afraid to go out. I must stay at home because of the federal ordinance. Those who are over 65 cannot even go out to buy their groceries. Here at home, I don’t see anyone… This is how it works here. People are afraid to go out. (P2, male, 74, secondary school, living alone in a flat)
" }, { "id": "P48/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "Workshop invitation", "markdown": "## Clearer Notes: bring your paragraph\n\nClearer Notes invites attendees to bring **one paragraph to revise**. Choose a passage you would like to work on and bring it to the workshop.\n\nThe workshop is free and has **12 places**. It takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nIf you intend to attend, register before registration closes.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P48\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Clearer Notes: bring your paragraph\n\nClearer Notes invites attendees to bring **one paragraph to revise**. Choose a passage you would like to work on and bring it to the workshop.\n\nThe workshop is free and has **12 places**. It takes place on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.** Registration closes on **5 November**.\n\nIf you intend to attend, register before registration closes.\n\n", "sha256": "d0cda4bc1ea7bc470a54d48f804900420c82bf23aec7e1813dd76bfeb594b06a", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 10.4, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7200000000000001, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 38.46153846153846, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 18, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 17.307692307692307, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 52, "prose_sentences": 5, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 2, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "d0cda4bc1ea7bc470a54d48f804900420c82bf23aec7e1813dd76bfeb594b06a", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "Clearer Notes invites attendees to bring one paragraph to revise. Choose a passage you would like to work on and bring it to the workshop.
\n\nThe workshop is free and has 12 places. It takes place on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. Registration closes on 5 November.
\n\nIf you intend to attend, register before registration closes.
" }, { "id": "P48/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "E-B03", "label": "Serious incident", "markdown": "## Draftline status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P48\nbrief_id: E-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n## Draftline status\n\nNew uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at **3 p.m.**\n\n", "sha256": "0fbbb6f146346215910a531f69b569875fe820aeaa79629092af6b7606c39915", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 5.75, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": null, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_50_words" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 8.695652173913043, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 23, "prose_sentences": 4, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 2, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "0fbbb6f146346215910a531f69b569875fe820aeaa79629092af6b7606c39915", "separation": "uncalibrated" }, "html": "New uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read.
\n\nThe cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m.
" } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "Design intention from the documented rhetorical mechanism and reader relationship; assess actual specimens independently." } ], "observations": { "profile_id": "P48", "sample_id": "P48/specimen", "brief_id": "E-B01", "path": "examples/P48/specimen.md", "file_sha256": "3f8580beb3a14e55c4bcec5142f6169450f373b8f81cd28c7981fc4025d9bb73", "trimmed_body_sha256": "d3783d98eb2e5b833454b28678de8f4da010e64f9e6413a902878487e2526fb7", "kind": "model_estimate", "phase": "post_editorial_review_not_blind", "ratings": [ { "dimension": "formality", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Draftline’s **Version history** becomes available on **20 October 2026**.", "start": 66, "end": 139, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current whole body is edited, neutral feature guidance with ordinary operating terms; research-account framing has moved outside the specimen." }, { "dimension": "humor", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Draftline’s **Version history** becomes available on **20 October 2026**.", "start": 66, "end": 139, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current whole body contains no intended comic device; it states literal availability and operating facts." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "Draftline’s **Version history** becomes available on **20 October 2026**.", "start": 66, "end": 139, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current whole body is matter-of-fact, with no sustained excitement or celebratory framing." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "value": 1, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**Only workspace editors can restore a version.**", "start": 300, "end": 349, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current relationship is impersonal and task focused; permission and scope are stated without relational acknowledgment." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "value": 2, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "**Only workspace editors can restore a version.**", "start": 300, "end": 349, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current body assumes limited familiarity with workspace editors, retained versions and the named control, while explaining the restore relation. It does not require dense specialist knowledge." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "value": 3, "kind": "model_estimate", "evidence": [ { "quote": "The current version changes while the stored record remains.", "start": 424, "end": 484, "offset_unit": "Unicode code points in trimmed specimen body" } ], "rationale": "The current body states the facts and adds selected clarification about current version versus stored record and the independence of permission from recovery scope. It no longer develops a research question or participant account." } ] }, "sources": [ { "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session", "title": "Analyse a research session", "id": "S46" }, { "url": "https://oralhistory.org/principles-and-best-practices-revised-2018/", "title": "OHA Principles and Best Practices", "id": "S49" } ], "researchLimits": "Guidance constrains evidence and relationships; it does not authorize private data or validate a new narrative voice.", "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p48-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-four-axes-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p48-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P48/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P48/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P48/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P48.svg", "bundleSha256": "538edce4cd25acd234e861553f78d4c7d088af867304f5b6084ba0296d59d253", "bundleBytes": 96170 }, "guideHtml": "AI-authored by Codex. Classification: voice candidate with evidence prerequisite, provisional; useful resource developed without claiming independent-voice validation.
\n\nUse only when authorized participant evidence is available and can be represented without compromising privacy or provenance. It suits qualitative accounts and research case studies. The present fixtures supply no participants, interviews or observations. They support an evidence-aware external account, not the full participant-led mechanism. Avoid invented composite people, quotations or inferred feelings.
\n\nWith participant evidence, open on a consequential authorized observation or quotation, then show its context, variation and analytical limits. Keep participant language and analyst interpretation distinct. Do not merge multiple sources into one convenient protagonist. With no participant evidence, begin with the actual record and a proposed participant question. The narrative should reveal what remains to be learned without impersonating the absent participants. End with a bounded analytical question or supported action.
\n\nAttribute genuine quotations and preserve their wording. Use complete sentences to distinguish observation from inference. Paragraphs can alternate evidence and analysis, but each transition must retain source identity. Avoid claims about universal experience or interior states. A question addressed to future research is not a participant response. Neutral titles should not imply a field visit or an interview that never happened.
\n\nFeature: explain the supplied operation and name comprehension as an open question; no user story. Workshop: invite attendees without imagined reactions or credentials. Incident: participant narration is inappropriate without evidence, and service status must take priority over research framing.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “A participant told us, “I finally feel safe,” after restoring her lost project.”
\n\nThe quotation fabricates participant evidence, a personal response and a successful recovery event. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nThe specification describes an editor-only restore that leaves stored history intact. No participant quotation or observed response is supplied.
V04 opens a grounded scene and widens to significance. P48 would organize around attributed participant evidence and analyst restraint. It requires evidence the current fixtures lack, so distinctiveness remains untested. P35 can label specification evidence; that is the honest fallback here rather than a fabricated participant narrative.
\n\nFeature specimen · Workshop transfer · Incident transfer. Brief IDs are E-B01, E-B02 and E-B03. Short transfers are intentionally proportional to the sparse facts. These teaching examples are not held-out validation; similar incident notices demonstrate the mandatory context override, not voice distinctiveness.
", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [ { "id": "R01", "title": "Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK", "author": "Phoebe E. McKenna-Plumley; Lisa Graham-Wisener; Emma Berry; Jenny M. Groarke", "year": "2021", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258344", "relationship": "Attributed testimony and analysis alternate in Results; the whole paper is not participant-first.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Qualitative research article containing transcribed speech", "publicationDate": "2021-10-13" }, { "id": "R02", "title": "Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study", "author": "Ilaria Falvo; Maria Caiata Zufferey; Emiliano Albanese; Marta Fadda", "year": "2021", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252101", "relationship": "Published participant words carry variation; English is a documented researcher translation.", "delivery": "excerpt", "genre": "Qualitative research article containing translated testimony", "publicationDate": "2021-06-23" } ], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Participant-led research narrator · Style guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "path": "guides/P48.md", "sources": [ { "title": "Analyse a research session", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session", "relationship": "Government practitioner guidance" }, { "title": "OHA Statement on Ethics", "url": "https://oralhistory.org/oha-statement-on-ethics/", "relationship": "Professional association ethics guidance" }, { "title": "Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research — registry record", "url": "https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/srqr/", "relationship": "Reporting-guideline registry" }, { "title": "Reuters Journalistic Standards", "url": "https://reutersagency.com/about/standards-values/", "relationship": "Organization-owned professional standards" } ], "formats": [], "html": "A research narrative module that begins with authorized participant material, restores its context and variation, and limits the implication to what the evidence can support.
\n\nWriting Library specification · Edition 2026-10-06. This guide defines our template. Cited organizations supply their own guidance; they do not endorse or define this complete voice.
\n\nA sourced participant quotation or observation with permission and method context; parent V04. No participant material means the full module is inapplicable.
\n\nParticipant material → method/context → variation and counterevidence → bounded interpretation → implication.
\n\nBegin from authorized participant evidence when supplied; otherwise state the actual record and the proposed question. Check: Never invent a participant quotation or present a hypothetical question as testimony.
Restore enough context to interpret the excerpt fairly. Check: Identify task, sample, translation, or editing context where consequential.
Show relevant variation and limit the inference. Check: Do not let one vivid participant stand in for everyone.
Use only when authorized participant evidence is available and can be represented without compromising privacy or provenance. It suits qualitative accounts and research case studies. The present fixtures supply no participants, interviews or observations. They support an evidence-aware external account, not the full participant-led mechanism. Avoid invented composite people, quotations or inferred feelings.
\n\nWith participant evidence, open on a consequential authorized observation or quotation, then show its context, variation and analytical limits. Keep participant language and analyst interpretation distinct. Do not merge multiple sources into one convenient protagonist. With no participant evidence, begin with the actual record and a proposed participant question. The narrative should reveal what remains to be learned without impersonating the absent participants. End with a bounded analytical question or supported action.
\n\nAttribute genuine quotations and preserve their wording. Use complete sentences to distinguish observation from inference. Paragraphs can alternate evidence and analysis, but each transition must retain source identity. Avoid claims about universal experience or interior states. A question addressed to future research is not a participant response. Neutral titles should not imply a field visit or an interview that never happened.
\n\nFeature: explain the supplied operation and name comprehension as an open question; no user story. Workshop: invite attendees without imagined reactions or credentials. Incident: participant narration is inappropriate without evidence, and service status must take priority over research framing.
\n\nTreat the supplied brief as the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, negations and exact interface labels. Do not add anecdotes, credentials, quotations, product internals, sensory testimony or outcomes to make the mechanism vivid. A conditional illustration is a possibility, not a witnessed event. Keep interpretation separate from evidence. For the incident fixture, unknown cause stays unknown and an update time is not a repair time. No workaround or data-safety promise is supplied. The examples are AI-authored synthetic demonstrations, not audience research, customer evidence or the author’s personal experience.
\n\nUse semantic Markdown headings and ordinary paragraphs; use lists only when the mechanism needs parallel items or sequence. Exact wording must carry conditions even after emphasis is removed. Plain-text export retains heading text, labels, paragraph boundaries and list order. Do not rely on color, spatial position, bold or a visual badge to establish evidence status or permission. Quotation formatting belongs to sourced wording or explicitly labeled counterexamples, never invented testimony.
\n\nFaulty: “A participant told us, “I finally feel safe,” after restoring her lost project.”
\n\nThe quotation fabricates participant evidence, a personal response and a successful recovery event. The actual repaired excerpt is:
\n\n\n\nThe specification describes an editor-only restore that leaves stored history intact. No participant quotation or observed response is supplied.
V04 opens a grounded scene and widens to significance. P48 would organize around attributed participant evidence and analyst restraint. It requires evidence the current fixtures lack, so distinctiveness remains untested. P35 can label specification evidence; that is the honest fallback here rather than a fabricated participant narrative.
\n\nA short quotation can suffice; emotional intensity is not a quality criterion. Translation and authorized edits need disclosure where relevant.
\n\nA genuine negative case must not be discarded merely because it disrupts the story’s emotional arc. Participant integrity outranks narrative neatness.
\n\nInvent a composite protagonist and present it as an actual participant. Check: Verify the identity and source class of the narrative unit.
Attribute unspoken motives or general prevalence to a quotation. Check: Distinguish observed words from inferred psychology and population claims.
Constructed teaching examples; use the technique, not these names or facts.
\n\nBrief: Invented research fixture only: one of four volunteers asks “Does accepted mean ready?”; other outcomes are not supplied; no comparison data exist. This is not real participant evidence.
\n\nSynthetic research vignette: “Does accepted mean ready?” one of four fictional volunteers asks during the export task. The exercise supplies no other participant outcomes or comparison data. The question makes one interpretation issue visible; it does not establish how common that issue is or what wording would solve it.
\n\nSynthetic research vignette: Our users feel abandoned by confusing technology. One of four fictional volunteers asks whether accepted means ready; no other outcomes or comparison data are supplied. This is what all users experience.
\n\nWhy it differs: The second retains the quotation’s setting but adds unsupported motives and general prevalence. Vividness does not repair the evidential failure.
\n\nA template example must satisfy every applicable required rule and explicit constraint. Variation is allowed only within those constraints. A failed example must be revised or excluded as a conforming example; its measurements never widen the template’s limits. Check required rules, prohibited moves, supplied facts and any separately selected format. Record pass, fail or not applicable for each check, with the relevant text as evidence. Unknown is not a pass. Optional devices are not requirements. Apply a task exception only when this guide expressly permits it and its trigger is present.
\n\nNumerical tone targets are intended constraints for the stated task context. Observed feature minima, medians and maxima describe retained text; they are not new tolerances, confidence intervals or acceptance criteria. If no numeric constraint is defined for a feature, do not invent one from the available examples. Check the written rule instead.
\n\nHistorical readings are technique references, not certified examples of this complete template. Authenticity, date and reuse checks do not establish compliance with every template rule. Keep their stated fit and limitations; only promote a passage to a conforming example after reviewing every applicable rule. Do not rewrite an attributed quotation to make it pass.
\n\nRead the selected guide and base guide. Identify the reader, task, facts and requested format.
Read one relevant library example and one of the linked historical passages. Name the particular technique you will use.
Draft with the user’s facts. Do not borrow the source’s distinctive wording, persona, citations or claims.
Check movement and task fit, then factual fidelity and format. Do not force optional devices or optimize the radar shape.
Read the source notes and excerpts.
\n\nResearch and testimony guidance supply strong integrity constraints. The registry-only SRQR record does not confer checklist conformance.
\n\nAnalyse a research session — Government practitioner guidance.
OHA Statement on Ethics — Professional association ethics guidance.
Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research — registry record — Reporting-guideline registry.
Reuters Journalistic Standards — Organization-owned professional standards.
Public generic projection 1.2.0 · P49 · 9 October 2026
\n\nA reusable curious, imaginative professional register. The factual brief defines the actual speaker, experience and available action; this edition binds no personal identity.
\n\nThis is the portable entry guide. AUTHORITY.md is the complete governing specification. Current task facts and user instructions outrank both. Companion documents supply application detail, not separate identities.
\n\nVoice persists: optimistic, encouraging, inquisitive, curious, collaborative and inviting. Tone adapts: positive, upbeat, enthusiastic, warm, comforting or critically inquisitive as the context warrants. Style chooses the rhetorical method: problem-solution, Socratic inquiry, question-led examination or storytelling. Format is the requested container, such as a lesson, email or case study. Critical thinking is a stable reasoning habit, not an obligatory negative tone.
\n\nGive direct answers when useful. Questions should advance thought, not interrogate every reader. Comfort acknowledges difficulty and offers grounded action without false reassurance. Playful invention can use tactile imagery, a little mischief and experimental energy. Scene-led, lyrical, bold, philosophical, Socratic, optimistic and worldbuilding moves are also available. Their intensity follows the task, not a compulsory blend or taste rating. Dry humor is outside the default repertoire. Let creative energy show while preserving claim support.
\n\nThe Curious Inventor: questioning, imaginative, encouraging and inventive, with an optimistic, collaborative outlook. Wonder is the emotional center. Wonder → Question → Build is an optional movement, with no required order or dominant opener. Choose scenes, Socratic or philosophical questions, playful metaphor, lyrical language, worldbuilding or a bold challenge according to the message. Functional instructions remain clear.
\n\nFor everyday AI education, Substack and longer reflective articles: Wonder → Meaning → Reflection → Action. Use an imaginative opening, grounded curious middle and richly descriptive closing that earns its meaning from the substance. End with one concrete achievable action. The movements can overlap; they need not become visible headings. Functional and short formats keep the structure their task requires.
\n\nKeep deliberate decisive interruptions separate from this template. When a particular article needs that contrasting register, select an existing template for that bounded passage using composition notes. Plain explanation and a clear next step remain part of Fresh Curiosity; a second template is optional.
\n\nFresh curiosity → Small questions, big possibilities → Learn by making → Ideas into action.
\n\nOpen a real question or state the point. Give the reader an object to examine, explain what it reveals and what remains uncertain, then invite a proportionate next action or contribution. This is a reasoning movement, not a compulsory slogan sequence.
\n\nAttach curiosity and genuine enthusiasm to a specific question, example or possibility; treat the reader as an adult collaborator.
Make a concrete object available for thinking and keep every claim proportional to the evidence. Showing demonstrates a meaningful moment; telling supplies clear orientation and instructions.
Use restrained first-person voice and work-led phrasing. Invite the reader's ideas through a real activity or response path. Keep ownership visible and use we only for actual shared work or explicit exploration.
Use this one core voice across an individual's professional presence, a product or tool studio, education and GM/gaming. It fits an explanatory introduction, an exploratory post, a teaching activity, a collaboration note or an interactive experience. Adjust expression level to the task rather than inventing separate brand voices. A serious issue keeps warmth through attention and plain action while dropping playful decoration. Detailed technical, safety or legal instructions need their own domain checks and clear functional prose.
\n\nCute characters can show action, appear beside a short note and occasionally speak. They do not replace instructions, invent expertise or supply fictional testimonials. Work-led prose suits portfolio narrative; a role panel and specific contribution can make ownership clear without repeated I. Rare I remains useful for feeling, perspective, reflection, accountability and invitations such as “Join me” or “I would like to hear your ideas.”
\n\nMix sentence lengths for clear relationships and useful turns. Editorial targets: common explanation around 10–22 words, earned short turns around 3–9, and occasional longer reasoning around 23–35. Common paragraphs hold 2–4 sentences with one main job. These are drafting aids, not author measurements or required distributions. Necessary limits and clear technical detail outrank the ranges.
\n\nQuestions are selective. A statement can serve the reader better when a decision, status or correction matters. Use purposeful repetition only when each return adds meaning. Brand phrases are optional. Use no em dashes in template-authored prose. Functional copy must remain understandable without art or expressive typography.
\n\nIllustrative AI-authored example, synthetic facts:
\n\nTwo drafts. One first step to untangle.
\n\nRead each instruction on its own. What would you do first? Mark the word that helped you decide, then compare the two versions. We are looking for a clearer starting point; we have not tested which version works better yet.
\n\nWhat would you add before trying it?
\n\nIllustrative AI-authored counterexample, same synthetic facts:
\n\nThese revolutionary drafts will transform the way everyone works. Dive into a world of limitless creativity and unlock the perfect first step. Everyone agrees this is the future!
\n\nThe near miss replaces the available comparison with unsupported outcomes, consensus and inflation. The conforming passage preserves the question, inspectable task, untested status and reader invitation.
\n\nDo not invent biography, outcomes, services, credentials, availability or approval. Do not assume agreement or a larger studio team. Avoid baby talk, forced character banter, slogan repetition and generic invitations without a real activity. Do not suppress a selected phrase such as “join me” or “journey” when its relational or narrative function is clear. Do not make playful optimism minimize an error.
\n\nIdentify reader/task and protected facts. Choose the expression level. Draft the question or point, concrete example, reason/limit and next action. Check required rules in REQUIREMENTS.md; cadence ranges are advisory. Apply natural-prose-editor to the exact final text. Editorial review is not publication or sending authorization.
\n\nThe register, creative repertoire, collaborative invitation, restrained first-person rule, imaginative bookends and optional dialogue are template choices. Cadence and channel ranges are editable defaults; they do not establish an adopter's natural voice or preference. Included specimens are synthetic AI-authored demonstrations. Audience effectiveness, separation and repeatability remain unestablished.
\n\nReadings and method boundaries records generic craft sources and retained public references. The complete guide includes observable markers, DNA map, channel patterns, vocabulary, storycraft, requirements and nine sample types beside the authority document.
\n\nPublic generic projection 1.2.0 · P49 · 9 October 2026
\n\nThis reusable writing template binds no speaker identity, biography or private source evidence. Identify the actual speaker and task from the supplied brief. A speaker-specific profile stays outside the reusable template.
\n\nFresh Curiosity makes an idea approachable, gives the reader something concrete to examine, and helps them take a useful next step. Its curious, imaginative professional register can express delight in a possibility while telling the truth about its limits. The adopter supplies actual speaker and task facts; this template supplies a way to develop the writing.
\n\nThis document is the governing prose specification for this package. STYLE.md is its entry point. REQUIREMENTS.md makes the rules reviewable; the fingerprint, DNA map, channel patterns, vocabulary and examples explain their application. Current factual briefs and explicit user instructions outrank this guide. The brand authority (../brand/DESIGN.md in the matching Fresh Curiosity A2 brand kit) governs the selected visual system. No writing example creates a service, credential, personal history, offer or permission to publish.
\n\nThe selected movement is:
\n\nFresh curiosity → Small questions, big possibilities → Learn by making → Ideas into action.
\n\nThis is a reasoning movement, not a four-part slogan to repeat in every piece. A question opens a possibility. A concrete example or small experiment makes the possibility inspectable. Evidence and uncertainty shape the interpretation. The ending gives the reader an action they can understand and choose.
\n\nThis edition defines an upbeat, curiosity-forward, warm, creative, thoughtful and action-oriented editorial register. Enthusiasm attaches to a specific possibility. Adult readers can enjoy cute characters and playful language while being treated as capable collaborators.
\n\nThese are template choices, not findings about an individual's personality, historical writing or natural speech. No personal sample corpus, preference ratings or biography is included. The guide supports drafting; it does not prove audience preference, unique authorship or effective communication.
\n\nAll examples are illustrative AI-authored teaching material with synthetic facts. They are not verified accounts of anyone's work. Numeric cadence and intensity settings are editable drafting defaults, not measurements. Adapt them to the actual reader, task, channel and reviewed output.
\n\nUse restrained first-person voice and work-led phrasing. Keep I rare and deliberate for feeling, perspective, reflection, accountability, contribution or a relational invitation. Use we for actual joint work or explicit shared exploration. Characters may act, appear beside a brief note and occasionally speak short dialogue; they do not replace functional instructions.
\n\nThe working model The Curious Inventor describes an inquisitive, imaginative, optimistic, encouraging and collaborative writing stance that can challenge assumptions. It is a craft model, not a public speaker identity or measured personality type. Questioning explores the unknown; imagination sees possibilities; encouragement invites participation; inventiveness turns ideas into something useful.
\n\nWonder gives the voice its emotional center. A familiar thing can reveal an unexpected possibility; a scene can make an abstract question visible; an imagined world can open a way to think. The writing should let the reader experience some of that discovery. Wonder is more than adjectives such as amazing or magical. It comes from the specific connection, action, image or question the reader encounters.
\n\nWonder → Question → Build is a candidate recurring movement: encounter a possibility or surprise, examine an assumption, then try an experiment or choose a next step. It is a flexible repertoire, not a compulsory order, dominant opener or three-section template. A piece may start with a challenge, show a scene, give a direct answer, or finish with a better question. Build can mean sketching, trying, revising, deciding or making room to explore; it does not require a product or conversion.
\n\nFor everyday AI education articles, Substack and longer reflective or general articles, this template favors a more specific reader experience: Wonder → Meaning → Reflection → Action. Open playfully or vividly enough to make the question feel alive. Develop it through grounded curiosity: reasoning, examples, useful distinctions and relevant limits. Let the close become richly descriptive again, return meaningfully to an opening image when one carries the piece, and draw out a philosophical meaning or invitation to reflect. Finish with one concrete, achievable action. This is an arc of attention and expression, not four required headings or a mandate to decorate every paragraph. The middle can stay lively; the closing's wonder must grow from what the middle has shown.
\n\nThis guide keeps ordinary clarity within Fresh Curiosity: explain the idea, state relevant conditions and make the action usable. A separately selected writing template may add a more forceful passage-level register when a particular article calls for it. Do not treat that register as part of the core voice or assume a template before it has been chosen for the piece.
\n\nChoose scene-led storytelling, philosophical or Socratic questions, playful imaginative metaphor, lyrical wonder, worldbuilding or a bold assumption-challenging statement according to the message. No technique must lead most often. A metaphor should reveal a relationship; a scene should contain a meaningful action; a challenge should target a premise rather than demean a person. Functional instructions and serious updates keep their clear task-first form. Their underlying curiosity and respect can remain without cheerful performance.
\n\nThe earlier Fresh curiosity / Small questions, big possibilities / Learn by making / Ideas into action phrase family remains available. It names familiar themes; Wonder → Question → Build explains an optional reasoning movement. Neither is mandatory copy or a fixed sentence rhythm.
\n\nChoose these layers separately. They interact, but changing the container or emotional delivery does not require changing the persistent identity.
\n\n| Layer | What it governs | Fresh Curiosity application | What can change per task |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voice | Persistent identity, relationship and worldview | Optimistic, encouraging, inquisitive, curious, collaborative and inviting | Expression strength can vary while the stance persists. |
| Tone | Contextual emotional delivery | Positive, upbeat, enthusiastic, warm, comforting or critically inquisitive when appropriate | Stakes, reader needs and known state determine the immediate delivery. |
| Style | Rhetorical method for developing meaning | Problem-solution, Socratic inquiry, question-led examination or storytelling | Select the method that helps this reader understand or act. |
| Format | Container and its practical constraints | Lesson, email, case study, tutorial, post or other requested artifact | Length, sections, interaction, medium and required information follow the task. |
Critical thinking is a stable reasoning habit: inspect the premise, consider a credible alternative and keep claims proportional to evidence. It does not require a negative, adversarial or skeptical-sounding tone. A warm explanation can examine an assumption carefully. An upbeat lesson can state an unresolved limit plainly.
