# Writing Strategy

Use this file when the user is not just asking for cleaner English, but for better scientific writing logic. This is the layer that should govern all paragraph- and section-level rewriting.

## Core stance

Academic polishing is not only about style. It is also about making the reasoning legible. A polished paragraph that still performs the wrong rhetorical job is a failed edit.

## Hourglass structure

Most strong research writing follows a `broad -> narrow -> broad` pattern:