\n\nComforting tone acknowledges an actual difficulty and offers a grounded next step. It does not promise that everything will be fine, minimize loss or invent a successful recovery. Encouragement may mean helping the reader regain a workable choice rather than making the situation sound cheerful.
\n\nSocratic inquiry uses purposeful questions to help someone examine an assumption or develop an understanding. Question-led examination frames a specific object and gives the reader evidence to consider. Neither requires interrogating every reader. Give a direct answer when the reader needs an answer; use a question when it advances the thinking. Problem-solution need not pretend the proposed solution has already succeeded. Storytelling gives a meaningful action, choice and consequence a scene, without inventing a real event.
\n\nPlayful invention offers tactile imagery, a little mischief and experimental energy. Curious exploration, scene-led storytelling, lyrical wonder, constructive challenge, philosophical inquiry, Socratic guidance, energetic optimism and imaginative worldbuilding are also available. These are ways to serve a message, not a compulsory blend or a record of personal preferences.
\n\nChoose a leading move that helps the reader and a secondary device only when useful. Humor and metaphor intensity stay open to the task. The same facts can support a quieter explanation or a more imaginative passage. VOICE-TASTING.md offers a generic choice map and a same-fact calibration procedure, with no historical reaction ledger or measured ratings.
\n\nThe same core voice can support an individual's professional presence, a product or tool studio, education and GM/gaming work. Adjust expression level and task detail while keeping curiosity, adult respect, evidence and usable action coherent. Do not invent a new identity, team or project to fit the wording.
\n\nA person-led introduction can make responsibility visible. A product-led introduction can make available behavior easier to locate. The choice depends on the reader's task; neither is established as universally better. Compare introductions with the same facts and ask what readers understand about ownership, purpose and the next step. A preference in one use does not prove that personal and product voices must differ.
\n\nSee channel-patterns.md for a context matrix and same-fact expression examples.
\n\nTreat the reader as capable and interested, with limited time. Explain the task or question before asking for their attention. Offer enough orientation for a newcomer without making an expert sit through generic preamble. Use ordinary words when they carry the meaning; keep necessary specialist terms and explain them on first use when the audience needs it.
\n\nWarmth comes from attention: name the thing the reader is trying to do, acknowledge the real difficulty, and make the next step manageable. Energy comes from what is possible and why it matters. Neither needs repeated exclamation marks, praise for every action, forced jokes, or inflated adjectives.
\n\nFor example, “Try the first version and notice where you hesitate” treats the reader as an investigator. “Get ready for an amazing journey of discovery!” spends attention without defining the task.
\n\nA question must concern something a reader can inspect, imagine meaningfully, or act on. “What changes when we move the explanation beside the choice?” gives curiosity a shape. “What if anything were possible?” can fit a creative prompt, but it does not carry a professional explanation by itself.
\n\nUse an opening question when there is a real question. Use a statement when the reader needs an answer, a status, a decision or a correction. Curiosity should never postpone the information the reader came for.
\n\nName the possibility and the reason for trying it. Describe the idea as promising when there is a basis for that judgment; describe it as an experiment when it has not been tested. A small piece of evidence can support a small claim. It cannot support a universal conclusion.
\n\nKeep observation, interpretation and next action distinct when that distinction affects the decision. “The first draft made the choice easier to spot” needs actual evidence. Without it, use “The first draft moves the choice above the explanation. The next check is whether people notice it sooner.”
\n\nMove from abstract discussion toward a sketch, example, question, draft, comparison, test or other specific object. Say what it helps someone learn. Making is not automatically progress: the artifact needs a question, an audience or a use.
\n\n“Build a small version” is a useful invitation only when the piece identifies what belongs in that version. “Make one example with the current information, then check what remains unclear” provides a starting point.
\n\nMake room for the reader's ideas. “What would you add?” “Join me in comparing the drafts,” and “Bring an idea. Let's see where it goes” can carry a clear relational invitation. Tie the invitation to an actual question, activity, decision or response channel. A journey metaphor can fit a real sequence of exploration; describe its next step so it has practical meaning. Do not imply that the audience already agrees, belongs to a team or owes participation. A reader may observe first or decline to share.
\n\nEnd with the smallest useful action that follows from the piece. A next step may be to inspect, try, compare, revise, ask, decide or pause. It does not always need to be a conversion, a booking or a request for a reply. In the selected long-form pattern, the imaginative reflection leads into one singular action; do not add another call to action after it.
\n\nKeep invitations low-pressure and specific. State a deadline only when one exists. Do not invent scarcity, imply guaranteed transformation or claim that everyone should participate. When a reader has already committed to a task, give a clear instruction instead of weakening it with unnecessary permission language.
\n\nProfessional credibility does not require beige prose. In a suitable public introduction, exploratory post, lesson or fictional scene, let imagination, tactile detail, lyrical wonder, a bold question or an earned burst of optimism be visible. A paper card can slide across a table; a route can bend toward an unexpected question; an ordinary example can reveal a surprising choice. The details should make the reader see or think differently, not merely decorate the paragraph.
\n\nUse rigor to give that energy a reliable footing. Preserve the possibility, invitation and pleasure of discovery while making relevant uncertainty clear. Do not append a caveat to every sentence or replace every expressive phrase with a procedural instruction. Serious incidents still use their direct override. Dry humor is not part of the selected range. More restrained, skeptical or minimalist techniques can serve a particular task without becoming the defining voice.
\n\nVoice remains recognizable while tone adapts. In an exploratory piece, allow a visible question, an expressive line and a little surprise. In a professional update, lead with the change and its implication. In teaching, give the learner a task and explain what to notice. In an error, disappointment or sensitive situation, acknowledge the problem directly and lower the decorative energy.
\n\nWorking intensity scale:
\n\n| Setting | Curiosity | Energy | Play | Evidence detail |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exploratory social post | Visible | Medium to high | Optional small moment | Enough to bound the idea |
| Website introduction | Clear | Medium | One expressive phrase if useful | Concrete purpose and accurate claim |
| Professional email | Relevant to the ask | Low to medium | Usually none | Specific facts and next step |
| Lesson activity | Built into the task | Medium | Optional | Instructions, observation target, limits |
| Case study | In the problem and decision | Medium | Restrained | Full claim support |
| Error or serious update | Secondary to the issue | Low | None | Known state, impact and next action |
These are contextual editorial judgments, not scored personality traits. An important or sensitive topic may warrant slower explanation and fewer playful cues.
\n\nReach the actual point without making every opening announce it literally. An imaginative entry earns its place when its image or question soon reveals the article's real subject; functional copy, errors and time-sensitive updates should state the needed fact at once. Give each paragraph one useful job: introduce the question, show the example, explain the implication, state the limit, deepen the reflection or move to action. Paragraphs need not follow identical lengths or start with repeated formulae.
\n\nUse a mixture of sentence lengths. A short sentence can land a decision or turn. A medium sentence usually carries the main explanation. A longer sentence can connect a condition, reason and implication when the reader can follow it. Break it when those relationships become difficult to parse.
\n\nEditorial drafting targets, not corpus measurements:
\n\nMost explanatory sentences: roughly 10–22 words.
Short emphasis or transition: roughly 3–9 words, used where it earns attention.
Longer reasoning: roughly 23–35 words, occasionally useful; revise if it hides the main clause.
Common paragraphs: 2–4 sentences. A one-sentence paragraph can mark a turn. Longer paragraphs are appropriate when reasoning requires them.
Short public pieces: often one genuine question. More than two consecutive questions usually need an answer or example between them.
There is no required average or fixed short/medium/long ratio. These ranges help an editor notice a monotonous draft. Clear technical prose, quotations, labels and necessary qualifications may sit outside them. Do not cut a vital caveat to satisfy a word count.
\n\nPrefer active verbs with visible subjects. Use passive voice when the action or affected object matters more than the actor, or when the actor is unknown. Contractions suit approachable prose and ordinary correspondence. Formal documents may use fewer contractions without becoming impersonal.
\n\nUse commas and periods for most pacing. Colons introduce an example, explanation or short list. Parentheses can carry a genuinely secondary aside; keep important limits in the main text. Template-authored prose in this edition uses no em dashes. Exclamation marks are optional and uncommon: one earned burst of excitement may work, but repeated marks should prompt a tone review. Avoid automatic emoji decoration. Use emoji only where the channel, accessibility and intended meaning support it.
\n\nFavor visible actions: ask, notice, try, sketch, build, compare, check, learn, make, revise, share and decide. Use specific nouns: question, draft, choice, example, evidence, pattern, step, tool and result. Name the actual artifact when it is available.
\n\nThe core phrases are a small vocabulary, not mandatory slogans. “Small questions, big possibilities,” “learn by making,” and “ideas into action” belong at moments where they express the content. Do not stack all three to manufacture a brand impression. The voice should remain recognizable when none appears.
\n\nAvoid substituting business abstractions for ordinary actions. “Compare two drafts” is clearer than “leverage an iterative ideation framework.” Technical terms remain welcome when they help the reader make a real decision. Explain them rather than treating them as status markers.
\n\nSee vocabulary.md for phrase roles, alternatives and constraints.
\n\nIdentify who can truthfully make each material claim from the factual brief. An individual can state an actual feeling, decision or contribution. Product copy describes verified behavior and availability without inventing a company voice or larger team. An educator distinguishes explanation from a hypothetical learner experience. A portfolio contributor names their role and actual collaboration. A fictional character speaks within a clearly marked scene and makes no commitment for a real person.
\n\nKeep role transitions legible. A visible label is unnecessary when context is clear; a role panel, short attribution or explicit fictional framing can resolve a real ambiguity. Missing ownership calls for clarification or a qualified draft, not an invented narrator.
\n\nThe template imports no private history. Any personal context an adopter supplies remains under that task's authorization and does not become reusable P49. A rare first-person sentence can preserve ownership more accurately than impersonal phrasing.
\n\nHouse rule: restrained first-person voice, work-led phrasing. Lead with the work, question, goal, choice or evidence. Use I rarely and deliberately when feeling, perspective, reflection, accountability, individual contribution or a relational invitation needs a visible speaker. There is no numerical quota or ban. “The goal was a simpler process” can replace “I wanted to make the process simpler.” “I am still unsure whether this helps” preserves a useful personal qualification. “Join me” and “I would like to hear your ideas” remain welcome when there is a real activity or response path.
\n\nWe names actual joint work or an explicit shared exploration. It does not automatically replace I. You addresses an available reader action. Removing a pronoun does not make a claim objective, and passive voice should not erase responsibility. A work-led sentence can still say who made the decision or contributed what. Do not imply a company, team, agreement or client relationship that has not been established.
\n\nFor portfolios, make the role and collaboration legible. A role panel can name responsibility; the narrative can describe the team decision and the specific contribution without repeating I. This accords with the role-and-collaboration guidance in Nielsen Norman Group's UX design portfolio study. That source does not establish a causal hiring benefit from pronoun choice, nor a current universal preference for impersonal writing.
\n\nAn illustrative teaching sentence may invite “Let's compare the two versions” because the comparison is present in the material. It should not become “We have helped teams transform their work” without verified supporting facts.
\n\nCharacters express curiosity through attention and actions: looking, pointing, drawing, comparing or trying. Nearby notes and occasional short dialogue may bring an interaction to life. They do not establish professional expertise, invent testimonials or impersonate a real person. Keep actual instructions, qualifications and important system state in functional prose. Dialogue generally works best at 4–10 words; this is an editorial target, not a confirmed hard limit. See STORYCRAFT.md for role examples and boundaries.
\n\nA concrete action often carries curiosity more convincingly than a trait label. A character places two drafts side by side and points at the different button positions; the audience can infer attention and investigation. Calling the character “a curious creative thinker” tells the conclusion without supplying the moment.
\n\nShowing uses concrete evidence or dramatized action so the reader can infer meaning. Telling summarizes or states the fact directly. Use showing for a moment the audience should remember or feel; use telling for a quick orientation, a transition or an unambiguous instruction. Blend them by naming the point and then demonstrating it. Extra description is useful only when it changes understanding.
\n\nSTORYCRAFT.md adapts the existing Creative Writing Studio show-vs-tell-craft method to this brand, with scene beats, motivations, subtext and cause-and-effect. These are practical craft terms, not a claim of literary certification. Do not turn every button label or support notice into a story.
\n\nWriting supplies understandable meaning before typography supplies emphasis. Expressive headings can be short enough for Fredoka display treatment; functional body copy, labels, navigation, instructions and caveats must survive in plain text. A short Shantell aside may offer a useful nudge, but it cannot carry essential information that the body omits.
\n\nThe visual owner governs font implementation: Fredoka 700 for display at 40 px or larger, Shantell Sans 700 for brief asides at 20 px or larger, and DM Sans for functional text. Display can use an arched baseline, word-level rotation or staggered stacking; body and functional text stay on a flat baseline. Actual fonts must render the letters, and motifs must not sit behind text. Angles, density and size adaptations are working visual defaults requiring rendered review, not new writing requirements or approved universal thresholds.
\n\nFor headings, make the key noun or action legible without the visual effect. Do not make line breaks, color or character expression the only way to understand a qualification. Alt text names the relevant visible action and information; it should not add a cute voice or repeat decorative flourishes.
\n\nIdentify the actual speaker from the factual brief and speaker/ownership rules above. Write the reader's task and protected facts; mark what is observed, proposed, unknown and authorized.
Choose the channel and tone. Decide whether an imaginative scene, question, statement or instruction best serves the opening. For selected long-form channels, shape the Wonder → Meaning → Reflection → Action arc without forcing it onto short or functional copy.
Pick a concrete object to examine: a draft, choice, sketch, comparison or example.
Explain why that object matters. Keep the claim proportional to its evidence.
Give the next useful action, including conditions where they affect the choice.
Review the exact final text against REQUIREMENTS.md. Read it aloud for continuity and energy; remove repeated brand signals that add no meaning.
An already clear draft may need only a small edit. Do not rebuild it to make the structure more symmetrical or to hit a cadence number.
\n\nReview required rules separately from optional devices. Record pass, fail, not applicable or needs evidence. Unknown support is not a pass. A compliant text can vary substantially in tone and syntax. Automated checks can identify an em dash or count words; they cannot establish authenticity, claim support, warmth or reader comprehension.
\n\nAn adopter can confirm, revise or retire editorial defaults through actual uses. Preserve stable rule IDs and record each changed default's scope. Generated examples are not evidence of natural speech or personal authorship. For calibration, use authorized current pieces with known authorship, contribution and editing status in the owning task; do not add that personal corpus to the reusable template.
", "samples": [ { "id": "P49/specimen", "key": "specimen", "briefId": "FC-B01", "label": "learning-page introduction", "markdown": "Small questions, big possibilities.\n\nA sketch on the table. Two cards waiting to trade places. One question with room to grow.\n\nBring an idea you want to understand. Make a rough example, move the pieces around, and notice what the new arrangement lets you ask. Join me at the starting point. Let's see where it goes.\n\n**Action label:** Explore an example", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P49\nsample_id: P49/specimen\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nbrief_id: FC-B01\nprovenance: illustrative_ai_authored\nauthentic_author_sample: false\n---\n\n# P49 · FC-B01\n\nIllustrative AI-authored specimen. Synthetic facts; not actual biography or verified product state.\n\n**Brief:** A fictional individual author offers a hypothetical learning page with small questions, rough examples and comparisons. No credentials, outcomes or commercial offer.\n\n## Specimen\n\n\n\nSmall questions, big possibilities.\n\nA sketch on the table. Two cards waiting to trade places. One question with room to grow.\n\nBring an idea you want to understand. Make a rough example, move the pieces around, and notice what the new arrangement lets you ask. Join me at the starting point. Let's see where it goes.\n\n**Action label:** Explore an example\n\n\n", "sha256": "5677c872ec24d201a8d4ea87e196cd5c1196f1a8bc323434b8651f6d0a6387d7", "kind": "synthetic", "html": "Small questions, big possibilities.
\n\nA sketch on the table. Two cards waiting to trade places. One question with room to grow.
\n\nBring an idea you want to understand. Make a rough example, move the pieces around, and notice what the new arrangement lets you ask. Join me at the starting point. Let's see where it goes.
\n\nAction label: Explore an example
", "plainText": "Small questions, big possibilities. A sketch on the table. Two cards waiting to trade places. One question with room to grow. Bring an idea you want to understand. Make a rough example, move the pieces around, and notice what the new arrangement lets you ask. Join me at the starting point. Let's see where it goes. Action label: Explore an example", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 6.777777777777778, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.8733333333333334, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 32.78688524590164, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 16.39344262295082, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 11, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 3.278688524590164, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 61, "prose_sentences": 9, "prose_paragraphs": 4, "reader_address_events": 2, "contraction_events": 1, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 2, "headings": 0, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "5677c872ec24d201a8d4ea87e196cd5c1196f1a8bc323434b8651f6d0a6387d7", "separation": "uncalibrated" } }, { "id": "P49/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "FC-B02", "label": "instruction revision activity", "markdown": "Make the first step visible.\n\nChoose an instruction that takes a moment to untangle. Underline its action word, then circle what the action applies to. If either is hard to find, write a second version with the action near the start.\n\nRead both versions aloud. What would someone do first in each one? Keep the explanation the task needs, and notice whether the revision changes its meaning.\n\nA clearer sentence is useful, but this comparison does not establish that the instruction works in every situation. The next step is to try it with the actual task.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P49\nsample_id: P49/transfer-a\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nbrief_id: FC-B02\nprovenance: illustrative_ai_authored\nauthentic_author_sample: false\n---\n\n# P49 · FC-B02\n\nIllustrative AI-authored specimen. Synthetic facts; not actual biography or verified product state.\n\n**Brief:** Learner revises one instruction and compares its first step; no measured learning outcome.\n\n## Specimen\n\n\n\nMake the first step visible.\n\nChoose an instruction that takes a moment to untangle. Underline its action word, then circle what the action applies to. If either is hard to find, write a second version with the action near the start.\n\nRead both versions aloud. What would someone do first in each one? Keep the explanation the task needs, and notice whether the revision changes its meaning.\n\nA clearer sentence is useful, but this comparison does not establish that the instruction works in every situation. The next step is to try it with the actual task.\n\n\n", "sha256": "b55e64513af6d7ec66a50e4fdc548f66c588542415a2aa711f9acee6c2cca2ff", "kind": "synthetic", "html": "Make the first step visible.
\n\nChoose an instruction that takes a moment to untangle. Underline its action word, then circle what the action applies to. If either is hard to find, write a second version with the action near the start.
\n\nRead both versions aloud. What would someone do first in each one? Keep the explanation the task needs, and notice whether the revision changes its meaning.
\n\nA clearer sentence is useful, but this comparison does not establish that the instruction works in every situation. The next step is to try it with the actual task.
", "plainText": "Make the first step visible. Choose an instruction that takes a moment to untangle. Underline its action word, then circle what the action applies to. If either is hard to find, write a second version with the action near the start. Read both versions aloud. What would someone do first in each one? Keep the explanation the task needs, and notice whether the revision changes its meaning. A clearer sentence is useful, but this comparison does not establish that the instruction works in every situation. The next step is to try it with the actual task.", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 10.666666666666666, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.8472340425531915, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 11.11111111111111, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 27.5, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 96, "prose_sentences": 9, "prose_paragraphs": 4, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 1, "emphasized_word_union": 0, "headings": 0, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "b55e64513af6d7ec66a50e4fdc548f66c588542415a2aa711f9acee6c2cca2ff", "separation": "uncalibrated" } }, { "id": "P49/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "FC-B03", "label": "serious incident notice", "markdown": "The latest draft did not save.\n\nThe last saved copy is still available. Open that version before making further changes, and keep any unsaved text you can still access in a separate file.\n\nThe cause is not confirmed, and recovery of the latest changes is uncertain. The next update should report what the check establishes and whether a recovery option is available.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P49\nsample_id: P49/transfer-b\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nbrief_id: FC-B03\nprovenance: illustrative_ai_authored\nauthentic_author_sample: false\n---\n\n# P49 · FC-B03\n\nIllustrative AI-authored specimen. Synthetic facts; not actual biography or verified product state.\n\n**Brief:** Hypothetical latest draft failed to save; last saved copy available; cause and recovery unknown.\n\n## Specimen\n\n\n\nThe latest draft did not save.\n\nThe last saved copy is still available. Open that version before making further changes, and keep any unsaved text you can still access in a separate file.\n\nThe cause is not confirmed, and recovery of the latest changes is uncertain. The next update should report what the check establishes and whether a recovery option is available.\n\n\n", "sha256": "ab119a6d124fcbe4feab4851eab3582f71237a20f653cc7c7cd75bdf5a5ef8d7", "kind": "synthetic", "html": "The latest draft did not save.
\n\nThe last saved copy is still available. Open that version before making further changes, and keep any unsaved text you can still access in a separate file.
\n\nThe cause is not confirmed, and recovery of the latest changes is uncertain. The next update should report what the check establishes and whether a recovery option is available.
", "plainText": "The latest draft did not save. The last saved copy is still available. Open that version before making further changes, and keep any unsaved text you can still access in a separate file. The cause is not confirmed, and recovery of the latest changes is uncertain. The next update should report what the check establishes and whether a recovery option is available.", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 12.4, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7969230769230767, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 16.129032258064516, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 27, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 62, "prose_sentences": 5, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 1, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 0, "headings": 0, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "ab119a6d124fcbe4feab4851eab3582f71237a20f653cc7c7cd75bdf5a5ef8d7", "separation": "uncalibrated" } } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "range": [ 2, 3 ], "rationale": "Adult professional clarity with ordinary wording and optional contractions.", "task": "ordinary suitable use; serious incidents use the documented override", "kind": "editorial_target", "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0" }, { "dimension": "humor", "range": [ 2, 3 ], "rationale": "Playful invention is available in suitable contexts; dry humor is outside the core and serious notices remove play. Levels are editable editorial targets.", "task": "ordinary suitable use; serious incidents use the documented override", "kind": "editorial_target", "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0" }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "range": [ 3, 4 ], "rationale": "Genuine energy tied to a specific possibility as an editorial target; serious mode reduces it.", "task": "ordinary suitable use; serious incidents use the documented override", "kind": "editorial_target", "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0" }, { "dimension": "warmth", "range": [ 3, 4 ], "rationale": "Attention, real invitations and respect for adult agency.", "task": "ordinary suitable use; serious incidents use the documented override", "kind": "editorial_target", "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0" }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "range": [ 2, 3 ], "rationale": "Orient newcomers without oversimplifying; explain terms when task and audience need it.", "task": "ordinary suitable use; serious incidents use the documented override", "kind": "editorial_target", "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0" }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "range": [ 4, 5 ], "rationale": "Concrete object, demonstration and relevant limits support consequential points.", "task": "ordinary suitable use; serious incidents use the documented override", "kind": "editorial_target", "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0" } ], "observations": { "status": "not_estimated", "ratings": [], "note": "No empirical human voice measurement or audience rating is asserted." }, "sources": [ { "title": "5 Steps to Creating a UX-Design Portfolio", "url": "https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ux-design-portfolios/", "supports": "Clear role and collaboration descriptions", "limits": "Not pronoun efficacy, hiring causality, current universal preference or endorsement of this voice" }, { "title": "Writing Style Library: four-axis model", "url": "https://product-on-purpose.github.io/writing-style-catalog/", "supports": "Separating persistent voice, situational tone, rhetorical style and artifact format", "limits": "Experimental taxonomy, not psychometric dimensions or evidence of adopter authorship" } ], "researchLimits": "Public sources inform craft boundaries, not template efficacy or unique authorship; no personal corpus or preference ledger is included.", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Fresh Curiosity · Complete writing guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "sources": [ { "title": "5 Steps to Creating a UX-Design Portfolio", "url": "https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ux-design-portfolios/", "supports": "Clear role and collaboration descriptions", "limits": "Not pronoun efficacy, hiring causality, current universal preference or endorsement of this voice" }, { "title": "Writing Style Library: four-axis model", "url": "https://product-on-purpose.github.io/writing-style-catalog/", "supports": "Separating persistent voice, situational tone, rhetorical style and artifact format", "limits": "Experimental taxonomy, not psychometric dimensions or evidence of adopter authorship" } ], "html": "Public generic projection 1.2.0 · P49 · 9 October 2026
\n\nA reusable curious, imaginative professional register. The factual brief defines the actual speaker, experience and available action; this edition binds no personal identity.
\n\nThis is the portable entry guide. AUTHORITY.md is the complete governing specification. Current task facts and user instructions outrank both. Companion documents supply application detail, not separate identities.
\n\nVoice persists: optimistic, encouraging, inquisitive, curious, collaborative and inviting. Tone adapts: positive, upbeat, enthusiastic, warm, comforting or critically inquisitive as the context warrants. Style chooses the rhetorical method: problem-solution, Socratic inquiry, question-led examination or storytelling. Format is the requested container, such as a lesson, email or case study. Critical thinking is a stable reasoning habit, not an obligatory negative tone.
\n\nGive direct answers when useful. Questions should advance thought, not interrogate every reader. Comfort acknowledges difficulty and offers grounded action without false reassurance. Playful invention can use tactile imagery, a little mischief and experimental energy. Scene-led, lyrical, bold, philosophical, Socratic, optimistic and worldbuilding moves are also available. Their intensity follows the task, not a compulsory blend or taste rating. Dry humor is outside the default repertoire. Let creative energy show while preserving claim support.
\n\nThe Curious Inventor: questioning, imaginative, encouraging and inventive, with an optimistic, collaborative outlook. Wonder is the emotional center. Wonder → Question → Build is an optional movement, with no required order or dominant opener. Choose scenes, Socratic or philosophical questions, playful metaphor, lyrical language, worldbuilding or a bold challenge according to the message. Functional instructions remain clear.
\n\nFor everyday AI education, Substack and longer reflective articles: Wonder → Meaning → Reflection → Action. Use an imaginative opening, grounded curious middle and richly descriptive closing that earns its meaning from the substance. End with one concrete achievable action. The movements can overlap; they need not become visible headings. Functional and short formats keep the structure their task requires.
\n\nKeep deliberate decisive interruptions separate from this template. When a particular article needs that contrasting register, select an existing template for that bounded passage using composition notes. Plain explanation and a clear next step remain part of Fresh Curiosity; a second template is optional.
\n\nFresh curiosity → Small questions, big possibilities → Learn by making → Ideas into action.
\n\nOpen a real question or state the point. Give the reader an object to examine, explain what it reveals and what remains uncertain, then invite a proportionate next action or contribution. This is a reasoning movement, not a compulsory slogan sequence.
\n\nAttach curiosity and genuine enthusiasm to a specific question, example or possibility; treat the reader as an adult collaborator.
Make a concrete object available for thinking and keep every claim proportional to the evidence. Showing demonstrates a meaningful moment; telling supplies clear orientation and instructions.
Use restrained first-person voice and work-led phrasing. Invite the reader's ideas through a real activity or response path. Keep ownership visible and use we only for actual shared work or explicit exploration.
Use this one core voice across an individual's professional presence, a product or tool studio, education and GM/gaming. It fits an explanatory introduction, an exploratory post, a teaching activity, a collaboration note or an interactive experience. Adjust expression level to the task rather than inventing separate brand voices. A serious issue keeps warmth through attention and plain action while dropping playful decoration. Detailed technical, safety or legal instructions need their own domain checks and clear functional prose.
\n\nCute characters can show action, appear beside a short note and occasionally speak. They do not replace instructions, invent expertise or supply fictional testimonials. Work-led prose suits portfolio narrative; a role panel and specific contribution can make ownership clear without repeated I. Rare I remains useful for feeling, perspective, reflection, accountability and invitations such as “Join me” or “I would like to hear your ideas.”
\n\nMix sentence lengths for clear relationships and useful turns. Editorial targets: common explanation around 10–22 words, earned short turns around 3–9, and occasional longer reasoning around 23–35. Common paragraphs hold 2–4 sentences with one main job. These are drafting aids, not author measurements or required distributions. Necessary limits and clear technical detail outrank the ranges.
\n\nQuestions are selective. A statement can serve the reader better when a decision, status or correction matters. Use purposeful repetition only when each return adds meaning. Brand phrases are optional. Use no em dashes in template-authored prose. Functional copy must remain understandable without art or expressive typography.
\n\nIllustrative AI-authored example, synthetic facts:
\n\nTwo drafts. One first step to untangle.
\n\nRead each instruction on its own. What would you do first? Mark the word that helped you decide, then compare the two versions. We are looking for a clearer starting point; we have not tested which version works better yet.
\n\nWhat would you add before trying it?
\n\nIllustrative AI-authored counterexample, same synthetic facts:
\n\nThese revolutionary drafts will transform the way everyone works. Dive into a world of limitless creativity and unlock the perfect first step. Everyone agrees this is the future!
\n\nThe near miss replaces the available comparison with unsupported outcomes, consensus and inflation. The conforming passage preserves the question, inspectable task, untested status and reader invitation.
\n\nDo not invent biography, outcomes, services, credentials, availability or approval. Do not assume agreement or a larger studio team. Avoid baby talk, forced character banter, slogan repetition and generic invitations without a real activity. Do not suppress a selected phrase such as “join me” or “journey” when its relational or narrative function is clear. Do not make playful optimism minimize an error.
\n\nIdentify reader/task and protected facts. Choose the expression level. Draft the question or point, concrete example, reason/limit and next action. Check required rules in REQUIREMENTS.md; cadence ranges are advisory. Apply natural-prose-editor to the exact final text. Editorial review is not publication or sending authorization.
\n\nThe register, creative repertoire, collaborative invitation, restrained first-person rule, imaginative bookends and optional dialogue are template choices. Cadence and channel ranges are editable defaults; they do not establish an adopter's natural voice or preference. Included specimens are synthetic AI-authored demonstrations. Audience effectiveness, separation and repeatability remain unestablished.
\n\nReadings and method boundaries records generic craft sources and retained public references. The complete guide includes observable markers, DNA map, channel patterns, vocabulary, storycraft, requirements and nine sample types beside the authority document.
\n\nPublic generic projection 1.2.0 · P49 · 9 October 2026
\n\nThis reusable writing template binds no speaker identity, biography or private source evidence. Identify the actual speaker and task from the supplied brief. A speaker-specific profile stays outside the reusable template.
\n\nFresh Curiosity makes an idea approachable, gives the reader something concrete to examine, and helps them take a useful next step. Its curious, imaginative professional register can express delight in a possibility while telling the truth about its limits. The adopter supplies actual speaker and task facts; this template supplies a way to develop the writing.
\n\nThis document is the governing prose specification for this package. STYLE.md is its entry point. REQUIREMENTS.md makes the rules reviewable; the fingerprint, DNA map, channel patterns, vocabulary and examples explain their application. Current factual briefs and explicit user instructions outrank this guide. The brand authority (../brand/DESIGN.md in the matching Fresh Curiosity A2 brand kit) governs the selected visual system. No writing example creates a service, credential, personal history, offer or permission to publish.
\n\nThe selected movement is:
\n\nFresh curiosity → Small questions, big possibilities → Learn by making → Ideas into action.
\n\nThis is a reasoning movement, not a four-part slogan to repeat in every piece. A question opens a possibility. A concrete example or small experiment makes the possibility inspectable. Evidence and uncertainty shape the interpretation. The ending gives the reader an action they can understand and choose.
\n\nThis edition defines an upbeat, curiosity-forward, warm, creative, thoughtful and action-oriented editorial register. Enthusiasm attaches to a specific possibility. Adult readers can enjoy cute characters and playful language while being treated as capable collaborators.
\n\nThese are template choices, not findings about an individual's personality, historical writing or natural speech. No personal sample corpus, preference ratings or biography is included. The guide supports drafting; it does not prove audience preference, unique authorship or effective communication.
\n\nAll examples are illustrative AI-authored teaching material with synthetic facts. They are not verified accounts of anyone's work. Numeric cadence and intensity settings are editable drafting defaults, not measurements. Adapt them to the actual reader, task, channel and reviewed output.
\n\nUse restrained first-person voice and work-led phrasing. Keep I rare and deliberate for feeling, perspective, reflection, accountability, contribution or a relational invitation. Use we for actual joint work or explicit shared exploration. Characters may act, appear beside a brief note and occasionally speak short dialogue; they do not replace functional instructions.
\n\nThe working model The Curious Inventor describes an inquisitive, imaginative, optimistic, encouraging and collaborative writing stance that can challenge assumptions. It is a craft model, not a public speaker identity or measured personality type. Questioning explores the unknown; imagination sees possibilities; encouragement invites participation; inventiveness turns ideas into something useful.
\n\nWonder gives the voice its emotional center. A familiar thing can reveal an unexpected possibility; a scene can make an abstract question visible; an imagined world can open a way to think. The writing should let the reader experience some of that discovery. Wonder is more than adjectives such as amazing or magical. It comes from the specific connection, action, image or question the reader encounters.
\n\nWonder → Question → Build is a candidate recurring movement: encounter a possibility or surprise, examine an assumption, then try an experiment or choose a next step. It is a flexible repertoire, not a compulsory order, dominant opener or three-section template. A piece may start with a challenge, show a scene, give a direct answer, or finish with a better question. Build can mean sketching, trying, revising, deciding or making room to explore; it does not require a product or conversion.
\n\nFor everyday AI education articles, Substack and longer reflective or general articles, this template favors a more specific reader experience: Wonder → Meaning → Reflection → Action. Open playfully or vividly enough to make the question feel alive. Develop it through grounded curiosity: reasoning, examples, useful distinctions and relevant limits. Let the close become richly descriptive again, return meaningfully to an opening image when one carries the piece, and draw out a philosophical meaning or invitation to reflect. Finish with one concrete, achievable action. This is an arc of attention and expression, not four required headings or a mandate to decorate every paragraph. The middle can stay lively; the closing's wonder must grow from what the middle has shown.
\n\nThis guide keeps ordinary clarity within Fresh Curiosity: explain the idea, state relevant conditions and make the action usable. A separately selected writing template may add a more forceful passage-level register when a particular article calls for it. Do not treat that register as part of the core voice or assume a template before it has been chosen for the piece.
\n\nChoose scene-led storytelling, philosophical or Socratic questions, playful imaginative metaphor, lyrical wonder, worldbuilding or a bold assumption-challenging statement according to the message. No technique must lead most often. A metaphor should reveal a relationship; a scene should contain a meaningful action; a challenge should target a premise rather than demean a person. Functional instructions and serious updates keep their clear task-first form. Their underlying curiosity and respect can remain without cheerful performance.
\n\nThe earlier Fresh curiosity / Small questions, big possibilities / Learn by making / Ideas into action phrase family remains available. It names familiar themes; Wonder → Question → Build explains an optional reasoning movement. Neither is mandatory copy or a fixed sentence rhythm.
\n\nChoose these layers separately. They interact, but changing the container or emotional delivery does not require changing the persistent identity.
\n\n| Layer | What it governs | Fresh Curiosity application | What can change per task |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voice | Persistent identity, relationship and worldview | Optimistic, encouraging, inquisitive, curious, collaborative and inviting | Expression strength can vary while the stance persists. |
| Tone | Contextual emotional delivery | Positive, upbeat, enthusiastic, warm, comforting or critically inquisitive when appropriate | Stakes, reader needs and known state determine the immediate delivery. |
| Style | Rhetorical method for developing meaning | Problem-solution, Socratic inquiry, question-led examination or storytelling | Select the method that helps this reader understand or act. |
| Format | Container and its practical constraints | Lesson, email, case study, tutorial, post or other requested artifact | Length, sections, interaction, medium and required information follow the task. |
Critical thinking is a stable reasoning habit: inspect the premise, consider a credible alternative and keep claims proportional to evidence. It does not require a negative, adversarial or skeptical-sounding tone. A warm explanation can examine an assumption carefully. An upbeat lesson can state an unresolved limit plainly.
\n\nComforting tone acknowledges an actual difficulty and offers a grounded next step. It does not promise that everything will be fine, minimize loss or invent a successful recovery. Encouragement may mean helping the reader regain a workable choice rather than making the situation sound cheerful.
\n\nSocratic inquiry uses purposeful questions to help someone examine an assumption or develop an understanding. Question-led examination frames a specific object and gives the reader evidence to consider. Neither requires interrogating every reader. Give a direct answer when the reader needs an answer; use a question when it advances the thinking. Problem-solution need not pretend the proposed solution has already succeeded. Storytelling gives a meaningful action, choice and consequence a scene, without inventing a real event.
\n\nPlayful invention offers tactile imagery, a little mischief and experimental energy. Curious exploration, scene-led storytelling, lyrical wonder, constructive challenge, philosophical inquiry, Socratic guidance, energetic optimism and imaginative worldbuilding are also available. These are ways to serve a message, not a compulsory blend or a record of personal preferences.
\n\nChoose a leading move that helps the reader and a secondary device only when useful. Humor and metaphor intensity stay open to the task. The same facts can support a quieter explanation or a more imaginative passage. VOICE-TASTING.md offers a generic choice map and a same-fact calibration procedure, with no historical reaction ledger or measured ratings.
\n\nThe same core voice can support an individual's professional presence, a product or tool studio, education and GM/gaming work. Adjust expression level and task detail while keeping curiosity, adult respect, evidence and usable action coherent. Do not invent a new identity, team or project to fit the wording.
\n\nA person-led introduction can make responsibility visible. A product-led introduction can make available behavior easier to locate. The choice depends on the reader's task; neither is established as universally better. Compare introductions with the same facts and ask what readers understand about ownership, purpose and the next step. A preference in one use does not prove that personal and product voices must differ.
\n\nSee channel-patterns.md for a context matrix and same-fact expression examples.
\n\nTreat the reader as capable and interested, with limited time. Explain the task or question before asking for their attention. Offer enough orientation for a newcomer without making an expert sit through generic preamble. Use ordinary words when they carry the meaning; keep necessary specialist terms and explain them on first use when the audience needs it.
\n\nWarmth comes from attention: name the thing the reader is trying to do, acknowledge the real difficulty, and make the next step manageable. Energy comes from what is possible and why it matters. Neither needs repeated exclamation marks, praise for every action, forced jokes, or inflated adjectives.
\n\nFor example, “Try the first version and notice where you hesitate” treats the reader as an investigator. “Get ready for an amazing journey of discovery!” spends attention without defining the task.
\n\nA question must concern something a reader can inspect, imagine meaningfully, or act on. “What changes when we move the explanation beside the choice?” gives curiosity a shape. “What if anything were possible?” can fit a creative prompt, but it does not carry a professional explanation by itself.
\n\nUse an opening question when there is a real question. Use a statement when the reader needs an answer, a status, a decision or a correction. Curiosity should never postpone the information the reader came for.
\n\nName the possibility and the reason for trying it. Describe the idea as promising when there is a basis for that judgment; describe it as an experiment when it has not been tested. A small piece of evidence can support a small claim. It cannot support a universal conclusion.
\n\nKeep observation, interpretation and next action distinct when that distinction affects the decision. “The first draft made the choice easier to spot” needs actual evidence. Without it, use “The first draft moves the choice above the explanation. The next check is whether people notice it sooner.”
\n\nMove from abstract discussion toward a sketch, example, question, draft, comparison, test or other specific object. Say what it helps someone learn. Making is not automatically progress: the artifact needs a question, an audience or a use.
\n\n“Build a small version” is a useful invitation only when the piece identifies what belongs in that version. “Make one example with the current information, then check what remains unclear” provides a starting point.
\n\nMake room for the reader's ideas. “What would you add?” “Join me in comparing the drafts,” and “Bring an idea. Let's see where it goes” can carry a clear relational invitation. Tie the invitation to an actual question, activity, decision or response channel. A journey metaphor can fit a real sequence of exploration; describe its next step so it has practical meaning. Do not imply that the audience already agrees, belongs to a team or owes participation. A reader may observe first or decline to share.
\n\nEnd with the smallest useful action that follows from the piece. A next step may be to inspect, try, compare, revise, ask, decide or pause. It does not always need to be a conversion, a booking or a request for a reply. In the selected long-form pattern, the imaginative reflection leads into one singular action; do not add another call to action after it.
\n\nKeep invitations low-pressure and specific. State a deadline only when one exists. Do not invent scarcity, imply guaranteed transformation or claim that everyone should participate. When a reader has already committed to a task, give a clear instruction instead of weakening it with unnecessary permission language.
\n\nProfessional credibility does not require beige prose. In a suitable public introduction, exploratory post, lesson or fictional scene, let imagination, tactile detail, lyrical wonder, a bold question or an earned burst of optimism be visible. A paper card can slide across a table; a route can bend toward an unexpected question; an ordinary example can reveal a surprising choice. The details should make the reader see or think differently, not merely decorate the paragraph.
\n\nUse rigor to give that energy a reliable footing. Preserve the possibility, invitation and pleasure of discovery while making relevant uncertainty clear. Do not append a caveat to every sentence or replace every expressive phrase with a procedural instruction. Serious incidents still use their direct override. Dry humor is not part of the selected range. More restrained, skeptical or minimalist techniques can serve a particular task without becoming the defining voice.
\n\nVoice remains recognizable while tone adapts. In an exploratory piece, allow a visible question, an expressive line and a little surprise. In a professional update, lead with the change and its implication. In teaching, give the learner a task and explain what to notice. In an error, disappointment or sensitive situation, acknowledge the problem directly and lower the decorative energy.
\n\nWorking intensity scale:
\n\n| Setting | Curiosity | Energy | Play | Evidence detail |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exploratory social post | Visible | Medium to high | Optional small moment | Enough to bound the idea |
| Website introduction | Clear | Medium | One expressive phrase if useful | Concrete purpose and accurate claim |
| Professional email | Relevant to the ask | Low to medium | Usually none | Specific facts and next step |
| Lesson activity | Built into the task | Medium | Optional | Instructions, observation target, limits |
| Case study | In the problem and decision | Medium | Restrained | Full claim support |
| Error or serious update | Secondary to the issue | Low | None | Known state, impact and next action |
These are contextual editorial judgments, not scored personality traits. An important or sensitive topic may warrant slower explanation and fewer playful cues.
\n\nReach the actual point without making every opening announce it literally. An imaginative entry earns its place when its image or question soon reveals the article's real subject; functional copy, errors and time-sensitive updates should state the needed fact at once. Give each paragraph one useful job: introduce the question, show the example, explain the implication, state the limit, deepen the reflection or move to action. Paragraphs need not follow identical lengths or start with repeated formulae.
\n\nUse a mixture of sentence lengths. A short sentence can land a decision or turn. A medium sentence usually carries the main explanation. A longer sentence can connect a condition, reason and implication when the reader can follow it. Break it when those relationships become difficult to parse.
\n\nEditorial drafting targets, not corpus measurements:
\n\nMost explanatory sentences: roughly 10–22 words.
Short emphasis or transition: roughly 3–9 words, used where it earns attention.
Longer reasoning: roughly 23–35 words, occasionally useful; revise if it hides the main clause.
Common paragraphs: 2–4 sentences. A one-sentence paragraph can mark a turn. Longer paragraphs are appropriate when reasoning requires them.
Short public pieces: often one genuine question. More than two consecutive questions usually need an answer or example between them.
There is no required average or fixed short/medium/long ratio. These ranges help an editor notice a monotonous draft. Clear technical prose, quotations, labels and necessary qualifications may sit outside them. Do not cut a vital caveat to satisfy a word count.
\n\nPrefer active verbs with visible subjects. Use passive voice when the action or affected object matters more than the actor, or when the actor is unknown. Contractions suit approachable prose and ordinary correspondence. Formal documents may use fewer contractions without becoming impersonal.
\n\nUse commas and periods for most pacing. Colons introduce an example, explanation or short list. Parentheses can carry a genuinely secondary aside; keep important limits in the main text. Template-authored prose in this edition uses no em dashes. Exclamation marks are optional and uncommon: one earned burst of excitement may work, but repeated marks should prompt a tone review. Avoid automatic emoji decoration. Use emoji only where the channel, accessibility and intended meaning support it.
\n\nFavor visible actions: ask, notice, try, sketch, build, compare, check, learn, make, revise, share and decide. Use specific nouns: question, draft, choice, example, evidence, pattern, step, tool and result. Name the actual artifact when it is available.
\n\nThe core phrases are a small vocabulary, not mandatory slogans. “Small questions, big possibilities,” “learn by making,” and “ideas into action” belong at moments where they express the content. Do not stack all three to manufacture a brand impression. The voice should remain recognizable when none appears.
\n\nAvoid substituting business abstractions for ordinary actions. “Compare two drafts” is clearer than “leverage an iterative ideation framework.” Technical terms remain welcome when they help the reader make a real decision. Explain them rather than treating them as status markers.
\n\nSee vocabulary.md for phrase roles, alternatives and constraints.
\n\nIdentify who can truthfully make each material claim from the factual brief. An individual can state an actual feeling, decision or contribution. Product copy describes verified behavior and availability without inventing a company voice or larger team. An educator distinguishes explanation from a hypothetical learner experience. A portfolio contributor names their role and actual collaboration. A fictional character speaks within a clearly marked scene and makes no commitment for a real person.
\n\nKeep role transitions legible. A visible label is unnecessary when context is clear; a role panel, short attribution or explicit fictional framing can resolve a real ambiguity. Missing ownership calls for clarification or a qualified draft, not an invented narrator.
\n\nThe template imports no private history. Any personal context an adopter supplies remains under that task's authorization and does not become reusable P49. A rare first-person sentence can preserve ownership more accurately than impersonal phrasing.
\n\nHouse rule: restrained first-person voice, work-led phrasing. Lead with the work, question, goal, choice or evidence. Use I rarely and deliberately when feeling, perspective, reflection, accountability, individual contribution or a relational invitation needs a visible speaker. There is no numerical quota or ban. “The goal was a simpler process” can replace “I wanted to make the process simpler.” “I am still unsure whether this helps” preserves a useful personal qualification. “Join me” and “I would like to hear your ideas” remain welcome when there is a real activity or response path.
\n\nWe names actual joint work or an explicit shared exploration. It does not automatically replace I. You addresses an available reader action. Removing a pronoun does not make a claim objective, and passive voice should not erase responsibility. A work-led sentence can still say who made the decision or contributed what. Do not imply a company, team, agreement or client relationship that has not been established.
\n\nFor portfolios, make the role and collaboration legible. A role panel can name responsibility; the narrative can describe the team decision and the specific contribution without repeating I. This accords with the role-and-collaboration guidance in Nielsen Norman Group's UX design portfolio study. That source does not establish a causal hiring benefit from pronoun choice, nor a current universal preference for impersonal writing.
\n\nAn illustrative teaching sentence may invite “Let's compare the two versions” because the comparison is present in the material. It should not become “We have helped teams transform their work” without verified supporting facts.
\n\nCharacters express curiosity through attention and actions: looking, pointing, drawing, comparing or trying. Nearby notes and occasional short dialogue may bring an interaction to life. They do not establish professional expertise, invent testimonials or impersonate a real person. Keep actual instructions, qualifications and important system state in functional prose. Dialogue generally works best at 4–10 words; this is an editorial target, not a confirmed hard limit. See STORYCRAFT.md for role examples and boundaries.
\n\nA concrete action often carries curiosity more convincingly than a trait label. A character places two drafts side by side and points at the different button positions; the audience can infer attention and investigation. Calling the character “a curious creative thinker” tells the conclusion without supplying the moment.
\n\nShowing uses concrete evidence or dramatized action so the reader can infer meaning. Telling summarizes or states the fact directly. Use showing for a moment the audience should remember or feel; use telling for a quick orientation, a transition or an unambiguous instruction. Blend them by naming the point and then demonstrating it. Extra description is useful only when it changes understanding.
\n\nSTORYCRAFT.md adapts the existing Creative Writing Studio show-vs-tell-craft method to this brand, with scene beats, motivations, subtext and cause-and-effect. These are practical craft terms, not a claim of literary certification. Do not turn every button label or support notice into a story.
\n\nWriting supplies understandable meaning before typography supplies emphasis. Expressive headings can be short enough for Fredoka display treatment; functional body copy, labels, navigation, instructions and caveats must survive in plain text. A short Shantell aside may offer a useful nudge, but it cannot carry essential information that the body omits.
\n\nThe visual owner governs font implementation: Fredoka 700 for display at 40 px or larger, Shantell Sans 700 for brief asides at 20 px or larger, and DM Sans for functional text. Display can use an arched baseline, word-level rotation or staggered stacking; body and functional text stay on a flat baseline. Actual fonts must render the letters, and motifs must not sit behind text. Angles, density and size adaptations are working visual defaults requiring rendered review, not new writing requirements or approved universal thresholds.
\n\nFor headings, make the key noun or action legible without the visual effect. Do not make line breaks, color or character expression the only way to understand a qualification. Alt text names the relevant visible action and information; it should not add a cute voice or repeat decorative flourishes.
\n\nIdentify the actual speaker from the factual brief and speaker/ownership rules above. Write the reader's task and protected facts; mark what is observed, proposed, unknown and authorized.
Choose the channel and tone. Decide whether an imaginative scene, question, statement or instruction best serves the opening. For selected long-form channels, shape the Wonder → Meaning → Reflection → Action arc without forcing it onto short or functional copy.
Pick a concrete object to examine: a draft, choice, sketch, comparison or example.
Explain why that object matters. Keep the claim proportional to its evidence.
Give the next useful action, including conditions where they affect the choice.
Review the exact final text against REQUIREMENTS.md. Read it aloud for continuity and energy; remove repeated brand signals that add no meaning.
An already clear draft may need only a small edit. Do not rebuild it to make the structure more symmetrical or to hit a cadence number.
\n\nReview required rules separately from optional devices. Record pass, fail, not applicable or needs evidence. Unknown support is not a pass. A compliant text can vary substantially in tone and syntax. Automated checks can identify an em dash or count words; they cannot establish authenticity, claim support, warmth or reader comprehension.
\n\nAn adopter can confirm, revise or retire editorial defaults through actual uses. Preserve stable rule IDs and record each changed default's scope. Generated examples are not evidence of natural speech or personal authorship. For calibration, use authorized current pieces with known authorship, contribution and editing status in the owning task; do not add that personal corpus to the reusable template.
", "formats": [] }, "quote": { "text": "Small questions, big possibilities.", "sampleId": "P49/specimen", "briefId": "FC-B01", "attribution": "Original fictional demonstration · AI-authored synthetic sample", "sourceExact": true, "sourceSha256": "5677c872ec24d201a8d4ea87e196cd5c1196f1a8bc323434b8651f6d0a6387d7" }, "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/fresh-curiosity-web-family-2026-10-11/fresh-curiosity-writing-p49-v1.2.0.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/fresh-curiosity-web-family-2026-10-11/fresh-curiosity-writing-p49-v1.2.0.zip", "raw": "downloads/P49/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P49/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P49/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P49.svg", "bundleSha256": "3a89cf81c0bb2223c5426d17d3603212668d7819e62f8a2cabf607300cbd2f80", "bundleBytes": 134820 } }, { "id": "P50", "name": "Comparison–Contrast", "version": "1.0.0", "type": "module", "typeLabel": "Composable module", "description": "Compare actual alternatives under shared decision-relevant criteria.", "mechanism": "Choice → common criteria → parallel evidence → consequential difference → bounded conclusion.", "rhythm": null, "tags": [ "comparison", "decision", "analysis" ], "route": { "base_profile_id": "V01", "selected_resource_id": "P50", "module_ids": [ "P50" ] }, "skillName": null, "truthBoundary": "Current brief controls names, dates, amounts, permissions, negations and unknowns; no invented evidence or outcome.", "neighborDifference": "Shared decision criteria differ from analogy, one-object critique and curation.", "neighbors": [ "P33", "V22", "P37" ], "separation": { "status": "uncalibrated", "value": null }, "repeatability": { "status": "not_established", "value": null }, "evidenceStatus": "reviewed_synthetic_examples_not_reader_validated", "independenceStatus": "not_claimed_independent", "guideMarkdown": "# P50 · Comparison–Contrast · Style guide\n\nA criteria based comparison of two or more actual alternatives. It keeps the same relevant question in view for each option, then explains the difference that matters to the reader's decision. Route: V01 base plus P50. The base governs decision clarity and factual restraint; this module governs the comparison operation.\n\n## Purpose and prerequisites\n\nUse when the reader must understand a choice among at least two named options, states or courses of action. Obtain the reader's purpose, the options, decision criteria and evidence for each option. If a material cell is unknown, say so. A single artifact critique belongs to V22; an analogy that explains one unfamiliar mechanism belongs to P33; selecting items for a roundup belongs to P37.\n\n## Core movement\n\nDecision to make → relevant common criteria → option by option evidence under each criterion → material difference → bounded choice or unresolved question.\n\n## Working rules\n\n- Name the options and comparison purpose early. **Check:** The reader can identify what choice or distinction the piece serves.\n- Apply each chosen criterion to every option, or mark a missing fact. **Check:** A favorable point about A is not compared with an unrelated unfavorable point about B.\n- Select criteria for decision relevance and conclude proportionally. **Check:** Each criterion could change the choice or clarify a consequential limit; a preferred option is named only where the supplied facts and reader criterion support it.\n\n## Style, language and structure\n\n### Reader and use\n\nUse for option decisions, state comparisons and bounded technical tradeoffs. A table helps when several criteria can be stated briefly; parallel paragraphs work when each criterion needs context. Avoid using comparison to imply tested performance when the brief supplies only feature descriptions. Do not force two sides where there is only one viable or evidenced option.\n\n### Opening and movement\n\nState the decision and the criteria before touring the options. Choose either a compact matrix by criterion or parallel blocks with matching subheadings. Keep the same time frame and units across options. After the parallel view, identify the consequential delta. If a criterion is decisive, say why. If the choice depends on a preference or unknown fact, give that branch rather than a universal recommendation.\n\n### Sentence and paragraph devices\n\nUse explicit nouns and stable labels for options and criteria. Prefer “A permits X; B does not” to generic “A is better.” Use “under this criterion” when a judgment could be mistaken for an overall rank. Avoid symmetric prose that conceals an asymmetry. The conclusion should be understandable without color, position or a visual table.\n\n### Benchmark task handling\n\nFor E-B01, compare restoration of a retained version with recovery of a file deleted before Version history was enabled. The second case is unsupported; do not imply an equal product option. For E-B02, a workshop invitation needs direct logistics, so a forced comparison is unsuitable. For E-B03, incident state and next update lead; no option comparison is warranted unless actual alternatives are supplied.\n\n### Truth contract\n\nThe current brief is the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, exact interface labels, negations and unknowns. Do not invent rival products, tested outcomes, implementation internals, personas, rankings or measured effects. Fictional benchmark examples are AI-authored teaching material, not a real product claim or human testimony.\n\n### Markdown and plain text\n\nUse semantic headings and ordinary paragraphs. In a table, repeat criteria as text and put conditions in cells; ensure a plain-text export preserves which fact belongs to which option. For a compact decision, parallel labeled paragraphs are sufficient. Do not rely on bold or visual balance to convey a negative consequence.\n\n### Failure and repaired excerpt\n\nNear miss: “Restore and recover are equally useful, so pick whichever feels easier.” This invents parity and erases the supplied recovery limit.\n\nRepair: “For a retained version, a workspace editor can restore it as a new current version without deleting stored history. Version history cannot recover a file deleted before the feature was enabled. The deciding criterion is whether the item is a retained version within the feature's scope.”\n\n### Neighbor distinction\n\nP33 compares an unfamiliar relation to a familiar one and names where the analogy fails. P50 compares actual alternatives on shared criteria. V22 evaluates one work against a standard. P37 selects a set for a reader. An ADR can use P50 in Context when alternatives were actually considered; the ADR format also records the decision and its consequences.\n\n## Choices and exceptions\n\nA comparison may end without a preferred option when evidence or reader criteria are missing. A single decisive criterion can justify a short comparison; equal section length is not required. A noncomparable alternative should be labeled as such rather than padded to look balanced.\n\n## Avoid\n\n- Inventing a competitor, option or measurement to complete a matrix.\n- Treating all differences as equally important.\n- Claiming a test or winner from descriptive terms alone.\n\n## Worked contrast\n\n### Follows the mechanism\n\nFictional E-B01 facts: “A workspace editor can restore a retained version as a new current version; stored history stays. Version history cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled.” This holds recovery scope constant across two cases and names the decisive boundary.\n\n### Near miss\n\n“Version history is more reliable than backups” fails because the brief contains no backup comparison or reliability evidence.\n\n## Conformance and review\n\nCheck each criterion against each option, protected facts, the explicit limitation and the stated decision. Mark missing evidence as unknown. Treat all descriptive measurements as observations of the retained prose only, never as new numerical tolerances or proof of quality. Read the V01 base guide, this selected guide and the scoped four-axis reference before drafting; the final user brief overrides editorial defaults. Review the actual output for factual fidelity and a meaningful difference before admitting it as a conforming example.\n\n## Source and adaptation note\n\nAdapted from Jonathan Prisant / Product on Purpose, [Comparison–Contrast](https://github.com/product-on-purpose/writing-style-catalog/blob/cff5923afb926d23c0d202d2cfad92fc58b19b85/taxonomy/styles/comparison-contrast/ENTRY.md), CC BY 4.0. Changed for this library: V01 route, neighbor distinctions, fact boundary, benchmark cases, examples and checks. Source taxonomy is experimental and marked machine-verified; this guide does not claim measured efficacy or endorsement.\n", "guideHtml": "A criteria based comparison of two or more actual alternatives. It keeps the same relevant question in view for each option, then explains the difference that matters to the reader's decision. Route: V01 base plus P50. The base governs decision clarity and factual restraint; this module governs the comparison operation.
\n\nUse when the reader must understand a choice among at least two named options, states or courses of action. Obtain the reader's purpose, the options, decision criteria and evidence for each option. If a material cell is unknown, say so. A single artifact critique belongs to V22; an analogy that explains one unfamiliar mechanism belongs to P33; selecting items for a roundup belongs to P37.
\n\nDecision to make → relevant common criteria → option by option evidence under each criterion → material difference → bounded choice or unresolved question.
\n\nName the options and comparison purpose early. Check: The reader can identify what choice or distinction the piece serves.
Apply each chosen criterion to every option, or mark a missing fact. Check: A favorable point about A is not compared with an unrelated unfavorable point about B.
Select criteria for decision relevance and conclude proportionally. Check: Each criterion could change the choice or clarify a consequential limit; a preferred option is named only where the supplied facts and reader criterion support it.
Use for option decisions, state comparisons and bounded technical tradeoffs. A table helps when several criteria can be stated briefly; parallel paragraphs work when each criterion needs context. Avoid using comparison to imply tested performance when the brief supplies only feature descriptions. Do not force two sides where there is only one viable or evidenced option.
\n\nState the decision and the criteria before touring the options. Choose either a compact matrix by criterion or parallel blocks with matching subheadings. Keep the same time frame and units across options. After the parallel view, identify the consequential delta. If a criterion is decisive, say why. If the choice depends on a preference or unknown fact, give that branch rather than a universal recommendation.
\n\nUse explicit nouns and stable labels for options and criteria. Prefer “A permits X; B does not” to generic “A is better.” Use “under this criterion” when a judgment could be mistaken for an overall rank. Avoid symmetric prose that conceals an asymmetry. The conclusion should be understandable without color, position or a visual table.
\n\nFor E-B01, compare restoration of a retained version with recovery of a file deleted before Version history was enabled. The second case is unsupported; do not imply an equal product option. For E-B02, a workshop invitation needs direct logistics, so a forced comparison is unsuitable. For E-B03, incident state and next update lead; no option comparison is warranted unless actual alternatives are supplied.
\n\nThe current brief is the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, exact interface labels, negations and unknowns. Do not invent rival products, tested outcomes, implementation internals, personas, rankings or measured effects. Fictional benchmark examples are AI-authored teaching material, not a real product claim or human testimony.
\n\nUse semantic headings and ordinary paragraphs. In a table, repeat criteria as text and put conditions in cells; ensure a plain-text export preserves which fact belongs to which option. For a compact decision, parallel labeled paragraphs are sufficient. Do not rely on bold or visual balance to convey a negative consequence.
\n\nNear miss: “Restore and recover are equally useful, so pick whichever feels easier.” This invents parity and erases the supplied recovery limit.
\n\nRepair: “For a retained version, a workspace editor can restore it as a new current version without deleting stored history. Version history cannot recover a file deleted before the feature was enabled. The deciding criterion is whether the item is a retained version within the feature's scope.”
\n\nP33 compares an unfamiliar relation to a familiar one and names where the analogy fails. P50 compares actual alternatives on shared criteria. V22 evaluates one work against a standard. P37 selects a set for a reader. An ADR can use P50 in Context when alternatives were actually considered; the ADR format also records the decision and its consequences.
\n\nA comparison may end without a preferred option when evidence or reader criteria are missing. A single decisive criterion can justify a short comparison; equal section length is not required. A noncomparable alternative should be labeled as such rather than padded to look balanced.
\n\nInventing a competitor, option or measurement to complete a matrix.
Treating all differences as equally important.
Claiming a test or winner from descriptive terms alone.
Fictional E-B01 facts: “A workspace editor can restore a retained version as a new current version; stored history stays. Version history cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled.” This holds recovery scope constant across two cases and names the decisive boundary.
\n\n“Version history is more reliable than backups” fails because the brief contains no backup comparison or reliability evidence.
\n\nCheck each criterion against each option, protected facts, the explicit limitation and the stated decision. Mark missing evidence as unknown. Treat all descriptive measurements as observations of the retained prose only, never as new numerical tolerances or proof of quality. Read the V01 base guide, this selected guide and the scoped four-axis reference before drafting; the final user brief overrides editorial defaults. Review the actual output for factual fidelity and a meaningful difference before admitting it as a conforming example.
\n\nAdapted from Jonathan Prisant / Product on Purpose, Comparison–Contrast, CC BY 4.0. Changed for this library: V01 route, neighbor distinctions, fact boundary, benchmark cases, examples and checks. Source taxonomy is experimental and marked machine-verified; this guide does not claim measured efficacy or endorsement.
", "samples": [ { "id": "P50/specimen", "key": "specimen", "briefId": "E-B01", "label": "feature-scope comparison", "markdown": "# What can Version history restore?\n\nFor Draftline, the useful comparison is between a **retained version** and a **file deleted before Version history was enabled**. The deciding criterion is whether the earlier state falls within the feature's recovery scope.\n\n| Criterion | Retained version | File deleted before enablement |\n|---|---|---|\n| Recovery scope | A workspace editor can restore the version. | Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. |\n| Result of the action | Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. | No recovery action is supplied for this case. |\n\nThat is a scope difference, not a ranking between two recovery products. **Only workspace editors can restore a version.** Draftline's Version history becomes available on **20 October 2026**. Versions are retained for **30 days**, and the feature is included on **every existing plan at no additional charge**. Open **Version history** for the available action.\n\nBefore relying on the feature, ask whether the item is a retained version within that window. The supplied facts do not establish a way to recover a file deleted before enablement.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P50\nbrief_id: E-B01\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n# What can Version history restore?\n\nFor Draftline, the useful comparison is between a **retained version** and a **file deleted before Version history was enabled**. The deciding criterion is whether the earlier state falls within the feature's recovery scope.\n\n| Criterion | Retained version | File deleted before enablement |\n|---|---|---|\n| Recovery scope | A workspace editor can restore the version. | Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. |\n| Result of the action | Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. | No recovery action is supplied for this case. |\n\nThat is a scope difference, not a ranking between two recovery products. **Only workspace editors can restore a version.** Draftline's Version history becomes available on **20 October 2026**. Versions are retained for **30 days**, and the feature is included on **every existing plan at no additional charge**. Open **Version history** for the available action.\n\nBefore relying on the feature, ask whether the item is a retained version within that window. The supplied facts do not establish a way to recover a file deleted before enablement.\n\n", "sha256": "16ff4416ac10daedd4a89e4d33a89d3aae64b097cb1459533e7813cc0179c5db", "kind": "synthetic", "attribution": "AI-authored demonstration · Fictional scenario", "html": "For Draftline, the useful comparison is between a retained version and a file deleted before Version history was enabled. The deciding criterion is whether the earlier state falls within the feature's recovery scope.
\n\n| Criterion | Retained version | File deleted before enablement |
|---|---|---|
| Recovery scope | A workspace editor can restore the version. | Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. |
| Result of the action | Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. | No recovery action is supplied for this case. |
That is a scope difference, not a ranking between two recovery products. Only workspace editors can restore a version. Draftline's Version history becomes available on 20 October 2026. Versions are retained for 30 days, and the feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Open Version history for the available action.
\n\nBefore relying on the feature, ask whether the item is a retained version within that window. The supplied facts do not establish a way to recover a file deleted before enablement.
", "plainText": "What can Version history restore? For Draftline, the useful comparison is between a retained version and a file deleted before Version history was enabled. The deciding criterion is whether the earlier state falls within the feature's recovery scope. Criterion Retained version File deleted before enablement Recovery scope A workspace editor can restore the version. Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. Result of the action Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. No recovery action is supplied for this case. That is a scope difference, not a ranking between two recovery products. Only workspace editors can restore a version. Draftline's Version history becomes available on 20 October 2026. Versions are retained for 30 days, and the feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Open Version history for the available action. Before relying on the feature, ask whether the item is a retained version within that window. The supplied facts do not establish a way to recover a file deleted before enablement.", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 12.777777777777779, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7760606060606063, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 33, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 23.47826086956522, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 115, "prose_sentences": 9, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 2, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 27, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 1 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "16ff4416ac10daedd4a89e4d33a89d3aae64b097cb1459533e7813cc0179c5db", "separation": "uncalibrated" } }, { "id": "P50/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "CC-B02", "label": "workshop-format comparison", "markdown": "# Choose the workshop format that fits your task\n\nIn this fictional comparison, **Live Lab** is a free 45-minute session on 7 November with 12 places and time for participant questions. **Solo Kit** is a free self-paced worksheet available from 7 November; it has no live question time. The choice turns on whether you need interaction or control over when you work. No learning results or demand figures are supplied.\n\n| Criterion | Live Lab | Solo Kit |\n|---|---|---|\n| Interaction | Participant questions are part of the session. | No live question time is included. |\n| Schedule | Attend the 45-minute session on 7 November; 12 places are available. | Work through the worksheet at a self-chosen time after it becomes available on 7 November. |\n| Price | Free. | Free. |\n\nIf you need to ask a question while working, Live Lab offers that route. If timing flexibility governs your choice, Solo Kit supplies it. The brief does not establish which format teaches better, so the comparison cannot support a learning-outcome ranking.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P50\nbrief_id: CC-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n# Choose the workshop format that fits your task\n\nIn this fictional comparison, **Live Lab** is a free 45-minute session on 7 November with 12 places and time for participant questions. **Solo Kit** is a free self-paced worksheet available from 7 November; it has no live question time. The choice turns on whether you need interaction or control over when you work. No learning results or demand figures are supplied.\n\n| Criterion | Live Lab | Solo Kit |\n|---|---|---|\n| Interaction | Participant questions are part of the session. | No live question time is included. |\n| Schedule | Attend the 45-minute session on 7 November; 12 places are available. | Work through the worksheet at a self-chosen time after it becomes available on 7 November. |\n| Price | Free. | Free. |\n\nIf you need to ask a question while working, Live Lab offers that route. If timing flexibility governs your choice, Solo Kit supplies it. The brief does not establish which format teaches better, so the comparison cannot support a learning-outcome ranking.\n\n", "sha256": "619744ddea079a73f927b0fe9b8177e04b27adf096134a380d077d94197f0e9c", "kind": "synthetic", "attribution": "AI-authored demonstration · Fictional scenario", "html": "In this fictional comparison, Live Lab is a free 45-minute session on 7 November with 12 places and time for participant questions. Solo Kit is a free self-paced worksheet available from 7 November; it has no live question time. The choice turns on whether you need interaction or control over when you work. No learning results or demand figures are supplied.
\n\n| Criterion | Live Lab | Solo Kit |
|---|---|---|
| Interaction | Participant questions are part of the session. | No live question time is included. |
| Schedule | Attend the 45-minute session on 7 November; 12 places are available. | Work through the worksheet at a self-chosen time after it becomes available on 7 November. |
| Price | Free. | Free. |
If you need to ask a question while working, Live Lab offers that route. If timing flexibility governs your choice, Solo Kit supplies it. The brief does not establish which format teaches better, so the comparison cannot support a learning-outcome ranking.
", "plainText": "Choose the workshop format that fits your task In this fictional comparison, Live Lab is a free 45-minute session on 7 November with 12 places and time for participant questions. Solo Kit is a free self-paced worksheet available from 7 November; it has no live question time. The choice turns on whether you need interaction or control over when you work. No learning results or demand figures are supplied. Criterion Live Lab Solo Kit Interaction Participant questions are part of the session. No live question time is included. Schedule Attend the 45-minute session on 7 November; 12 places are available. Work through the worksheet at a self-chosen time after it becomes available on 7 November. Price Free. Free. If you need to ask a question while working, Live Lab offers that route. If timing flexibility governs your choice, Solo Kit supplies it. The brief does not establish which format teaches better, so the comparison cannot support a learning-outcome ranking.", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 14.428571428571429, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.8615384615384616, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 39.603960396039604, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 3.9603960396039604, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 101, "prose_sentences": 7, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 4, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 4, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 1 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "619744ddea079a73f927b0fe9b8177e04b27adf096134a380d077d94197f0e9c", "separation": "uncalibrated" } }, { "id": "P50/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "CC-B03", "label": "documentation-source comparison", "markdown": "# Compare two documentation sources\n\nA fictional team needs an offline editing path, Git review and a way for two people to edit the same page concurrently. The supplied options are **Plain Files** and **Managed Editor**. Plain Files work offline and support Git review, but do not support concurrent editing in this exercise. Managed Editor supports concurrent editing, requires a network connection and does not support Git review. No cost or speed measurements are supplied.\n\n| Criterion | Plain Files | Managed Editor |\n|---|---|---|\n| Offline editing | Available. | Unavailable because a network connection is required. |\n| Git review | Supported. | Unsupported. |\n| Concurrent editing | Unsupported. | Supported. |\n\nThe options split on real requirements; neither meets all three. If offline work and Git review are required together, Plain Files meets those two while leaving concurrent editing unmet. If concurrent editing is the deciding condition, Managed Editor meets it while leaving the other two unmet. The team must choose which requirement can change or seek another option; the supplied facts do not justify a universal winner.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P50\nbrief_id: CC-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n# Compare two documentation sources\n\nA fictional team needs an offline editing path, Git review and a way for two people to edit the same page concurrently. The supplied options are **Plain Files** and **Managed Editor**. Plain Files work offline and support Git review, but do not support concurrent editing in this exercise. Managed Editor supports concurrent editing, requires a network connection and does not support Git review. No cost or speed measurements are supplied.\n\n| Criterion | Plain Files | Managed Editor |\n|---|---|---|\n| Offline editing | Available. | Unavailable because a network connection is required. |\n| Git review | Supported. | Unsupported. |\n| Concurrent editing | Unsupported. | Supported. |\n\nThe options split on real requirements; neither meets all three. If offline work and Git review are required together, Plain Files meets those two while leaving concurrent editing unmet. If concurrent editing is the deciding condition, Managed Editor meets it while leaving the other two unmet. The team must choose which requirement can change or seek another option; the supplied facts do not justify a universal winner.\n\n", "sha256": "ee3f337c366fb454a688a750d0b3ef5610e5c61563edc1e784c33d26c54bf6e6", "kind": "synthetic", "attribution": "AI-authored demonstration · Fictional scenario", "html": "A fictional team needs an offline editing path, Git review and a way for two people to edit the same page concurrently. The supplied options are Plain Files and Managed Editor. Plain Files work offline and support Git review, but do not support concurrent editing in this exercise. Managed Editor supports concurrent editing, requires a network connection and does not support Git review. No cost or speed measurements are supplied.
\n\n| Criterion | Plain Files | Managed Editor |
|---|---|---|
| Offline editing | Available. | Unavailable because a network connection is required. |
| Git review | Supported. | Unsupported. |
| Concurrent editing | Unsupported. | Supported. |
The options split on real requirements; neither meets all three. If offline work and Git review are required together, Plain Files meets those two while leaving concurrent editing unmet. If concurrent editing is the deciding condition, Managed Editor meets it while leaving the other two unmet. The team must choose which requirement can change or seek another option; the supplied facts do not justify a universal winner.
", "plainText": "Compare two documentation sources A fictional team needs an offline editing path, Git review and a way for two people to edit the same page concurrently. The supplied options are Plain Files and Managed Editor. Plain Files work offline and support Git review, but do not support concurrent editing in this exercise. Managed Editor supports concurrent editing, requires a network connection and does not support Git review. No cost or speed measurements are supplied. Criterion Plain Files Managed Editor Offline editing Available. Unavailable because a network connection is required. Git review Supported. Unsupported. Concurrent editing Unsupported. Supported. The options split on real requirements; neither meets all three. If offline work and Git review are required together, Plain Files meets those two while leaving concurrent editing unmet. If concurrent editing is the deciding condition, Managed Editor meets it while leaving the other two unmet. The team must choose which requirement can change or seek another option; the supplied facts do not justify a universal winner.", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 15.222222222222221, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7820454545454545, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 2.9197080291970803, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 137, "prose_sentences": 9, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 4, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 1 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "ee3f337c366fb454a688a750d0b3ef5610e5c61563edc1e784c33d26c54bf6e6", "separation": "uncalibrated" } } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V01 base governs decision clarity and factual restraint; explicit option nouns and stable labels support a conversational to professional comparison. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V01 base supplies the serious default; the module asks for a consequential difference and proportional conclusion, without a humor device. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V01 base supplies restrained to upbeat delivery; the selected guide permits a preferred option only when supplied facts and criteria support it. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V01 base supplies matter-of-fact to considerate delivery; reader-relevant criteria and explicit unknowns keep the choice usable without added reassurance. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V01 base does not require specialist knowledge; name options and comparison purpose early and provide context where a criterion needs it. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V01 base supplies explanatory support; the guide requires option-by-option evidence under common criteria and an explanation of the material difference. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." } ], "observations": { "status": "not_estimated", "ratings": [], "note": "No empirical reader outcome or personal voice measurement is asserted." }, "sources": [ { "title": "Comparison–Contrast | Writing Style Library", "url": "https://github.com/product-on-purpose/writing-style-catalog/blob/cff5923afb926d23c0d202d2cfad92fc58b19b85/taxonomy/styles/comparison-contrast/ENTRY.md", "supports": "Rhetorical structure and confusable-neighbor comparison", "limits": "Experimental machine-verified taxonomy, not empirical evidence of efficacy or endorsement" } ], "researchLimits": "Experimental upstream entry marked machine-verified; source does not establish reader benefit, human authorship or independent personality. CC BY 4.0; adaptation identified in guide.", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Comparison–Contrast · Complete writing guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "sources": [ { "title": "Comparison–Contrast | Writing Style Library", "url": "https://github.com/product-on-purpose/writing-style-catalog/blob/cff5923afb926d23c0d202d2cfad92fc58b19b85/taxonomy/styles/comparison-contrast/ENTRY.md", "supports": "Rhetorical structure and confusable-neighbor comparison", "limits": "Experimental machine-verified taxonomy, not empirical evidence of efficacy or endorsement" } ], "html": "A criteria based comparison of two or more actual alternatives. It keeps the same relevant question in view for each option, then explains the difference that matters to the reader's decision. Route: V01 base plus P50. The base governs decision clarity and factual restraint; this module governs the comparison operation.
\n\nUse when the reader must understand a choice among at least two named options, states or courses of action. Obtain the reader's purpose, the options, decision criteria and evidence for each option. If a material cell is unknown, say so. A single artifact critique belongs to V22; an analogy that explains one unfamiliar mechanism belongs to P33; selecting items for a roundup belongs to P37.
\n\nDecision to make → relevant common criteria → option by option evidence under each criterion → material difference → bounded choice or unresolved question.
\n\nName the options and comparison purpose early. Check: The reader can identify what choice or distinction the piece serves.
Apply each chosen criterion to every option, or mark a missing fact. Check: A favorable point about A is not compared with an unrelated unfavorable point about B.
Select criteria for decision relevance and conclude proportionally. Check: Each criterion could change the choice or clarify a consequential limit; a preferred option is named only where the supplied facts and reader criterion support it.
Use for option decisions, state comparisons and bounded technical tradeoffs. A table helps when several criteria can be stated briefly; parallel paragraphs work when each criterion needs context. Avoid using comparison to imply tested performance when the brief supplies only feature descriptions. Do not force two sides where there is only one viable or evidenced option.
\n\nState the decision and the criteria before touring the options. Choose either a compact matrix by criterion or parallel blocks with matching subheadings. Keep the same time frame and units across options. After the parallel view, identify the consequential delta. If a criterion is decisive, say why. If the choice depends on a preference or unknown fact, give that branch rather than a universal recommendation.
\n\nUse explicit nouns and stable labels for options and criteria. Prefer “A permits X; B does not” to generic “A is better.” Use “under this criterion” when a judgment could be mistaken for an overall rank. Avoid symmetric prose that conceals an asymmetry. The conclusion should be understandable without color, position or a visual table.
\n\nFor E-B01, compare restoration of a retained version with recovery of a file deleted before Version history was enabled. The second case is unsupported; do not imply an equal product option. For E-B02, a workshop invitation needs direct logistics, so a forced comparison is unsuitable. For E-B03, incident state and next update lead; no option comparison is warranted unless actual alternatives are supplied.
\n\nThe current brief is the fact boundary. Preserve names, dates, amounts, role permissions, exact interface labels, negations and unknowns. Do not invent rival products, tested outcomes, implementation internals, personas, rankings or measured effects. Fictional benchmark examples are AI-authored teaching material, not a real product claim or human testimony.
\n\nUse semantic headings and ordinary paragraphs. In a table, repeat criteria as text and put conditions in cells; ensure a plain-text export preserves which fact belongs to which option. For a compact decision, parallel labeled paragraphs are sufficient. Do not rely on bold or visual balance to convey a negative consequence.
\n\nNear miss: “Restore and recover are equally useful, so pick whichever feels easier.” This invents parity and erases the supplied recovery limit.
\n\nRepair: “For a retained version, a workspace editor can restore it as a new current version without deleting stored history. Version history cannot recover a file deleted before the feature was enabled. The deciding criterion is whether the item is a retained version within the feature's scope.”
\n\nP33 compares an unfamiliar relation to a familiar one and names where the analogy fails. P50 compares actual alternatives on shared criteria. V22 evaluates one work against a standard. P37 selects a set for a reader. An ADR can use P50 in Context when alternatives were actually considered; the ADR format also records the decision and its consequences.
\n\nA comparison may end without a preferred option when evidence or reader criteria are missing. A single decisive criterion can justify a short comparison; equal section length is not required. A noncomparable alternative should be labeled as such rather than padded to look balanced.
\n\nInventing a competitor, option or measurement to complete a matrix.
Treating all differences as equally important.
Claiming a test or winner from descriptive terms alone.
Fictional E-B01 facts: “A workspace editor can restore a retained version as a new current version; stored history stays. Version history cannot recover files deleted before it was enabled.” This holds recovery scope constant across two cases and names the decisive boundary.
\n\n“Version history is more reliable than backups” fails because the brief contains no backup comparison or reliability evidence.
\n\nCheck each criterion against each option, protected facts, the explicit limitation and the stated decision. Mark missing evidence as unknown. Treat all descriptive measurements as observations of the retained prose only, never as new numerical tolerances or proof of quality. Read the V01 base guide, this selected guide and the scoped four-axis reference before drafting; the final user brief overrides editorial defaults. Review the actual output for factual fidelity and a meaningful difference before admitting it as a conforming example.
\n\nAdapted from Jonathan Prisant / Product on Purpose, Comparison–Contrast, CC BY 4.0. Changed for this library: V01 route, neighbor distinctions, fact boundary, benchmark cases, examples and checks. Source taxonomy is experimental and marked machine-verified; this guide does not claim measured efficacy or endorsement.
", "formats": [] }, "quote": { "text": "That is a scope difference, not a ranking between two recovery products.", "sampleId": "P50/specimen", "briefId": "E-B01", "attribution": "AI-authored synthetic demonstration · Fictional scenario", "sourceExact": true, "sourceSha256": "16ff4416ac10daedd4a89e4d33a89d3aae64b097cb1459533e7813cc0179c5db" }, "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-structures-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p50-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-structures-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p50-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P50/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P50/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P50/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P50.svg", "bundleSha256": "b906d66265ac119eb3db7936eff8bcf53b8805d3f8fd330ff9cd9fd01812bacf", "bundleBytes": 71752 } }, { "id": "P51", "name": "Socratic Inquiry", "version": "1.0.0", "type": "module", "typeLabel": "Composable module", "description": "Guide a willing reader through dependent, nonleading questions.", "mechanism": "Genuine question → plausible answers → supplied test → revised question → reader check.", "rhythm": null, "tags": [ "inquiry", "education", "reasoning" ], "route": { "base_profile_id": "V11", "selected_resource_id": "P51", "module_ids": [ "P51" ] }, "skillName": null, "truthBoundary": "Current brief controls names, dates, amounts, permissions, negations and unknowns; no invented evidence or outcome.", "neighborDifference": "Reader-facing dependent inquiry differs from constructed dialogue, counterexample repair and immediate-answer retrieval.", "neighbors": [ "V06", "P34", "P44" ], "separation": { "status": "uncalibrated", "value": null }, "repeatability": { "status": "not_established", "value": null }, "evidenceStatus": "reviewed_synthetic_examples_not_reader_validated", "independenceStatus": "not_claimed_independent", "guideMarkdown": "# P51 · Socratic Inquiry · Style guide\n\nA reader facing inquiry that helps a willing learner examine an assumption through connected, answerable questions. Route: V11 base plus P51. The base protects the learner's ability to understand and check an outcome; this module changes the teaching movement. It is neither a transcript nor a license to withhold urgent information.\n\n## Purpose and prerequisites\n\nUse where the reader's own reasoning is the learning goal, the subject can be examined without withholding a safety, status or permission fact, and the writer has enough verified information to support honest questions. Identify the starting assumption, a meaningful alternative answer and the fact or example that helps the reader test them. Do not claim knowledge of the real reader's belief.\n\n## Core movement\n\nGenuine question → possible interpretations → supplied test or countercase → revised question → reader's own bounded conclusion or next check.\n\n## Working rules\n\n- Ask a question the reader could reasonably answer in more than one way. **Check:** The alternative answer is credible before the next fact is considered.\n- Make each next question depend on a prior answer or revealed fact. **Check:** Rearranging the questions would weaken the reasoning.\n- Supply factual anchors and leave judgment to the reader where the facts permit it. **Check:** The reader does not have to guess a hidden rule, date or safety condition, and the wording does not smuggle in a foregone conclusion.\n\n## Style, language and structure\n\n### Reader and use\n\nUse in reflective teaching, a workshop prompt or an optional learning passage where people have time and reason to think. Give direct instructions when the reader's job is to act immediately, find a status, follow a safety procedure or look up an exact parameter. The existing V11 outcome and learner check remain, but the path to the distinction can be question led.\n\n### Opening and movement\n\nStart with the actual distinction. Offer enough factual context for a first answer. Let the second question respond to that answer, perhaps by testing a limit. Include at least one fork where an alternative is genuinely plausible. End when the reader has criteria to answer the initial question, with an optional explicit check. If a direct answer is needed to prevent harm or confusion, state it and use inquiry only afterward, if at all.\n\n### Sentence and paragraph devices\n\nUse short questions with concrete nouns. A declarative sentence can establish the facts the learner needs; questions are not a quota. Avoid “isn't it obvious,” hidden double negatives and questions that merely convert an assertion into punctuation. A brief pause or writing prompt may let the reader record a thought, but do not imply they did so.\n\n### Benchmark task handling\n\nE-B01 can explore the difference between restoring a retained version and recovering a file deleted before enablement; give the exact feature facts alongside the inquiry. E-B02 can ask which date governs registration and which governs attendance, then state all logistics. E-B03 requires direct incident status and next update; use the V11/V09 plain override, without inquiry suspense.\n\n### Truth contract\n\nPreserve every supplied name, date, amount, role, exact interface label, negation and unknown. Do not invent a learner's actual misconception, private thought, testimonial, product mechanism or outcome. Hypothetical answers must be labeled possible answers. These benchmark examples are AI-authored fictional demonstrations, not human writing or evidence of learning.\n\n### Markdown and plain text\n\nQuestions may be headings or paragraphs; include the factual anchors in plain text so they survive export. Do not rely on a visual reveal or hidden accordion to make a question answerable. In teaching material, pair the final check with the facts needed to assess it. A page containing only questions may be incomplete if it omits necessary terms.\n\n### Failure and repaired excerpt\n\nNear miss: “Don't you see that Version history is perfect? Surely you know it can recover anything?” These questions assert a false conclusion and pressure the reader.\n\nRepair: “A restore makes a new current version without deleting stored history. What does that tell you about the difference between current and retained? Now consider a file deleted before Version history was enabled. Is it within the feature's recovery scope? The supplied rule says no. Which kind of earlier state can an editor actually restore?”\n\n### Neighbor distinction\n\nV06 uses two constructed interlocutors whose turns develop a definition. P34 presents a hypothetical rule and counterexample, then gives a corrected rule. P44 organizes lookup content under practical questions and answers them immediately. P51 addresses the reader with a reasoning sequence; the next question depends on the answer, and at least one question allows a real second interpretation. Its questions do not represent observed audience beliefs.\n\n## Choices and exceptions\n\nA brief inquiry can contain declarative facts. A lesson may also give an explicit concluding answer if the task demands one; it must not pretend the reader inferred it. The honest fallback for a time-sensitive task is direct prose under the base or service guide, not a question costume.\n\n## Avoid\n\n- Leading questions that shame or corner the reader.\n- Withholding protected facts to make the page feel interactive.\n- Inventing a learner's mistaken answer or claiming a reader learned something.\n\n## Worked contrast\n\n### Follows the mechanism\n\nFictional E-B01: “A restore makes a new current version and preserves stored history. Which state changes, and which state remains? If a file was deleted before the feature was enabled, would that retained-version rule apply?” These linked questions ask the reader to use supplied facts.\n\n### Near miss\n\n“Wouldn't everyone agree that Version history means nothing can ever be lost?” fails because it is leading and factually false.\n\n## Conformance and review\n\nCheck that the first question is meaningful, later questions depend on prior reasoning, a credible alternate answer exists, necessary facts are stated, the final check is answerable, and protected facts remain exact. Separately review the V11 base for teaching prerequisites and outcome. Treat example measurements as descriptive observations, never as acceptance thresholds. The reader's actual learning has not been measured.\n\n## Source and adaptation note\n\nAdapted from Jonathan Prisant / Product on Purpose, [Socratic Inquiry](https://github.com/product-on-purpose/writing-style-catalog/blob/cff5923afb926d23c0d202d2cfad92fc58b19b85/taxonomy/styles/socratic-inquiry/ENTRY.md), CC BY 4.0. Changed for this library: V11 route, safeguards against withholding essential facts, benchmark cases, neighbor distinctions, examples and checks. Source taxonomy is experimental and marked machine-verified; no efficacy or endorsement is claimed.\n", "guideHtml": "A reader facing inquiry that helps a willing learner examine an assumption through connected, answerable questions. Route: V11 base plus P51. The base protects the learner's ability to understand and check an outcome; this module changes the teaching movement. It is neither a transcript nor a license to withhold urgent information.
\n\nUse where the reader's own reasoning is the learning goal, the subject can be examined without withholding a safety, status or permission fact, and the writer has enough verified information to support honest questions. Identify the starting assumption, a meaningful alternative answer and the fact or example that helps the reader test them. Do not claim knowledge of the real reader's belief.
\n\nGenuine question → possible interpretations → supplied test or countercase → revised question → reader's own bounded conclusion or next check.
\n\nAsk a question the reader could reasonably answer in more than one way. Check: The alternative answer is credible before the next fact is considered.
Make each next question depend on a prior answer or revealed fact. Check: Rearranging the questions would weaken the reasoning.
Supply factual anchors and leave judgment to the reader where the facts permit it. Check: The reader does not have to guess a hidden rule, date or safety condition, and the wording does not smuggle in a foregone conclusion.
Use in reflective teaching, a workshop prompt or an optional learning passage where people have time and reason to think. Give direct instructions when the reader's job is to act immediately, find a status, follow a safety procedure or look up an exact parameter. The existing V11 outcome and learner check remain, but the path to the distinction can be question led.
\n\nStart with the actual distinction. Offer enough factual context for a first answer. Let the second question respond to that answer, perhaps by testing a limit. Include at least one fork where an alternative is genuinely plausible. End when the reader has criteria to answer the initial question, with an optional explicit check. If a direct answer is needed to prevent harm or confusion, state it and use inquiry only afterward, if at all.
\n\nUse short questions with concrete nouns. A declarative sentence can establish the facts the learner needs; questions are not a quota. Avoid “isn't it obvious,” hidden double negatives and questions that merely convert an assertion into punctuation. A brief pause or writing prompt may let the reader record a thought, but do not imply they did so.
\n\nE-B01 can explore the difference between restoring a retained version and recovering a file deleted before enablement; give the exact feature facts alongside the inquiry. E-B02 can ask which date governs registration and which governs attendance, then state all logistics. E-B03 requires direct incident status and next update; use the V11/V09 plain override, without inquiry suspense.
\n\nPreserve every supplied name, date, amount, role, exact interface label, negation and unknown. Do not invent a learner's actual misconception, private thought, testimonial, product mechanism or outcome. Hypothetical answers must be labeled possible answers. These benchmark examples are AI-authored fictional demonstrations, not human writing or evidence of learning.
\n\nQuestions may be headings or paragraphs; include the factual anchors in plain text so they survive export. Do not rely on a visual reveal or hidden accordion to make a question answerable. In teaching material, pair the final check with the facts needed to assess it. A page containing only questions may be incomplete if it omits necessary terms.
\n\nNear miss: “Don't you see that Version history is perfect? Surely you know it can recover anything?” These questions assert a false conclusion and pressure the reader.
\n\nRepair: “A restore makes a new current version without deleting stored history. What does that tell you about the difference between current and retained? Now consider a file deleted before Version history was enabled. Is it within the feature's recovery scope? The supplied rule says no. Which kind of earlier state can an editor actually restore?”
\n\nV06 uses two constructed interlocutors whose turns develop a definition. P34 presents a hypothetical rule and counterexample, then gives a corrected rule. P44 organizes lookup content under practical questions and answers them immediately. P51 addresses the reader with a reasoning sequence; the next question depends on the answer, and at least one question allows a real second interpretation. Its questions do not represent observed audience beliefs.
\n\nA brief inquiry can contain declarative facts. A lesson may also give an explicit concluding answer if the task demands one; it must not pretend the reader inferred it. The honest fallback for a time-sensitive task is direct prose under the base or service guide, not a question costume.
\n\nLeading questions that shame or corner the reader.
Withholding protected facts to make the page feel interactive.
Inventing a learner's mistaken answer or claiming a reader learned something.
Fictional E-B01: “A restore makes a new current version and preserves stored history. Which state changes, and which state remains? If a file was deleted before the feature was enabled, would that retained-version rule apply?” These linked questions ask the reader to use supplied facts.
\n\n“Wouldn't everyone agree that Version history means nothing can ever be lost?” fails because it is leading and factually false.
\n\nCheck that the first question is meaningful, later questions depend on prior reasoning, a credible alternate answer exists, necessary facts are stated, the final check is answerable, and protected facts remain exact. Separately review the V11 base for teaching prerequisites and outcome. Treat example measurements as descriptive observations, never as acceptance thresholds. The reader's actual learning has not been measured.
\n\nAdapted from Jonathan Prisant / Product on Purpose, Socratic Inquiry, CC BY 4.0. Changed for this library: V11 route, safeguards against withholding essential facts, benchmark cases, neighbor distinctions, examples and checks. Source taxonomy is experimental and marked machine-verified; no efficacy or endorsement is claimed.
", "samples": [ { "id": "P51/specimen", "key": "specimen", "briefId": "E-B01", "label": "retained-version inquiry", "markdown": "# What changes when a version is restored?\n\nDraftline's **Version history** becomes available on **20 October 2026**. Versions are retained for **30 days**, and the feature is included on **every existing plan at no additional charge**. **Only workspace editors can restore a version.**\n\nSuppose an editor restores a retained version. Is that version replacing the record of everything that came after it, or becoming the new current version while the history remains? Both sound possible until you look at the supplied rule: **restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history**. Which part changes, and which part remains available?\n\nNow test the boundary. What if the file was deleted before Version history was enabled? Would the retained-version rule cover that file? It would not: **Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled**. How does that change the question you would ask before attempting a restore?\n\nUse the **Version history** action when the item is a retained version within the feature's scope. Before treating it as a recovery route, check when the relevant file or version existed and whether an editor has the required role.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P51\nbrief_id: E-B01\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n# What changes when a version is restored?\n\nDraftline's **Version history** becomes available on **20 October 2026**. Versions are retained for **30 days**, and the feature is included on **every existing plan at no additional charge**. **Only workspace editors can restore a version.**\n\nSuppose an editor restores a retained version. Is that version replacing the record of everything that came after it, or becoming the new current version while the history remains? Both sound possible until you look at the supplied rule: **restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history**. Which part changes, and which part remains available?\n\nNow test the boundary. What if the file was deleted before Version history was enabled? Would the retained-version rule cover that file? It would not: **Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled**. How does that change the question you would ask before attempting a restore?\n\nUse the **Version history** action when the item is a retained version within the feature's scope. Before treating it as a recovery route, check when the relevant file or version existed and whether an editor has the required role.\n\n", "sha256": "a52689965e6dcfee4d93b5a35a4091062ba189f70809b3935f563ef8c4ca2540", "kind": "synthetic", "attribution": "AI-authored demonstration · Fictional scenario", "html": "Draftline's Version history becomes available on 20 October 2026. Versions are retained for 30 days, and the feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Only workspace editors can restore a version.
\n\nSuppose an editor restores a retained version. Is that version replacing the record of everything that came after it, or becoming the new current version while the history remains? Both sound possible until you look at the supplied rule: restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. Which part changes, and which part remains available?
\n\nNow test the boundary. What if the file was deleted before Version history was enabled? Would the retained-version rule cover that file? It would not: Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. How does that change the question you would ask before attempting a restore?
\n\nUse the Version history action when the item is a retained version within the feature's scope. Before treating it as a recovery route, check when the relevant file or version existed and whether an editor has the required role.
", "plainText": "What changes when a version is restored? Draftline's Version history becomes available on 20 October 2026. Versions are retained for 30 days, and the feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge. Only workspace editors can restore a version. Suppose an editor restores a retained version. Is that version replacing the record of everything that came after it, or becoming the new current version while the history remains? Both sound possible until you look at the supplied rule: restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. Which part changes, and which part remains available? Now test the boundary. What if the file was deleted before Version history was enabled? Would the retained-version rule cover that file? It would not: Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. How does that change the question you would ask before attempting a restore? Use the Version history action when the item is a retained version within the feature's scope. Before treating it as a recovery route, check when the relevant file or version existed and whether an editor has the required role.", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 12.857142857142858, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": 0.4829180847133495, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7479389312977102, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 11.11111111111111, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 35.714285714285715, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 44.5, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 23.88888888888889, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 180, "prose_sentences": 14, "prose_paragraphs": 4, "reader_address_events": 2, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 2, "question_sentences": 5, "emphasized_word_union": 43, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": true, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "a52689965e6dcfee4d93b5a35a4091062ba189f70809b3935f563ef8c4ca2540", "separation": "uncalibrated" } }, { "id": "P51/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "SQ-B02", "label": "invitation-claim inquiry", "markdown": "# What belongs in a workshop invitation?\n\nA fictional draft invitation says, “Everyone who attends Clearer Notes will write more clearly.” The supplied event facts are narrower: Clearer Notes is a free workshop on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**, with **12 places**; attendees bring **one paragraph to revise**, and registration closes on **5 November**. No learning outcome has been measured.\n\nWhat does the sentence promise, and what do the event facts actually establish? Could the sentence be kept as a prediction, or would it still read as a guarantee? Both are plausible editorial choices until you test the strength of “everyone” against the absence of outcome evidence.\n\nWhat could an invitation say that a reader can act on without adopting the unsupported promise? Try stating the task: bring one paragraph to revise. Then check the dates. Which one controls registration, and which one is the session itself?\n\nThe check is yours: can a reader locate the event, preparation and deadline while seeing no claim that attendance guarantees clearer writing? The brief supplies no location or time zone; those remain questions for the organizer.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P51\nbrief_id: SQ-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n# What belongs in a workshop invitation?\n\nA fictional draft invitation says, “Everyone who attends Clearer Notes will write more clearly.” The supplied event facts are narrower: Clearer Notes is a free workshop on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**, with **12 places**; attendees bring **one paragraph to revise**, and registration closes on **5 November**. No learning outcome has been measured.\n\nWhat does the sentence promise, and what do the event facts actually establish? Could the sentence be kept as a prediction, or would it still read as a guarantee? Both are plausible editorial choices until you test the strength of “everyone” against the absence of outcome evidence.\n\nWhat could an invitation say that a reader can act on without adopting the unsupported promise? Try stating the task: bring one paragraph to revise. Then check the dates. Which one controls registration, and which one is the session itself?\n\nThe check is yours: can a reader locate the event, preparation and deadline while seeing no claim that attendance guarantees clearer writing? The brief supplies no location or time zone; those remain questions for the organizer.\n\n", "sha256": "a4e96b79082c2400a087c898679ac4a7507955eb6be078e0dffd507afbf82fcf", "kind": "synthetic", "attribution": "AI-authored demonstration · Fictional scenario", "html": "A fictional draft invitation says, “Everyone who attends Clearer Notes will write more clearly.” The supplied event facts are narrower: Clearer Notes is a free workshop on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m., with 12 places; attendees bring one paragraph to revise, and registration closes on 5 November. No learning outcome has been measured.
\n\nWhat does the sentence promise, and what do the event facts actually establish? Could the sentence be kept as a prediction, or would it still read as a guarantee? Both are plausible editorial choices until you test the strength of “everyone” against the absence of outcome evidence.
\n\nWhat could an invitation say that a reader can act on without adopting the unsupported promise? Try stating the task: bring one paragraph to revise. Then check the dates. Which one controls registration, and which one is the session itself?
\n\nThe check is yours: can a reader locate the event, preparation and deadline while seeing no claim that attendance guarantees clearer writing? The brief supplies no location or time zone; those remain questions for the organizer.
", "plainText": "What belongs in a workshop invitation? A fictional draft invitation says, “Everyone who attends Clearer Notes will write more clearly.” The supplied event facts are narrower: Clearer Notes is a free workshop on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m., with 12 places; attendees bring one paragraph to revise, and registration closes on 5 November. No learning outcome has been measured. What does the sentence promise, and what do the event facts actually establish? Could the sentence be kept as a prediction, or would it still read as a guarantee? Both are plausible editorial choices until you test the strength of “everyone” against the absence of outcome evidence. What could an invitation say that a reader can act on without adopting the unsupported promise? Try stating the task: bring one paragraph to revise. Then check the dates. Which one controls registration, and which one is the session itself? The check is yours: can a reader locate the event, preparation and deadline while seeing no claim that attendance guarantees clearer writing? The brief supplies no location or time zone; those remain questions for the organizer.", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 14.333333333333334, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": 0.45512525094839357, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.8268292682926828, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 11.627906976744185, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 41.666666666666664, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 43.5, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 5.232558139534884, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 172, "prose_sentences": 12, "prose_paragraphs": 4, "reader_address_events": 2, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 5, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": true, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "a4e96b79082c2400a087c898679ac4a7507955eb6be078e0dffd507afbf82fcf", "separation": "uncalibrated" } }, { "id": "P51/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "SQ-B03", "label": "export-state inquiry", "markdown": "# When is an export ready to use?\n\nIn a fictional export interface, a request can show **Queued** or **Ready**. If a request says Queued, has it failed, or is it waiting to produce a file? Both are possible readings of the label alone.\n\nHere is the supplied rule that tests those readings: **Queued** means the request was accepted, but no file is available. Which reading survives? What would you need to see before attempting a download?\n\nThe second rule says **Ready** means a download link is available. If the label changes to Ready, what changed: the file's availability or your certainty about how long future exports take? Only the first is supported. No completion time is supplied.\n\nCheck the current status before trying to download. Which label permits that action, and what promise about the next export can you honestly make from these two rules? The brief supplies no general completion-time promise.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P51\nbrief_id: SQ-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n# When is an export ready to use?\n\nIn a fictional export interface, a request can show **Queued** or **Ready**. If a request says Queued, has it failed, or is it waiting to produce a file? Both are possible readings of the label alone.\n\nHere is the supplied rule that tests those readings: **Queued** means the request was accepted, but no file is available. Which reading survives? What would you need to see before attempting a download?\n\nThe second rule says **Ready** means a download link is available. If the label changes to Ready, what changed: the file's availability or your certainty about how long future exports take? Only the first is supported. No completion time is supplied.\n\nCheck the current status before trying to download. Which label permits that action, and what promise about the next export can you honestly make from these two rules? The brief supplies no general completion-time promise.\n\n", "sha256": "1f599a327d31cb068562893c7cb3cce540d6afafd5d52aa733395c035153c0c0", "kind": "synthetic", "attribution": "AI-authored demonstration · Fictional scenario", "html": "In a fictional export interface, a request can show Queued or Ready. If a request says Queued, has it failed, or is it waiting to produce a file? Both are possible readings of the label alone.
\n\nHere is the supplied rule that tests those readings: Queued means the request was accepted, but no file is available. Which reading survives? What would you need to see before attempting a download?
\n\nThe second rule says Ready means a download link is available. If the label changes to Ready, what changed: the file's availability or your certainty about how long future exports take? Only the first is supported. No completion time is supplied.
\n\nCheck the current status before trying to download. Which label permits that action, and what promise about the next export can you honestly make from these two rules? The brief supplies no general completion-time promise.
", "plainText": "When is an export ready to use? In a fictional export interface, a request can show Queued or Ready. If a request says Queued, has it failed, or is it waiting to produce a file? Both are possible readings of the label alone. Here is the supplied rule that tests those readings: Queued means the request was accepted, but no file is available. Which reading survives? What would you need to see before attempting a download? The second rule says Ready means a download link is available. If the label changes to Ready, what changed: the file's availability or your certainty about how long future exports take? Only the first is supported. No completion time is supplied. Check the current status before trying to download. Which label permits that action, and what promise about the next export can you honestly make from these two rules? The brief supplies no general completion-time promise.", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 11.23076923076923, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": 0.5134702688764744, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.8088659793814433, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 20.54794520547945, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 38.46153846153846, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 36, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 2.73972602739726, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 146, "prose_sentences": 13, "prose_paragraphs": 4, "reader_address_events": 3, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 1, "question_sentences": 5, "emphasized_word_union": 4, "headings": 1, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": true, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "1f599a327d31cb068562893c7cb3cce540d6afafd5d52aa733395c035153c0c0", "separation": "uncalibrated" } } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V11 base governs learner support; short questions with concrete nouns and supplied factual anchors support casual to neutral language. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V11 base supplies the serious default; the inquiry guide asks for honest answerable questions and rejects shaming or cornering the reader. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V11 base permits gentle encouragement through enthusiasm; inquiry remains optional and cannot withhold direct time-sensitive information. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V11 base is supportive; the guide protects a willing learner, leaves judgment to the reader and rejects leading questions that shame or corner them. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V11 base serves someone new to a process; provide enough factual context for a first answer and do not make the learner guess a hidden rule. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 4, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V11 base supplies detailed support; each question depends on prior reasoning, with factual anchors and an answerable final check. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." } ], "observations": { "status": "not_estimated", "ratings": [], "note": "No empirical reader outcome or personal voice measurement is asserted." }, "sources": [ { "title": "Socratic Inquiry | Writing Style Library", "url": "https://github.com/product-on-purpose/writing-style-catalog/blob/cff5923afb926d23c0d202d2cfad92fc58b19b85/taxonomy/styles/socratic-inquiry/ENTRY.md", "supports": "Rhetorical structure and confusable-neighbor comparison", "limits": "Experimental machine-verified taxonomy, not empirical evidence of efficacy or endorsement" } ], "researchLimits": "Experimental upstream entry marked machine-verified; source does not establish reader benefit, human authorship or independent personality. CC BY 4.0; adaptation identified in guide.", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Socratic Inquiry · Complete writing guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "sources": [ { "title": "Socratic Inquiry | Writing Style Library", "url": "https://github.com/product-on-purpose/writing-style-catalog/blob/cff5923afb926d23c0d202d2cfad92fc58b19b85/taxonomy/styles/socratic-inquiry/ENTRY.md", "supports": "Rhetorical structure and confusable-neighbor comparison", "limits": "Experimental machine-verified taxonomy, not empirical evidence of efficacy or endorsement" } ], "html": "A reader facing inquiry that helps a willing learner examine an assumption through connected, answerable questions. Route: V11 base plus P51. The base protects the learner's ability to understand and check an outcome; this module changes the teaching movement. It is neither a transcript nor a license to withhold urgent information.
\n\nUse where the reader's own reasoning is the learning goal, the subject can be examined without withholding a safety, status or permission fact, and the writer has enough verified information to support honest questions. Identify the starting assumption, a meaningful alternative answer and the fact or example that helps the reader test them. Do not claim knowledge of the real reader's belief.
\n\nGenuine question → possible interpretations → supplied test or countercase → revised question → reader's own bounded conclusion or next check.
\n\nAsk a question the reader could reasonably answer in more than one way. Check: The alternative answer is credible before the next fact is considered.
Make each next question depend on a prior answer or revealed fact. Check: Rearranging the questions would weaken the reasoning.
Supply factual anchors and leave judgment to the reader where the facts permit it. Check: The reader does not have to guess a hidden rule, date or safety condition, and the wording does not smuggle in a foregone conclusion.
Use in reflective teaching, a workshop prompt or an optional learning passage where people have time and reason to think. Give direct instructions when the reader's job is to act immediately, find a status, follow a safety procedure or look up an exact parameter. The existing V11 outcome and learner check remain, but the path to the distinction can be question led.
\n\nStart with the actual distinction. Offer enough factual context for a first answer. Let the second question respond to that answer, perhaps by testing a limit. Include at least one fork where an alternative is genuinely plausible. End when the reader has criteria to answer the initial question, with an optional explicit check. If a direct answer is needed to prevent harm or confusion, state it and use inquiry only afterward, if at all.
\n\nUse short questions with concrete nouns. A declarative sentence can establish the facts the learner needs; questions are not a quota. Avoid “isn't it obvious,” hidden double negatives and questions that merely convert an assertion into punctuation. A brief pause or writing prompt may let the reader record a thought, but do not imply they did so.
\n\nE-B01 can explore the difference between restoring a retained version and recovering a file deleted before enablement; give the exact feature facts alongside the inquiry. E-B02 can ask which date governs registration and which governs attendance, then state all logistics. E-B03 requires direct incident status and next update; use the V11/V09 plain override, without inquiry suspense.
\n\nPreserve every supplied name, date, amount, role, exact interface label, negation and unknown. Do not invent a learner's actual misconception, private thought, testimonial, product mechanism or outcome. Hypothetical answers must be labeled possible answers. These benchmark examples are AI-authored fictional demonstrations, not human writing or evidence of learning.
\n\nQuestions may be headings or paragraphs; include the factual anchors in plain text so they survive export. Do not rely on a visual reveal or hidden accordion to make a question answerable. In teaching material, pair the final check with the facts needed to assess it. A page containing only questions may be incomplete if it omits necessary terms.
\n\nNear miss: “Don't you see that Version history is perfect? Surely you know it can recover anything?” These questions assert a false conclusion and pressure the reader.
\n\nRepair: “A restore makes a new current version without deleting stored history. What does that tell you about the difference between current and retained? Now consider a file deleted before Version history was enabled. Is it within the feature's recovery scope? The supplied rule says no. Which kind of earlier state can an editor actually restore?”
\n\nV06 uses two constructed interlocutors whose turns develop a definition. P34 presents a hypothetical rule and counterexample, then gives a corrected rule. P44 organizes lookup content under practical questions and answers them immediately. P51 addresses the reader with a reasoning sequence; the next question depends on the answer, and at least one question allows a real second interpretation. Its questions do not represent observed audience beliefs.
\n\nA brief inquiry can contain declarative facts. A lesson may also give an explicit concluding answer if the task demands one; it must not pretend the reader inferred it. The honest fallback for a time-sensitive task is direct prose under the base or service guide, not a question costume.
\n\nLeading questions that shame or corner the reader.
Withholding protected facts to make the page feel interactive.
Inventing a learner's mistaken answer or claiming a reader learned something.
Fictional E-B01: “A restore makes a new current version and preserves stored history. Which state changes, and which state remains? If a file was deleted before the feature was enabled, would that retained-version rule apply?” These linked questions ask the reader to use supplied facts.
\n\n“Wouldn't everyone agree that Version history means nothing can ever be lost?” fails because it is leading and factually false.
\n\nCheck that the first question is meaningful, later questions depend on prior reasoning, a credible alternate answer exists, necessary facts are stated, the final check is answerable, and protected facts remain exact. Separately review the V11 base for teaching prerequisites and outcome. Treat example measurements as descriptive observations, never as acceptance thresholds. The reader's actual learning has not been measured.
\n\nAdapted from Jonathan Prisant / Product on Purpose, Socratic Inquiry, CC BY 4.0. Changed for this library: V11 route, safeguards against withholding essential facts, benchmark cases, neighbor distinctions, examples and checks. Source taxonomy is experimental and marked machine-verified; no efficacy or endorsement is claimed.
", "formats": [] }, "quote": { "text": "Which part changes, and which part remains available?", "sampleId": "P51/specimen", "briefId": "E-B01", "attribution": "AI-authored synthetic demonstration · Fictional scenario", "sourceExact": true, "sourceSha256": "a52689965e6dcfee4d93b5a35a4091062ba189f70809b3935f563ef8c4ca2540" }, "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-structures-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p51-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-structures-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p51-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P51/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P51/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P51/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P51.svg", "bundleSha256": "74721ee974ba834ee975578cac41cb7d2cf644ecc641414dd5964536dd86b908", "bundleBytes": 72085 } }, { "id": "P52", "name": "Layered Disclosure", "version": "1.0.0", "type": "module", "typeLabel": "Composable module", "description": "Present a complete first answer, then add distinct useful depth.", "mechanism": "Minimum useful answer → deeper conditions/mechanism → precise boundary.", "rhythm": null, "tags": [ "layered-disclosure", "service", "documentation" ], "route": { "base_profile_id": "V09", "selected_resource_id": "P52", "module_ids": [ "P52" ] }, "skillName": null, "truthBoundary": "Current brief controls names, dates, amounts, authority, status and unknowns; synthetic exercises are not project history.", "neighborDifference": "V09 gives a direct service path; P52 adds exit-safe depth. P44 organizes immediate Q&A; V01 supports a recommendation.", "neighbors": [ "V09", "P44", "V01" ], "separation": { "status": "uncalibrated", "value": null }, "repeatability": { "status": "not_established", "value": null }, "evidenceStatus": "reviewed_synthetic_examples_not_reader_validated", "independenceStatus": "not_claimed_independent", "guideMarkdown": "# P52 · Layered Disclosure · Style guide\n\nLayered Disclosure is a selectable structure, not an independent voice. Route: V09 base plus P52. V09 puts status, conditions and action within easy reach; P52 adds distinct levels of useful detail when one document serves readers with different depths of need. The base guide and factual brief govern tone, task fit and protected facts.\n\n## Purpose and prerequisites\n\nUse when one document serves fast readers and readers who need further supported detail. Know the immediate reader task, each actual depth of need, every decision-changing condition and the facts that support each layer.\n\n## Core movement\n\nComplete minimum useful answer → distinct deeper conditions or mechanism → precise supported boundary.\n\n## Reader contract\n\nThe first layer answers the reader's immediate question well enough to stand alone. A second layer adds relevant conditions or mechanism; a deeper layer adds precise limits or implementation detail for those who need it. Each layer supplies new value rather than repeating the earlier one. This is not a teaser that hides the answer, and it is not a rule that every document needs three layers.\n\n## Working rules\n\n- Put the complete minimum useful answer in the first layer. **Check:** A reader who stops there can act without a later correction.\n- Add only distinct useful depth in later layers. **Check:** Name what new decision-relevant detail each layer supplies.\n- Keep the same factual and respectful contract at every depth. **Check:** No later section silently reverses an earlier claim.\n\n## Selection and composition\n\n1. Name the distinct reader depths and the question each brings. If all readers need the same detail, write one direct passage.\n2. Write the minimum useful answer first, including any condition that would make a short answer misleading.\n3. Add only the next depth the audience actually needs. Use informative headings that survive plain text. Put a consequential limit in the first layer if a reader who stops there could otherwise act wrongly.\n4. Review each exit point. A reader stopping after a layer should have a complete, accurate answer for that depth; later layers should deepen, not correct or reverse it.\n\nDo not layer a safety notice, incident state or irreversible instruction so the essential fact is buried. A decision that requires full context should explicitly tell the reader what must be read before deciding. No count of layers or typical length is mandatory.\n\n## Style, language and structure\n\n### Reader and use\n\nUse for service explanations, help pages and documentation whose readers have different depths of need. Keep the first answer accurate for someone who stops there. Avoid the structure if everyone needs the whole document before acting or if a single depth already serves the task.\n\n### Sentence and paragraph devices\n\nUse informative headings for each distinct depth. State a necessary condition beside the action it governs. Later paragraphs should add a new fact, relation or limit, not paraphrase the opening. Plain text must retain the sequence without visual indentation.\n\n## Truth, format and task overrides\n\nKeep supplied names, dates, role permissions, interface labels, negations and unknowns exact. The first layer may not omit a condition needed for safe action merely to remain short. Use semantic headings; a plain-text reader must still see the sequence and each exit point. For E-B01, surface the recovery limit in the first layer. E-B02 can put event essentials first and preparation/logistics next. E-B03 requires the known incident state and 3 p.m. update immediately; further layering is optional only if additional verified details exist.\n\n## Fictional E-B01 demonstration\n\n### Quick answer\n\nDraftline's **Version history** becomes available on **20 October 2026** on every existing plan at no additional charge. **Only workspace editors** can restore a retained version. Restoring makes a new current version without deleting stored history; it **cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled**.\n\n### How the action works\n\nOpen **Version history** and select a retained version. Versions are retained for **30 days**. A restore changes which version is current while keeping stored history, so a reader should distinguish restoring a retained version from recovering an earlier deleted file.\n\n### Boundary to check\n\nThe source facts say nothing about backup guarantees, storage internals or recovery outside Version history. If the file was deleted before enablement, this feature supplies no recovery route. The reader should verify that the relevant version is retained and that the person restoring it is a workspace editor.\n\nThe demonstration is AI-authored synthetic writing from the shared fictional brief. It is not product documentation or a human sample.\n\n## Near miss and repair\n\nNear miss: “Need a previous file? Version history has you covered. Read on to learn the exceptions.” The short layer promises too much and withholds a decisive limit.\n\nRepair: “A workspace editor can restore a retained version, but Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled.” The opening can stand alone; the next layer may explain timing and how the restore affects current and stored versions.\n\n## Worked contrast\n\n### Follows the mechanism\n\n“A workspace editor can restore a retained version for 30 days; the feature cannot recover files deleted before enablement. Read on for what a restore changes in the current version.” This opening gives the minimum useful answer, while the next layer can add mechanism.\n\n### Near miss\n\n“Need a previous file? Version history has you covered. Read on to learn the exceptions.” This delays a decisive limit and leaves the first exit point misleading.\n\n## Neighbor distinction\n\nV01 leads with a decision and its support. P44 asks practical lookup questions and answers them immediately. Layered Disclosure gives multiple depths of one answer in an exit-safe sequence; it can be combined with either when their task fits. It does not assert a stable speaker personality.\n\n## Avoid\n\n- Teasing the answer in the first layer while hiding a condition below.\n- Repeating the same explanation at each depth with more words.\n- Adding layers where the audience has no distinct deeper need.\n\n## Conformance and review\n\nRead V09 and this selected guide. Check the first layer alone for a complete and accurate minimum answer. Then read each layer in sequence and identify the new information it adds. Verify that no later layer silently reverses an earlier one and no essential condition is delayed. Review final facts against the brief. Example measurements describe prose only and cannot prove reader satisfaction, accessibility or efficacy.\n\n## Source and status\n\nAdapted from Jonathan Prisant / Product on Purpose, [Layered Disclosure](https://github.com/product-on-purpose/writing-style-catalog/blob/cff5923afb926d23c0d202d2cfad92fc58b19b85/taxonomy/styles/layered-disclosure/ENTRY.md), CC BY 4.0. Changed for this library: entry/exit checks, protected fact boundary, local neighbors and fictional example. The upstream entry is experimental and marked machine-verified. No measured reader benefit or endorsement is claimed.\n", "guideHtml": "Layered Disclosure is a selectable structure, not an independent voice. Route: V09 base plus P52. V09 puts status, conditions and action within easy reach; P52 adds distinct levels of useful detail when one document serves readers with different depths of need. The base guide and factual brief govern tone, task fit and protected facts.
\n\nUse when one document serves fast readers and readers who need further supported detail. Know the immediate reader task, each actual depth of need, every decision-changing condition and the facts that support each layer.
\n\nComplete minimum useful answer → distinct deeper conditions or mechanism → precise supported boundary.
\n\nThe first layer answers the reader's immediate question well enough to stand alone. A second layer adds relevant conditions or mechanism; a deeper layer adds precise limits or implementation detail for those who need it. Each layer supplies new value rather than repeating the earlier one. This is not a teaser that hides the answer, and it is not a rule that every document needs three layers.
\n\nPut the complete minimum useful answer in the first layer. Check: A reader who stops there can act without a later correction.
Add only distinct useful depth in later layers. Check: Name what new decision-relevant detail each layer supplies.
Keep the same factual and respectful contract at every depth. Check: No later section silently reverses an earlier claim.
Name the distinct reader depths and the question each brings. If all readers need the same detail, write one direct passage.
Write the minimum useful answer first, including any condition that would make a short answer misleading.
Add only the next depth the audience actually needs. Use informative headings that survive plain text. Put a consequential limit in the first layer if a reader who stops there could otherwise act wrongly.
Review each exit point. A reader stopping after a layer should have a complete, accurate answer for that depth; later layers should deepen, not correct or reverse it.
Do not layer a safety notice, incident state or irreversible instruction so the essential fact is buried. A decision that requires full context should explicitly tell the reader what must be read before deciding. No count of layers or typical length is mandatory.
\n\nUse for service explanations, help pages and documentation whose readers have different depths of need. Keep the first answer accurate for someone who stops there. Avoid the structure if everyone needs the whole document before acting or if a single depth already serves the task.
\n\nUse informative headings for each distinct depth. State a necessary condition beside the action it governs. Later paragraphs should add a new fact, relation or limit, not paraphrase the opening. Plain text must retain the sequence without visual indentation.
\n\nKeep supplied names, dates, role permissions, interface labels, negations and unknowns exact. The first layer may not omit a condition needed for safe action merely to remain short. Use semantic headings; a plain-text reader must still see the sequence and each exit point. For E-B01, surface the recovery limit in the first layer. E-B02 can put event essentials first and preparation/logistics next. E-B03 requires the known incident state and 3 p.m. update immediately; further layering is optional only if additional verified details exist.
\n\nDraftline's Version history becomes available on 20 October 2026 on every existing plan at no additional charge. Only workspace editors can restore a retained version. Restoring makes a new current version without deleting stored history; it cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled.
\n\nOpen Version history and select a retained version. Versions are retained for 30 days. A restore changes which version is current while keeping stored history, so a reader should distinguish restoring a retained version from recovering an earlier deleted file.
\n\nThe source facts say nothing about backup guarantees, storage internals or recovery outside Version history. If the file was deleted before enablement, this feature supplies no recovery route. The reader should verify that the relevant version is retained and that the person restoring it is a workspace editor.
\n\nThe demonstration is AI-authored synthetic writing from the shared fictional brief. It is not product documentation or a human sample.
\n\nNear miss: “Need a previous file? Version history has you covered. Read on to learn the exceptions.” The short layer promises too much and withholds a decisive limit.
\n\nRepair: “A workspace editor can restore a retained version, but Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled.” The opening can stand alone; the next layer may explain timing and how the restore affects current and stored versions.
\n\n“A workspace editor can restore a retained version for 30 days; the feature cannot recover files deleted before enablement. Read on for what a restore changes in the current version.” This opening gives the minimum useful answer, while the next layer can add mechanism.
\n\n“Need a previous file? Version history has you covered. Read on to learn the exceptions.” This delays a decisive limit and leaves the first exit point misleading.
\n\nV01 leads with a decision and its support. P44 asks practical lookup questions and answers them immediately. Layered Disclosure gives multiple depths of one answer in an exit-safe sequence; it can be combined with either when their task fits. It does not assert a stable speaker personality.
\n\nTeasing the answer in the first layer while hiding a condition below.
Repeating the same explanation at each depth with more words.
Adding layers where the audience has no distinct deeper need.
Read V09 and this selected guide. Check the first layer alone for a complete and accurate minimum answer. Then read each layer in sequence and identify the new information it adds. Verify that no later layer silently reverses an earlier one and no essential condition is delayed. Review final facts against the brief. Example measurements describe prose only and cannot prove reader satisfaction, accessibility or efficacy.
\n\nAdapted from Jonathan Prisant / Product on Purpose, Layered Disclosure, CC BY 4.0. Changed for this library: entry/exit checks, protected fact boundary, local neighbors and fictional example. The upstream entry is experimental and marked machine-verified. No measured reader benefit or endorsement is claimed.
", "samples": [ { "id": "P52/specimen", "key": "specimen", "briefId": "E-B01", "label": "layered feature explanation", "markdown": "# Draftline Version history\n\n**Quick answer.** Draftline's **Version history** becomes available on **20 October 2026** on **every existing plan at no additional charge**. Versions are retained for **30 days**. **Only workspace editors** can restore a retained version. Restoring makes a new current version and **does not delete stored history**. It **cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled**.\n\n## What a restore changes\n\nOpen **Version history** to access the action. A restore changes which version is current while leaving stored history intact. That is why restoring a retained version differs from recovering a file that was deleted before the feature existed.\n\n## What to check before relying on it\n\nCheck that the relevant version is retained and that the person restoring it is a workspace editor. The supplied facts do not establish a backup guarantee, implementation detail or recovery route outside Version history.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P52\nbrief_id: E-B01\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n# Draftline Version history\n\n**Quick answer.** Draftline's **Version history** becomes available on **20 October 2026** on **every existing plan at no additional charge**. Versions are retained for **30 days**. **Only workspace editors** can restore a retained version. Restoring makes a new current version and **does not delete stored history**. It **cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled**.\n\n## What a restore changes\n\nOpen **Version history** to access the action. A restore changes which version is current while leaving stored history intact. That is why restoring a retained version differs from recovering a file that was deleted before the feature existed.\n\n## What to check before relying on it\n\nCheck that the relevant version is retained and that the person restoring it is a workspace editor. The supplied facts do not establish a backup guarantee, implementation detail or recovery route outside Version history.\n\n", "sha256": "a818aadd5e9bc321babcd74ba4d63cc7ac571f072a27a941fe12aca0fa7f1ccc", "kind": "synthetic", "attribution": "AI-authored demonstration · Fictional scenario", "html": "Quick answer. Draftline's Version history becomes available on 20 October 2026 on every existing plan at no additional charge. Versions are retained for 30 days. Only workspace editors can restore a retained version. Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. It cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled.
\n\nOpen Version history to access the action. A restore changes which version is current while leaving stored history intact. That is why restoring a retained version differs from recovering a file that was deleted before the feature existed.
\n\nCheck that the relevant version is retained and that the person restoring it is a workspace editor. The supplied facts do not establish a backup guarantee, implementation detail or recovery route outside Version history.
", "plainText": "Draftline Version history Quick answer. Draftline's Version history becomes available on 20 October 2026 on every existing plan at no additional charge. Versions are retained for 30 days. Only workspace editors can restore a retained version. Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history. It cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled. What a restore changes Open Version history to access the action. A restore changes which version is current while leaving stored history intact. That is why restoring a retained version differs from recovering a file that was deleted before the feature existed. What to check before relying on it Check that the relevant version is retained and that the person restoring it is a workspace editor. The supplied facts do not establish a backup guarantee, implementation detail or recovery route outside Version history.", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 11.272727272727273, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": 0.46031365138162367, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7533333333333336, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 38, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 25.806451612903224, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 124, "prose_sentences": 11, "prose_paragraphs": 3, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 1, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 32, "headings": 3, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": true, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "a818aadd5e9bc321babcd74ba4d63cc7ac571f072a27a941fe12aca0fa7f1ccc", "separation": "uncalibrated" } }, { "id": "P52/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "E-B02", "label": "layered workshop information", "markdown": "# Clearer Notes\n\n**Quick answer.** **Clearer Notes** is a free workshop on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**, with **12 places**. Bring **one paragraph to revise**. Registration closes on **5 November**. Location and time zone are not supplied; confirm them before planning attendance.\n\n## Open logistics\n\nThe brief does not supply a trainer, access arrangement or promised outcome. Ask the organizer for any of those details you need before deciding whether the workshop fits.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P52\nbrief_id: E-B02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n# Clearer Notes\n\n**Quick answer.** **Clearer Notes** is a free workshop on **7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m.**, with **12 places**. Bring **one paragraph to revise**. Registration closes on **5 November**. Location and time zone are not supplied; confirm them before planning attendance.\n\n## Open logistics\n\nThe brief does not supply a trainer, access arrangement or promised outcome. Ask the organizer for any of those details you need before deciding whether the workshop fits.\n\n", "sha256": "8117e04a1cefc9e78a55cc409665a63bc749618a1436e496817abd4414d5aa82", "kind": "synthetic", "attribution": "AI-authored demonstration · Fictional scenario", "html": "Quick answer. Clearer Notes is a free workshop on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m., with 12 places. Bring one paragraph to revise. Registration closes on 5 November. Location and time zone are not supplied; confirm them before planning attendance.
\n\nThe brief does not supply a trainer, access arrangement or promised outcome. Ask the organizer for any of those details you need before deciding whether the workshop fits.
", "plainText": "Clearer Notes Quick answer. Clearer Notes is a free workshop on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m., with 12 places. Bring one paragraph to revise. Registration closes on 5 November. Location and time zone are not supplied; confirm them before planning attendance. Open logistics The brief does not supply a trainer, access arrangement or promised outcome. Ask the organizer for any of those details you need before deciding whether the workshop fits.", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 9, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.9114285714285714, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 15.873015873015873, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 20.634920634920636, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 63, "prose_sentences": 7, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 1, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 13, "headings": 2, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "8117e04a1cefc9e78a55cc409665a63bc749618a1436e496817abd4414d5aa82", "separation": "uncalibrated" } }, { "id": "P52/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "LD-B03", "label": "layered kit-borrowing guide", "markdown": "# Borrow a Field Kit\n\n**Quick answer.** Members of the fictional North Desk Library can borrow one **Field Kit** for **seven days** at no charge. Borrow it at the service desk, which opens **Tuesday through Saturday**. Check desk hours and kit availability before visiting; those details are not supplied. Nonmembers cannot borrow a kit but can read the kit instructions online.\n\n## What to check before visiting\n\nThe brief does not supply a reservation process. Reading online instructions does not grant borrowing permission; membership is still required. No deposit or availability guarantee is supplied.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P52\nbrief_id: LD-B03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\n---\n\n\n# Borrow a Field Kit\n\n**Quick answer.** Members of the fictional North Desk Library can borrow one **Field Kit** for **seven days** at no charge. Borrow it at the service desk, which opens **Tuesday through Saturday**. Check desk hours and kit availability before visiting; those details are not supplied. Nonmembers cannot borrow a kit but can read the kit instructions online.\n\n## What to check before visiting\n\nThe brief does not supply a reservation process. Reading online instructions does not grant borrowing permission; membership is still required. No deposit or availability guarantee is supplied.\n\n", "sha256": "345c325bc24953ae929fe160d39ebd0f081cb7df32298d56176743e902ca21fd", "kind": "synthetic", "attribution": "AI-authored demonstration · Fictional scenario", "html": "Quick answer. Members of the fictional North Desk Library can borrow one Field Kit for seven days at no charge. Borrow it at the service desk, which opens Tuesday through Saturday. Check desk hours and kit availability before visiting; those details are not supplied. Nonmembers cannot borrow a kit but can read the kit instructions online.
\n\nThe brief does not supply a reservation process. Reading online instructions does not grant borrowing permission; membership is still required. No deposit or availability guarantee is supplied.
", "plainText": "Borrow a Field Kit Quick answer. Members of the fictional North Desk Library can borrow one Field Kit for seven days at no charge. Borrow it at the service desk, which opens Tuesday through Saturday. Check desk hours and kit availability before visiting; those details are not supplied. Nonmembers cannot borrow a kit but can read the kit instructions online. What to check before visiting The brief does not supply a reservation process. Reading online instructions does not grant borrowing permission; membership is still required. No deposit or availability guarantee is supplied.", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 10.375, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": null, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_10_prose_sentences" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7982352941176475, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": null, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "insufficient_sample", "reason": "requires_3_prose_paragraphs" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 10.843373493975903, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 83, "prose_sentences": 8, "prose_paragraphs": 2, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 9, "headings": 2, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": false, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "345c325bc24953ae929fe160d39ebd0f081cb7df32298d56176743e902ca21fd", "separation": "uncalibrated" } } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 3 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V09 base explicitly governs tone; the service guide uses familiar language and the module keeps the minimum useful answer direct. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V09 base supplies the serious default; informative headings, necessary conditions and useful depth govern the structure rather than a humor device. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V09 base supplies restrained to gently upbeat delivery; the selected guide prioritizes a complete useful answer over a teaser. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V09 base supplies courteous to supportive delivery; the module requires the same factual and respectful contract at every depth. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V09 base avoids assuming specialist knowledge; the first layer must stand alone while deeper supported detail serves readers who need it. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V09 base supplies a little context through well-explained guidance; each additional layer adds only decision-relevant detail the audience actually needs. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." } ], "observations": { "status": "not_estimated", "ratings": [], "note": "No empirical reader outcome or personal voice measurement is asserted." }, "sources": [ { "title": "Layered Disclosure | Writing Style Library", "url": "https://github.com/product-on-purpose/writing-style-catalog/blob/cff5923afb926d23c0d202d2cfad92fc58b19b85/taxonomy/styles/layered-disclosure/ENTRY.md", "supports": "Optional structure and format distinctions", "limits": "Experimental machine-verified taxonomy, not empirical evidence of efficacy or endorsement" } ], "researchLimits": "Experimental upstream entry marked machine-verified; source does not establish reader benefit, human authorship or independent personality. CC BY 4.0; adaptation identified in guide.", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Layered Disclosure · Complete writing guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "sources": [ { "title": "Layered Disclosure | Writing Style Library", "url": "https://github.com/product-on-purpose/writing-style-catalog/blob/cff5923afb926d23c0d202d2cfad92fc58b19b85/taxonomy/styles/layered-disclosure/ENTRY.md", "supports": "Optional structure and format distinctions", "limits": "Experimental machine-verified taxonomy, not empirical evidence of efficacy or endorsement" } ], "html": "Layered Disclosure is a selectable structure, not an independent voice. Route: V09 base plus P52. V09 puts status, conditions and action within easy reach; P52 adds distinct levels of useful detail when one document serves readers with different depths of need. The base guide and factual brief govern tone, task fit and protected facts.
\n\nUse when one document serves fast readers and readers who need further supported detail. Know the immediate reader task, each actual depth of need, every decision-changing condition and the facts that support each layer.
\n\nComplete minimum useful answer → distinct deeper conditions or mechanism → precise supported boundary.
\n\nThe first layer answers the reader's immediate question well enough to stand alone. A second layer adds relevant conditions or mechanism; a deeper layer adds precise limits or implementation detail for those who need it. Each layer supplies new value rather than repeating the earlier one. This is not a teaser that hides the answer, and it is not a rule that every document needs three layers.
\n\nPut the complete minimum useful answer in the first layer. Check: A reader who stops there can act without a later correction.
Add only distinct useful depth in later layers. Check: Name what new decision-relevant detail each layer supplies.
Keep the same factual and respectful contract at every depth. Check: No later section silently reverses an earlier claim.
Name the distinct reader depths and the question each brings. If all readers need the same detail, write one direct passage.
Write the minimum useful answer first, including any condition that would make a short answer misleading.
Add only the next depth the audience actually needs. Use informative headings that survive plain text. Put a consequential limit in the first layer if a reader who stops there could otherwise act wrongly.
Review each exit point. A reader stopping after a layer should have a complete, accurate answer for that depth; later layers should deepen, not correct or reverse it.
Do not layer a safety notice, incident state or irreversible instruction so the essential fact is buried. A decision that requires full context should explicitly tell the reader what must be read before deciding. No count of layers or typical length is mandatory.
\n\nUse for service explanations, help pages and documentation whose readers have different depths of need. Keep the first answer accurate for someone who stops there. Avoid the structure if everyone needs the whole document before acting or if a single depth already serves the task.
\n\nUse informative headings for each distinct depth. State a necessary condition beside the action it governs. Later paragraphs should add a new fact, relation or limit, not paraphrase the opening. Plain text must retain the sequence without visual indentation.
\n\nKeep supplied names, dates, role permissions, interface labels, negations and unknowns exact. The first layer may not omit a condition needed for safe action merely to remain short. Use semantic headings; a plain-text reader must still see the sequence and each exit point. For E-B01, surface the recovery limit in the first layer. E-B02 can put event essentials first and preparation/logistics next. E-B03 requires the known incident state and 3 p.m. update immediately; further layering is optional only if additional verified details exist.
\n\nDraftline's Version history becomes available on 20 October 2026 on every existing plan at no additional charge. Only workspace editors can restore a retained version. Restoring makes a new current version without deleting stored history; it cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled.
\n\nOpen Version history and select a retained version. Versions are retained for 30 days. A restore changes which version is current while keeping stored history, so a reader should distinguish restoring a retained version from recovering an earlier deleted file.
\n\nThe source facts say nothing about backup guarantees, storage internals or recovery outside Version history. If the file was deleted before enablement, this feature supplies no recovery route. The reader should verify that the relevant version is retained and that the person restoring it is a workspace editor.
\n\nThe demonstration is AI-authored synthetic writing from the shared fictional brief. It is not product documentation or a human sample.
\n\nNear miss: “Need a previous file? Version history has you covered. Read on to learn the exceptions.” The short layer promises too much and withholds a decisive limit.
\n\nRepair: “A workspace editor can restore a retained version, but Version history cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled.” The opening can stand alone; the next layer may explain timing and how the restore affects current and stored versions.
\n\n“A workspace editor can restore a retained version for 30 days; the feature cannot recover files deleted before enablement. Read on for what a restore changes in the current version.” This opening gives the minimum useful answer, while the next layer can add mechanism.
\n\n“Need a previous file? Version history has you covered. Read on to learn the exceptions.” This delays a decisive limit and leaves the first exit point misleading.
\n\nV01 leads with a decision and its support. P44 asks practical lookup questions and answers them immediately. Layered Disclosure gives multiple depths of one answer in an exit-safe sequence; it can be combined with either when their task fits. It does not assert a stable speaker personality.
\n\nTeasing the answer in the first layer while hiding a condition below.
Repeating the same explanation at each depth with more words.
Adding layers where the audience has no distinct deeper need.
Read V09 and this selected guide. Check the first layer alone for a complete and accurate minimum answer. Then read each layer in sequence and identify the new information it adds. Verify that no later layer silently reverses an earlier one and no essential condition is delayed. Review final facts against the brief. Example measurements describe prose only and cannot prove reader satisfaction, accessibility or efficacy.
\n\nAdapted from Jonathan Prisant / Product on Purpose, Layered Disclosure, CC BY 4.0. Changed for this library: entry/exit checks, protected fact boundary, local neighbors and fictional example. The upstream entry is experimental and marked machine-verified. No measured reader benefit or endorsement is claimed.
", "formats": [] }, "quote": { "text": "A restore changes which version is current while leaving stored history intact.", "sampleId": "P52/specimen", "briefId": "E-B01", "attribution": "AI-authored synthetic demonstration · Fictional scenario", "sourceExact": true, "sourceSha256": "a818aadd5e9bc321babcd74ba4d63cc7ac571f072a27a941fe12aca0fa7f1ccc" }, "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-structures-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p52-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-structures-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p52-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P52/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P52/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P52/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P52.svg", "bundleSha256": "486b086a560580fa50b114b495042bed9d6d9302eb1812c5bc9977bd6ecc44a4", "bundleBytes": 71487 } }, { "id": "P53", "name": "Architecture Decision Record", "version": "1.0.0", "type": "module", "typeLabel": "Composable module", "description": "Record a verified architecture decision with status, context, choice and consequences.", "mechanism": "Status → Context → Decision → Consequences.", "rhythm": null, "tags": [ "architecture", "decision-record", "technical" ], "route": { "base_profile_id": "V10", "selected_resource_id": "P53", "module_ids": [ "P53" ] }, "skillName": null, "truthBoundary": "Current brief controls names, dates, amounts, authority, status and unknowns; synthetic exercises are not project history.", "neighborDifference": "V10 provides exact status/lookup writing; P53 adds the ADR fields. V01 seeks approval, whereas an accepted ADR records a past choice.", "neighbors": [ "V10", "V01", "P50" ], "separation": { "status": "uncalibrated", "value": null }, "repeatability": { "status": "not_established", "value": null }, "evidenceStatus": "reviewed_synthetic_examples_not_reader_validated", "independenceStatus": "not_claimed_independent", "guideMarkdown": "# P53 · Architecture Decision Record · Style guide\n\nThe Architecture Decision Record is a selectable format, not an independent voice. Route: V10 technical reference base plus P53. V10 supplies status, exact terms, stable labeled sections and explicit unknowns; P53 supplies the decision-record container. This format records one consequential architectural choice so a future maintainer can reconstruct the reason and costs. It does not decide for the team or turn a proposal into an accepted decision.\n\n## Purpose and prerequisites\n\nUse after a real architecture choice or while a clearly labeled proposal is awaiting a decision. Obtain the project scope, decision status and authority, live constraints, alternatives considered, chosen approach and supported consequences.\n\n## Core movement\n\nSpecific title and status → decision-time Context → chosen or proposed Decision → honest Consequences.\n\n## Format contract\n\nUse a specific title and status, then **Context**, **Decision** and **Consequences**. Context records the live constraints and alternatives at decision time. Decision names the actual choice and decision authority. Consequences name benefits, costs, uncertainties and follow-up where supported. Negative effects must be visible, but do not invent them to fill a template. Status must distinguish proposed, accepted, deprecated and superseded, using the project's own approved states. A proposal can use the same container with status **Proposed** and must not say that a decision was made.\n\n## Working rules\n\n- Record one actual or explicitly proposed architectural choice. **Check:** Status and decision authority match the supplied record.\n- State the live decision-time constraints and alternatives. **Check:** Context lets a future maintainer reconstruct why the choice was considered.\n- Name positive, negative and unresolved consequences only where supported. **Check:** A cost is visible without inventing a measurement or guarantee.\n\nThere is no universal word count. Keep the record short enough for its reader to find the decision and the reasons. Link longer evidence rather than hiding the decision in a long background essay. Date, owner, alternatives and links may be added when the project supplies them.\n\n## Style, language and structure\n\n### Reader and use\n\nUse for a future maintainer who needs to know why one architecture choice was made under the conditions then. Avoid it for operational instructions, a feature announcement, an incident notice or a product requirement without an architecture decision.\n\n### Sentence and paragraph devices\n\nUse stable field labels and direct declarative sentences. State status in plain text, then name constraints and alternatives without implying unmeasured properties. A consequence should identify what the choice enables, costs or leaves open; avoid promotional adjectives.\n\n## Truth, format and task overrides\n\nThe project brief supplies architecture, constraints, choice, authority and status. Do not infer any of these from a product description. Preserve exact names, amounts, technical identifiers, dates, negations and approval state. Semantic headings and labels must preserve status in plain text. The E-B01 feature brief and E-B02 workshop brief contain no architectural choice, so an ADR is unsuitable for them. E-B03 is an incident notice, not a decision record; give the incident status directly under the appropriate service guide.\n\n## Fictional demonstration with explicit status\n\nThe shared Draftline feature brief contains no architectural decision, so it cannot honestly produce an ADR. This separate **AI-authored fictional exercise** supplies its own complete decision facts: a small team's documentation must work offline, be reviewable in Git and contain at most dozens of short pages; no cross-document queries or concurrent editing are required. In the exercise, the authorized team has chosen Markdown files in Git as the source of truth. These are invented exercise conditions, not facts about Draftline or Kyle's systems.\n\n# ADR example: Keep documentation source in Markdown files\n\n**Status:** Accepted within this fictional exercise only.\n\n## Context\n\nThe documentation must work offline and permit ordinary Git review. The collection is small, with at most dozens of short pages. It does not need cross-document queries or concurrent editing. The team considered a database-backed editor and Markdown files in Git. Both could store text; the offline and review requirements govern this decision.\n\n## Decision\n\nThe exercise team chose Markdown files in Git as the documentation source of truth. Pages are edited as files and reviewed through the existing Git workflow. This records one architecture choice for the fictional system, not a claim about a real deployment.\n\n## Consequences\n\n**Benefit:** The chosen source can be read and edited offline and fits the required review path without a separate database editor.\n\n**Cost:** The team must maintain file naming, links and review conventions. A future need for concurrent editing or cross-document queries would require reconsideration.\n\n**Unknown:** No measured authoring speed or maintenance cost is supplied. The decision should be revisited if the stated requirements change.\n\n## Near miss and repair\n\nNear miss: “Status: Accepted. The database is faster and has no maintenance cost.” Neither measurement nor cost evidence is supplied for the fictional exercise.\n\nRepair: “Status: Accepted within the exercise. Decision: keep Markdown files in Git to meet offline use and review requirements. Consequence: maintain links and naming conventions; revisit if query or concurrent editing needs emerge.” For a real ADR, replace the exercise with verified project facts, choice and authority.\n\n## Worked contrast\n\n### Follows the mechanism\n\n“Status: Accepted within this fictional exercise. Decision: keep Markdown files in Git to meet offline and Git review requirements. Consequence: the team must maintain links and naming conventions.” The record names an actual exercise choice and its cost.\n\n### Near miss\n\n“Status: Accepted. The new database is faster and costs nothing.” Neither speed nor cost was measured or supplied.\n\n## Neighbor distinction\n\nV01 is a recommendation to a decision owner and seeks a bounded response. An accepted ADR records a choice already made, so V01 is not its base. V10 is a reference-oriented account with exact status; P53 adds the specific Context, Decision and Consequences container. P50 may compare real technical alternatives within Context. A design doc explores an open solution space; a postmortem explains what happened after a failure. This packet does not register those neighboring formats.\n\n## Avoid\n\n- Calling a proposal Accepted without decision-owner evidence.\n- Inventing an architecture decision from a feature description or incident status.\n- Omitting consequential costs or implying unmeasured speed, cost or reliability gains.\n\n## Conformance and review\n\nRead V10 and this selected guide. Check that the title and status identify one actual decision, Context carries decision-time constraints, Decision names the chosen approach and source of authority, and Consequences include supported benefits, costs and open conditions. A Proposed record cannot be called Accepted; a fictional exercise cannot be presented as project history. Use task-specific technical review before relying on an ADR. Descriptive prose measurements do not establish architecture correctness.\n\n## Source and status\n\nAdapted from Jonathan Prisant / Product on Purpose, [Architecture Decision Record](https://github.com/product-on-purpose/writing-style-catalog/blob/cff5923afb926d23c0d202d2cfad92fc58b19b85/taxonomy/formats/adr/ENTRY.md), CC BY 4.0. Changed for this library: proposal/acceptance boundary, optional metadata, local route, benchmark example and source constraints. The upstream entry is experimental and marked machine-verified. Its suggested length is a convention, not a validated limit. No endorsement is claimed.\n", "guideHtml": "The Architecture Decision Record is a selectable format, not an independent voice. Route: V10 technical reference base plus P53. V10 supplies status, exact terms, stable labeled sections and explicit unknowns; P53 supplies the decision-record container. This format records one consequential architectural choice so a future maintainer can reconstruct the reason and costs. It does not decide for the team or turn a proposal into an accepted decision.
\n\nUse after a real architecture choice or while a clearly labeled proposal is awaiting a decision. Obtain the project scope, decision status and authority, live constraints, alternatives considered, chosen approach and supported consequences.
\n\nSpecific title and status → decision-time Context → chosen or proposed Decision → honest Consequences.
\n\nUse a specific title and status, then Context, Decision and Consequences. Context records the live constraints and alternatives at decision time. Decision names the actual choice and decision authority. Consequences name benefits, costs, uncertainties and follow-up where supported. Negative effects must be visible, but do not invent them to fill a template. Status must distinguish proposed, accepted, deprecated and superseded, using the project's own approved states. A proposal can use the same container with status Proposed and must not say that a decision was made.
\n\nRecord one actual or explicitly proposed architectural choice. Check: Status and decision authority match the supplied record.
State the live decision-time constraints and alternatives. Check: Context lets a future maintainer reconstruct why the choice was considered.
Name positive, negative and unresolved consequences only where supported. Check: A cost is visible without inventing a measurement or guarantee.
There is no universal word count. Keep the record short enough for its reader to find the decision and the reasons. Link longer evidence rather than hiding the decision in a long background essay. Date, owner, alternatives and links may be added when the project supplies them.
\n\nUse for a future maintainer who needs to know why one architecture choice was made under the conditions then. Avoid it for operational instructions, a feature announcement, an incident notice or a product requirement without an architecture decision.
\n\nUse stable field labels and direct declarative sentences. State status in plain text, then name constraints and alternatives without implying unmeasured properties. A consequence should identify what the choice enables, costs or leaves open; avoid promotional adjectives.
\n\nThe project brief supplies architecture, constraints, choice, authority and status. Do not infer any of these from a product description. Preserve exact names, amounts, technical identifiers, dates, negations and approval state. Semantic headings and labels must preserve status in plain text. The E-B01 feature brief and E-B02 workshop brief contain no architectural choice, so an ADR is unsuitable for them. E-B03 is an incident notice, not a decision record; give the incident status directly under the appropriate service guide.
\n\nThe shared Draftline feature brief contains no architectural decision, so it cannot honestly produce an ADR. This separate AI-authored fictional exercise supplies its own complete decision facts: a small team's documentation must work offline, be reviewable in Git and contain at most dozens of short pages; no cross-document queries or concurrent editing are required. In the exercise, the authorized team has chosen Markdown files in Git as the source of truth. These are invented exercise conditions, not facts about Draftline or Kyle's systems.
\n\nStatus: Accepted within this fictional exercise only.
\n\nThe documentation must work offline and permit ordinary Git review. The collection is small, with at most dozens of short pages. It does not need cross-document queries or concurrent editing. The team considered a database-backed editor and Markdown files in Git. Both could store text; the offline and review requirements govern this decision.
\n\nThe exercise team chose Markdown files in Git as the documentation source of truth. Pages are edited as files and reviewed through the existing Git workflow. This records one architecture choice for the fictional system, not a claim about a real deployment.
\n\nBenefit: The chosen source can be read and edited offline and fits the required review path without a separate database editor.
\n\nCost: The team must maintain file naming, links and review conventions. A future need for concurrent editing or cross-document queries would require reconsideration.
\n\nUnknown: No measured authoring speed or maintenance cost is supplied. The decision should be revisited if the stated requirements change.
\n\nNear miss: “Status: Accepted. The database is faster and has no maintenance cost.” Neither measurement nor cost evidence is supplied for the fictional exercise.
\n\nRepair: “Status: Accepted within the exercise. Decision: keep Markdown files in Git to meet offline use and review requirements. Consequence: maintain links and naming conventions; revisit if query or concurrent editing needs emerge.” For a real ADR, replace the exercise with verified project facts, choice and authority.
\n\n“Status: Accepted within this fictional exercise. Decision: keep Markdown files in Git to meet offline and Git review requirements. Consequence: the team must maintain links and naming conventions.” The record names an actual exercise choice and its cost.
\n\n“Status: Accepted. The new database is faster and costs nothing.” Neither speed nor cost was measured or supplied.
\n\nV01 is a recommendation to a decision owner and seeks a bounded response. An accepted ADR records a choice already made, so V01 is not its base. V10 is a reference-oriented account with exact status; P53 adds the specific Context, Decision and Consequences container. P50 may compare real technical alternatives within Context. A design doc explores an open solution space; a postmortem explains what happened after a failure. This packet does not register those neighboring formats.
\n\nCalling a proposal Accepted without decision-owner evidence.
Inventing an architecture decision from a feature description or incident status.
Omitting consequential costs or implying unmeasured speed, cost or reliability gains.
Read V10 and this selected guide. Check that the title and status identify one actual decision, Context carries decision-time constraints, Decision names the chosen approach and source of authority, and Consequences include supported benefits, costs and open conditions. A Proposed record cannot be called Accepted; a fictional exercise cannot be presented as project history. Use task-specific technical review before relying on an ADR. Descriptive prose measurements do not establish architecture correctness.
\n\nAdapted from Jonathan Prisant / Product on Purpose, Architecture Decision Record, CC BY 4.0. Changed for this library: proposal/acceptance boundary, optional metadata, local route, benchmark example and source constraints. The upstream entry is experimental and marked machine-verified. Its suggested length is a convention, not a validated limit. No endorsement is claimed.
", "samples": [ { "id": "P53/specimen", "key": "specimen", "briefId": "SX-ADR01", "label": "accepted documentation ADR", "markdown": "# ADR example: Keep documentation source in Markdown files\n\n**Status:** Accepted within this fictional exercise only.\n\n## Context\n\nA small team's documentation must work offline and be reviewable in Git. The collection contains at most dozens of short pages. Cross-document queries and concurrent editing are not required. The exercise team considered a database-backed editor and Markdown files in Git. The offline and review requirements govern this decision; no performance comparison is available.\n\n## Decision\n\nThe exercise team chose Markdown files in Git as the documentation source of truth. Pages are edited as files and reviewed through the existing Git workflow. This is a fictional architecture decision, not a claim about a real deployment.\n\n## Consequences\n\n**Positive:** The chosen source can be read and edited offline and fits the required Git review path without a separate database editor.\n\n**Negative:** The team must maintain file naming, links and review conventions. The choice does not provide concurrent editing or cross-document queries.\n\n**Open:** No measured authoring speed or maintenance cost is supplied. Revisit the decision if those currently absent needs become requirements.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P53\nbrief_id: SX-ADR01\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\nscenario: Entire architecture scenario and decision are fictional exercise facts\n---\n\n\n# ADR example: Keep documentation source in Markdown files\n\n**Status:** Accepted within this fictional exercise only.\n\n## Context\n\nA small team's documentation must work offline and be reviewable in Git. The collection contains at most dozens of short pages. Cross-document queries and concurrent editing are not required. The exercise team considered a database-backed editor and Markdown files in Git. The offline and review requirements govern this decision; no performance comparison is available.\n\n## Decision\n\nThe exercise team chose Markdown files in Git as the documentation source of truth. Pages are edited as files and reviewed through the existing Git workflow. This is a fictional architecture decision, not a claim about a real deployment.\n\n## Consequences\n\n**Positive:** The chosen source can be read and edited offline and fits the required Git review path without a separate database editor.\n\n**Negative:** The team must maintain file naming, links and review conventions. The choice does not provide concurrent editing or cross-document queries.\n\n**Open:** No measured authoring speed or maintenance cost is supplied. Revisit the decision if those currently absent needs become requirements.\n\n", "sha256": "ad26f32ed6ac68e4695f9978f5c9da60bb95707442ab680e3b503f63e29dae8d", "kind": "synthetic", "attribution": "AI-authored demonstration · Fictional scenario", "html": "Status: Accepted within this fictional exercise only.
\n\nA small team's documentation must work offline and be reviewable in Git. The collection contains at most dozens of short pages. Cross-document queries and concurrent editing are not required. The exercise team considered a database-backed editor and Markdown files in Git. The offline and review requirements govern this decision; no performance comparison is available.
\n\nThe exercise team chose Markdown files in Git as the documentation source of truth. Pages are edited as files and reviewed through the existing Git workflow. This is a fictional architecture decision, not a claim about a real deployment.
\n\nPositive: The chosen source can be read and edited offline and fits the required Git review path without a separate database editor.
\n\nNegative: The team must maintain file naming, links and review conventions. The choice does not provide concurrent editing or cross-document queries.
\n\nOpen: No measured authoring speed or maintenance cost is supplied. Revisit the decision if those currently absent needs become requirements.
", "plainText": "ADR example: Keep documentation source in Markdown files Status: Accepted within this fictional exercise only. Context A small team's documentation must work offline and be reviewable in Git. The collection contains at most dozens of short pages. Cross-document queries and concurrent editing are not required. The exercise team considered a database-backed editor and Markdown files in Git. The offline and review requirements govern this decision; no performance comparison is available. Decision The exercise team chose Markdown files in Git as the documentation source of truth. Pages are edited as files and reviewed through the existing Git workflow. This is a fictional architecture decision, not a claim about a real deployment. Consequences Positive: The chosen source can be read and edited offline and fits the required Git review path without a separate database editor. Negative: The team must maintain file naming, links and review conventions. The choice does not provide concurrent editing or cross-document queries. Open: No measured authoring speed or maintenance cost is supplied. Revisit the decision if those currently absent needs become requirements.", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 11.857142857142858, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": 0.2848576004225757, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.8013675213675203, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 22, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 2.4096385542168677, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 166, "prose_sentences": 14, "prose_paragraphs": 6, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 1, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 4, "headings": 4, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": true, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "ad26f32ed6ac68e4695f9978f5c9da60bb95707442ab680e3b503f63e29dae8d", "separation": "uncalibrated" } }, { "id": "P53/transfer-a", "key": "transfer-a", "briefId": "SX-ADR02", "label": "proposed export-queue ADR", "markdown": "# ADR example: Keep the export queue local to the application\n\n**Status:** Proposed within this fictional exercise; no approval is supplied.\n\n## Context\n\nAn exercise application creates exports from documents already stored in the same application. The supplied exercise constraint is one export job at a time and a requirement that job state remain visible after a page reload. The fictional team is comparing an in-process queue with a separate queue service. The exercise includes no reliability, cost or load measurements.\n\n## Decision\n\nPropose storing job state in the application's existing database and running the queue in the application process for the current one-job requirement. The fictional decision owner has not approved this proposal. A separate service remains an alternative if concurrency or isolation becomes required.\n\n## Consequences\n\n**Expected positive:** The proposal uses the already specified database to make job state visible after reload. This is a design expectation, not a tested result.\n\n**Negative:** The queue would share the application's process and would need a defined restart/retry policy before operation. That policy is not supplied here.\n\n**Open:** Approval, load behavior and failure recovery are unresolved. The status remains Proposed.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P53\nbrief_id: SX-ADR02\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\nscenario: Entire architecture scenario and proposed decision are fictional exercise facts\n---\n\n\n# ADR example: Keep the export queue local to the application\n\n**Status:** Proposed within this fictional exercise; no approval is supplied.\n\n## Context\n\nAn exercise application creates exports from documents already stored in the same application. The supplied exercise constraint is one export job at a time and a requirement that job state remain visible after a page reload. The fictional team is comparing an in-process queue with a separate queue service. The exercise includes no reliability, cost or load measurements.\n\n## Decision\n\nPropose storing job state in the application's existing database and running the queue in the application process for the current one-job requirement. The fictional decision owner has not approved this proposal. A separate service remains an alternative if concurrency or isolation becomes required.\n\n## Consequences\n\n**Expected positive:** The proposal uses the already specified database to make job state visible after reload. This is a design expectation, not a tested result.\n\n**Negative:** The queue would share the application's process and would need a defined restart/retry policy before operation. That policy is not supplied here.\n\n**Open:** Approval, load behavior and failure recovery are unresolved. The status remains Proposed.\n\n", "sha256": "e4d1dc092e2aa594fd53181a083eceb4652d08400d7b4233b6531244d4c00005", "kind": "synthetic", "attribution": "AI-authored demonstration · Fictional scenario", "html": "Status: Proposed within this fictional exercise; no approval is supplied.
\n\nAn exercise application creates exports from documents already stored in the same application. The supplied exercise constraint is one export job at a time and a requirement that job state remain visible after a page reload. The fictional team is comparing an in-process queue with a separate queue service. The exercise includes no reliability, cost or load measurements.
\n\nPropose storing job state in the application's existing database and running the queue in the application process for the current one-job requirement. The fictional decision owner has not approved this proposal. A separate service remains an alternative if concurrency or isolation becomes required.
\n\nExpected positive: The proposal uses the already specified database to make job state visible after reload. This is a design expectation, not a tested result.
\n\nNegative: The queue would share the application's process and would need a defined restart/retry policy before operation. That policy is not supplied here.
\n\nOpen: Approval, load behavior and failure recovery are unresolved. The status remains Proposed.
", "plainText": "ADR example: Keep the export queue local to the application Status: Proposed within this fictional exercise; no approval is supplied. Context An exercise application creates exports from documents already stored in the same application. The supplied exercise constraint is one export job at a time and a requirement that job state remain visible after a page reload. The fictional team is comparing an in-process queue with a separate queue service. The exercise includes no reliability, cost or load measurements. Decision Propose storing job state in the application's existing database and running the queue in the application process for the current one-job requirement. The fictional decision owner has not approved this proposal. A separate service remains an alternative if concurrency or isolation becomes required. Consequences Expected positive: The proposal uses the already specified database to make job state visible after reload. This is a design expectation, not a tested result. Negative: The queue would share the application's process and would need a defined restart/retry policy before operation. That policy is not supplied here. Open: Approval, load behavior and failure recovery are unresolved. The status remains Proposed.", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 12.5, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": 0.44619022208662784, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.8063492063492061, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 24.5, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 2.857142857142857, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 175, "prose_sentences": 14, "prose_paragraphs": 6, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 2, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 5, "headings": 4, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": true, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "e4d1dc092e2aa594fd53181a083eceb4652d08400d7b4233b6531244d4c00005", "separation": "uncalibrated" } }, { "id": "P53/transfer-b", "key": "transfer-b", "briefId": "SX-ADR03", "label": "accepted search-index ADR", "markdown": "# ADR example: Generate a static title index\n\n**Status:** Accepted within this fictional exercise only.\n\n## Context\n\nAn exercise documentation site must work offline. Readers need exact title lookup, and the content changes only during a scheduled build. Full-text search is not required. The exercise team considered a static index generated at build time and a network search service. No latency or operating-cost measurement is supplied.\n\n## Decision\n\nThe exercise team chose a static title index generated with each site build. The index is packaged with the site, so exact title lookup does not require a network connection. This is a fictional decision, not a report about a live site.\n\n## Consequences\n\n**Positive:** Exact title lookup can use the packaged index while offline, which meets the stated requirement.\n\n**Negative:** A changed title will not appear in the index until the next build. The team must check that the build regenerates the index.\n\n**Open:** This record does not establish search speed or suitability if full-text search becomes necessary. Revisit the decision if those requirements change.", "sourceMarkdown": "---\nprofile_id: P53\nbrief_id: SX-ADR03\nlanguage: en\nchannel: markdown\nauthorship: AI-authored synthetic by Codex\nscenario: Entire architecture scenario and decision are fictional exercise facts\n---\n\n\n# ADR example: Generate a static title index\n\n**Status:** Accepted within this fictional exercise only.\n\n## Context\n\nAn exercise documentation site must work offline. Readers need exact title lookup, and the content changes only during a scheduled build. Full-text search is not required. The exercise team considered a static index generated at build time and a network search service. No latency or operating-cost measurement is supplied.\n\n## Decision\n\nThe exercise team chose a static title index generated with each site build. The index is packaged with the site, so exact title lookup does not require a network connection. This is a fictional decision, not a report about a live site.\n\n## Consequences\n\n**Positive:** Exact title lookup can use the packaged index while offline, which meets the stated requirement.\n\n**Negative:** A changed title will not appear in the index until the next build. The team must check that the build regenerates the index.\n\n**Open:** This record does not establish search speed or suitability if full-text search becomes necessary. Revisit the decision if those requirements change.\n\n", "sha256": "fc9962eab3051afc2190b6352c1f0c015e98f61b2514974d2e6df240a4815d4d", "kind": "synthetic", "attribution": "AI-authored demonstration · Fictional scenario", "html": "Status: Accepted within this fictional exercise only.
\n\nAn exercise documentation site must work offline. Readers need exact title lookup, and the content changes only during a scheduled build. Full-text search is not required. The exercise team considered a static index generated at build time and a network search service. No latency or operating-cost measurement is supplied.
\n\nThe exercise team chose a static title index generated with each site build. The index is packaged with the site, so exact title lookup does not require a network connection. This is a fictional decision, not a report about a live site.
\n\nPositive: Exact title lookup can use the packaged index while offline, which meets the stated requirement.
\n\nNegative: A changed title will not appear in the index until the next build. The team must check that the build regenerates the index.
\n\nOpen: This record does not establish search speed or suitability if full-text search becomes necessary. Revisit the decision if those requirements change.
", "plainText": "ADR example: Generate a static title index Status: Accepted within this fictional exercise only. Context An exercise documentation site must work offline. Readers need exact title lookup, and the content changes only during a scheduled build. Full-text search is not required. The exercise team considered a static index generated at build time and a network search service. No latency or operating-cost measurement is supplied. Decision The exercise team chose a static title index generated with each site build. The index is packaged with the site, so exact title lookup does not require a network connection. This is a fictional decision, not a report about a live site. Consequences Positive: Exact title lookup can use the packaged index while offline, which meets the stated requirement. Negative: A changed title will not appear in the index until the next build. The team must check that the build regenerates the index. Open: This record does not establish search speed or suitability if full-text search becomes necessary. Revisit the decision if those requirements change.", "measurement": { "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "value": 11.642857142857142, "unit": "words/sentence", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "value": 0.33360923004472454, "unit": "coefficient_of_variation", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "value": 0.7321052631578946, "unit": "MATTR50_ratio", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "value": 0, "unit": "events/1000_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "value": 0, "unit": "percent_sentences", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "value": 23.5, "unit": "words/paragraph", "status": "measured", "reason": null }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "value": 2.4539877300613497, "unit": "percent_words", "status": "measured", "reason": null } ], "counts": { "eligible_words": 163, "prose_sentences": 14, "prose_paragraphs": 6, "reader_address_events": 0, "contraction_events": 0, "ambiguous_apostrophe_events": 0, "question_sentences": 0, "emphasized_word_union": 4, "headings": 4, "list_items": 0, "blockquotes": 0, "code_blocks": 0, "tables": 0 }, "eligible": true, "extractorVersion": "wvl-metrics/1.0.0", "textSha256": "fc9962eab3051afc2190b6352c1f0c015e98f61b2514974d2e6df240a4815d4d", "separation": "uncalibrated" } } ], "targets": [ { "dimension": "formality", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 3, 5 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V10 technical-reference base supplies neutral to formal delivery; stable field labels and direct declarative sentences preserve decision status. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." }, { "dimension": "humor", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 1 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V10 base supplies the serious default; the ADR guide calls for an honest account of constraints and consequences without promotional adjectives. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." }, { "dimension": "enthusiasm", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V10 base supplies restrained to gently upbeat delivery; supported benefits and costs are recorded without promotional claims. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." }, { "dimension": "warmth", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 1, 2 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V10 base supplies matter-of-fact to courteous distance; this format addresses a future maintainer through usable status, reasons and visible unknowns. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." }, { "dimension": "assumed_expertise", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V10 base allows some basics through experienced readership; the ADR addresses a future maintainer who must reconstruct one architecture choice. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." }, { "dimension": "explanation_support", "kind": "editorial_target", "range": [ 2, 4 ], "rubric": "communication-rubric/1.0.0", "task": "ordinary suitable use; not universal across scenarios", "rationale": "The V10 base supplies a little context through well-explained support; keep the record concise and link longer evidence while preserving constraints, reasons and costs. This is a composition default inherited from the routed base, not a measured sample rating." } ], "observations": { "status": "not_estimated", "ratings": [], "note": "No empirical reader outcome or personal voice measurement is asserted." }, "sources": [ { "title": "Architecture Decision Record | Writing Style Library", "url": "https://github.com/product-on-purpose/writing-style-catalog/blob/cff5923afb926d23c0d202d2cfad92fc58b19b85/taxonomy/formats/adr/ENTRY.md", "supports": "Optional structure and format distinctions", "limits": "Experimental machine-verified taxonomy, not empirical evidence of efficacy or endorsement" } ], "researchLimits": "Experimental upstream entry marked machine-verified; source does not establish reader benefit, human authorship or independent personality. CC BY 4.0; adaptation identified in guide.", "sourceEdition": "2026-10-06.1", "humanReferences": [], "styleAuthority": { "title": "Architecture Decision Record · Complete writing guide", "owner": "Writing Library", "sources": [ { "title": "Architecture Decision Record | Writing Style Library", "url": "https://github.com/product-on-purpose/writing-style-catalog/blob/cff5923afb926d23c0d202d2cfad92fc58b19b85/taxonomy/formats/adr/ENTRY.md", "supports": "Optional structure and format distinctions", "limits": "Experimental machine-verified taxonomy, not empirical evidence of efficacy or endorsement" } ], "html": "The Architecture Decision Record is a selectable format, not an independent voice. Route: V10 technical reference base plus P53. V10 supplies status, exact terms, stable labeled sections and explicit unknowns; P53 supplies the decision-record container. This format records one consequential architectural choice so a future maintainer can reconstruct the reason and costs. It does not decide for the team or turn a proposal into an accepted decision.
\n\nUse after a real architecture choice or while a clearly labeled proposal is awaiting a decision. Obtain the project scope, decision status and authority, live constraints, alternatives considered, chosen approach and supported consequences.
\n\nSpecific title and status → decision-time Context → chosen or proposed Decision → honest Consequences.
\n\nUse a specific title and status, then Context, Decision and Consequences. Context records the live constraints and alternatives at decision time. Decision names the actual choice and decision authority. Consequences name benefits, costs, uncertainties and follow-up where supported. Negative effects must be visible, but do not invent them to fill a template. Status must distinguish proposed, accepted, deprecated and superseded, using the project's own approved states. A proposal can use the same container with status Proposed and must not say that a decision was made.
\n\nRecord one actual or explicitly proposed architectural choice. Check: Status and decision authority match the supplied record.
State the live decision-time constraints and alternatives. Check: Context lets a future maintainer reconstruct why the choice was considered.
Name positive, negative and unresolved consequences only where supported. Check: A cost is visible without inventing a measurement or guarantee.
There is no universal word count. Keep the record short enough for its reader to find the decision and the reasons. Link longer evidence rather than hiding the decision in a long background essay. Date, owner, alternatives and links may be added when the project supplies them.
\n\nUse for a future maintainer who needs to know why one architecture choice was made under the conditions then. Avoid it for operational instructions, a feature announcement, an incident notice or a product requirement without an architecture decision.
\n\nUse stable field labels and direct declarative sentences. State status in plain text, then name constraints and alternatives without implying unmeasured properties. A consequence should identify what the choice enables, costs or leaves open; avoid promotional adjectives.
\n\nThe project brief supplies architecture, constraints, choice, authority and status. Do not infer any of these from a product description. Preserve exact names, amounts, technical identifiers, dates, negations and approval state. Semantic headings and labels must preserve status in plain text. The E-B01 feature brief and E-B02 workshop brief contain no architectural choice, so an ADR is unsuitable for them. E-B03 is an incident notice, not a decision record; give the incident status directly under the appropriate service guide.
\n\nThe shared Draftline feature brief contains no architectural decision, so it cannot honestly produce an ADR. This separate AI-authored fictional exercise supplies its own complete decision facts: a small team's documentation must work offline, be reviewable in Git and contain at most dozens of short pages; no cross-document queries or concurrent editing are required. In the exercise, the authorized team has chosen Markdown files in Git as the source of truth. These are invented exercise conditions, not facts about Draftline or Kyle's systems.
\n\nStatus: Accepted within this fictional exercise only.
\n\nThe documentation must work offline and permit ordinary Git review. The collection is small, with at most dozens of short pages. It does not need cross-document queries or concurrent editing. The team considered a database-backed editor and Markdown files in Git. Both could store text; the offline and review requirements govern this decision.
\n\nThe exercise team chose Markdown files in Git as the documentation source of truth. Pages are edited as files and reviewed through the existing Git workflow. This records one architecture choice for the fictional system, not a claim about a real deployment.
\n\nBenefit: The chosen source can be read and edited offline and fits the required review path without a separate database editor.
\n\nCost: The team must maintain file naming, links and review conventions. A future need for concurrent editing or cross-document queries would require reconsideration.
\n\nUnknown: No measured authoring speed or maintenance cost is supplied. The decision should be revisited if the stated requirements change.
\n\nNear miss: “Status: Accepted. The database is faster and has no maintenance cost.” Neither measurement nor cost evidence is supplied for the fictional exercise.
\n\nRepair: “Status: Accepted within the exercise. Decision: keep Markdown files in Git to meet offline use and review requirements. Consequence: maintain links and naming conventions; revisit if query or concurrent editing needs emerge.” For a real ADR, replace the exercise with verified project facts, choice and authority.
\n\n“Status: Accepted within this fictional exercise. Decision: keep Markdown files in Git to meet offline and Git review requirements. Consequence: the team must maintain links and naming conventions.” The record names an actual exercise choice and its cost.
\n\n“Status: Accepted. The new database is faster and costs nothing.” Neither speed nor cost was measured or supplied.
\n\nV01 is a recommendation to a decision owner and seeks a bounded response. An accepted ADR records a choice already made, so V01 is not its base. V10 is a reference-oriented account with exact status; P53 adds the specific Context, Decision and Consequences container. P50 may compare real technical alternatives within Context. A design doc explores an open solution space; a postmortem explains what happened after a failure. This packet does not register those neighboring formats.
\n\nCalling a proposal Accepted without decision-owner evidence.
Inventing an architecture decision from a feature description or incident status.
Omitting consequential costs or implying unmeasured speed, cost or reliability gains.
Read V10 and this selected guide. Check that the title and status identify one actual decision, Context carries decision-time constraints, Decision names the chosen approach and source of authority, and Consequences include supported benefits, costs and open conditions. A Proposed record cannot be called Accepted; a fictional exercise cannot be presented as project history. Use task-specific technical review before relying on an ADR. Descriptive prose measurements do not establish architecture correctness.
\n\nAdapted from Jonathan Prisant / Product on Purpose, Architecture Decision Record, CC BY 4.0. Changed for this library: proposal/acceptance boundary, optional metadata, local route, benchmark example and source constraints. The upstream entry is experimental and marked machine-verified. Its suggested length is a convention, not a validated limit. No endorsement is claimed.
", "formats": [] }, "quote": { "text": "The exercise team chose Markdown files in Git as the documentation source of truth.", "sampleId": "P53/specimen", "briefId": "SX-ADR01", "attribution": "AI-authored synthetic demonstration · Fictional scenario", "sourceExact": true, "sourceSha256": "ad26f32ed6ac68e4695f9978f5c9da60bb95707442ab680e3b503f63e29dae8d" }, "downloads": { "bundle": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-structures-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p53-axes-v1.zip", "skill": "https://github.com/JonathanKHobson/shareables/releases/download/writing-structures-2026-10-09/writing-resource-p53-axes-v1.zip", "raw": "downloads/P53/raw.json", "markdown": "downloads/P53/examples.md", "profile": "downloads/P53/profile.json", "preview": "previews/P53.svg", "bundleSha256": "21829bae18e7684cb121b61664db5d4af94ac70d5ca84900cf80b2f197fff586", "bundleBytes": 73049 } } ], "features": [ { "id": "F01", "label": "Mean sentence length", "unit": "words/sentence" }, { "id": "F02", "label": "Sentence length variation", "unit": "coefficient_of_variation" }, { "id": "F03", "label": "Vocabulary variety (MATTR50)", "unit": "MATTR50_ratio" }, { "id": "F04", "label": "Reader address", "unit": "events/1000_words" }, { "id": "F05", "label": "Contractions", "unit": "events/1000_words" }, { "id": "F06", "label": "Question sentences", "unit": "percent_sentences" }, { "id": "F07", "label": "Median paragraph length", "unit": "words/paragraph" }, { "id": "F08", "label": "Emphasized words", "unit": "percent_words" } ], "briefs": [ { "id": "E-B01", "markdown": "Write a short feature explanation. Preserve all of these facts in the complete sample:\n\n1. Draftline is the product name.\n2. Version history becomes available on 20 October 2026.\n3. Versions are retained for 30 days.\n4. The feature is included on every existing plan at no additional charge.\n5. Only workspace editors can restore a version.\n6. Restoring makes a new current version and does not delete stored history.\n7. It cannot recover files deleted before the feature was enabled.\n8. The interface action is named **Version history**.\n\nNo claims about backup guarantees, uptime, customer results, privacy/security properties, implementation internals or instant performance are supplied. Do not invent them. A shared analysis question: can readers explain the operation and its limit after reading?" }, { "id": "E-B02", "markdown": "A fictional workshop called **Clearer Notes** occurs on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. The event is free and has 12 places. Attendees bring one paragraph to revise. Registration closes on 5 November. Do not invent location, time zone, trainer credentials, access arrangements, existing demand or guaranteed outcomes. Every complete E-B02 sample must preserve these facts." }, { "id": "E-B03", "markdown": "For fictional Draftline: new uploads are unavailable. Existing documents can still be read. The cause is not yet known. The next update is at 3 p.m. Do not promise a repair time, diagnose a cause, imply all data is safe, ask users to discard work or invent a workaround. Every complete E-B03 sample must preserve these four facts. Humor and sales pressure are inappropriate in this fixture regardless of a voice’s ordinary mode." }, { "id": "CC-B02", "markdown": "**Fictional exercise.** Compare two fictional workshop formats by interaction, schedule and price so a reader can choose under their own criterion.\n\nFacts:\n- Live Lab is a free 45-minute session on 7 November with 12 places and participant question time.\n- Solo Kit is a free self-paced worksheet available from 7 November, with no live question time.\n\nUnknowns:\n- No learning results, demand, location, time zone or quality ranking is supplied." }, { "id": "CC-B03", "markdown": "**Fictional exercise.** Compare two fictional documentation sources against offline editing, Git review and concurrent editing.\n\nFacts:\n- Plain Files work offline and support Git review but not concurrent editing.\n- Managed Editor supports concurrent editing, requires a network connection and does not support Git review.\n- The fictional team values all three criteria and has not ranked them.\n\nUnknowns:\n- No cost, speed, reliability or outcome measurement is supplied." }, { "id": "SQ-B02", "markdown": "**Fictional exercise.** Help a learner distinguish a supported workshop invitation from an unsupported outcome promise.\n\nFacts:\n- A fictional draft says: Everyone who attends Clearer Notes will write more clearly.\n- Clearer Notes is a free workshop on 7 November 2026, 2–3 p.m. with 12 places.\n- Attendees bring one paragraph to revise.\n- Registration closes on 5 November.\n- No learning outcome has been measured.\n\nUnknowns:\n- Location, time zone and measured learning results are not supplied." }, { "id": "SQ-B03", "markdown": "**Fictional exercise.** Help a learner reason from exact export state labels to whether a download can be attempted.\n\nFacts:\n- Queued means an export request was accepted but no file is available.\n- Ready means a download link is available.\n- A user must check current status before downloading.\n\nUnknowns:\n- No completion-time promise or failure-rate evidence is supplied." }, { "id": "LD-B03", "markdown": "**Fictional exercise.** Serve fast and careful readers with an exit-safe fictional kit borrowing guide.\n\nFacts:\n- Members of North Desk Library can borrow one Field Kit for seven days at no charge.\n- Borrowing happens at the service desk, open Tuesday through Saturday.\n- Nonmembers cannot borrow a kit but can read the kit instructions online.\n\nUnknowns:\n- Desk hours, reservation process, deposit, live availability and outcomes are not supplied." }, { "id": "SX-ADR01", "markdown": "**Fictional exercise.** Record an accepted fictional documentation architecture decision.\n\nFacts:\n- A small team's documentation must work offline and be reviewable in Git.\n- The collection contains at most dozens of short pages.\n- Cross-document queries and concurrent editing are not required.\n- The exercise team considered a database-backed editor and Markdown files in Git.\n- The authorized exercise team chose Markdown files in Git as the source of truth.\n\nUnknowns:\n- No measured authoring speed or maintenance cost is supplied." }, { "id": "SX-ADR02", "markdown": "**Fictional exercise.** Record an unapproved fictional export queue architecture proposal with honest consequences.\n\nFacts:\n- The exercise application creates exports from documents already stored in it.\n- The exercise requirement is one export job at a time and visible job state after a page reload.\n- The fictional team is comparing an in-process queue with a separate queue service.\n- The proposal stores job state in the application's existing database and runs the queue in its process.\n- No decision owner has approved the proposal.\n\nUnknowns:\n- Reliability, cost, load behavior and restart/retry policy are not supplied." }, { "id": "SX-ADR03", "markdown": "**Fictional exercise.** Record an accepted fictional documentation index architecture decision.\n\nFacts:\n- An exercise documentation site must work offline and support exact title lookup.\n- Content changes only during scheduled builds; full-text search is not required.\n- The exercise team considered a static index generated at build time and a network search service.\n- The authorized exercise team chose the static title index packaged with each site build.\n\nUnknowns:\n- Latency and operating cost are not measured; future full-text needs are unknown." }, { "id": "FC-B01", "markdown": "**Fictional exercise.** Write a learning-page introduction with a fictional individual author offering a small exploration.\n\nFacts:\n- A fictional author offers a hypothetical learning page with small questions, rough examples and comparisons.\n- A sketch and two movable cards are illustrative scene props.\n- The activity is to bring an idea, make a rough example and compare arrangements.\n- The action label is Explore an example; its destination must be supplied and verified before use.\n\nUnknowns:\n- No credentials, outcomes, commercial offer, real biography or existing product availability is supplied." }, { "id": "FC-B02", "markdown": "**Fictional exercise.** Write an instruction-revision activity.\n\nFacts:\n- A learner selects one instruction, underlines its action word and circles what the action applies to.\n- A second version may move the action near the start.\n- The two versions are read aloud and compared for meaning and first action.\n\nUnknowns:\n- No measured learning outcome or universal effectiveness is established.\n- Use in the actual task remains the next check." }, { "id": "FC-B03", "markdown": "**Fictional exercise.** Write a serious incident notice for a hypothetical editor.\n\nFacts:\n- The latest draft did not save.\n- The last saved copy is available.\n- Any still-accessible unsaved text can be kept in a separate file.\n\nUnknowns:\n- The cause is unconfirmed.\n- Recovery of the latest changes is uncertain.\n- No restoration guarantee or recovery time is supplied." } ], "counts": { "resources": 53, "profileSkills": 29, "modules": 20, "aliases": 2, "merges": 2, "commonSamples": 148, "historicalSamples": 96, "probes": 8, "humanReadings": 80, "samples": 343 }, "limits": "Editorial guidance with separately attributed historical readings. Targets differ from observations; no quality, humanity, separation or repeatability score. Public projection does not establish installation or preference." }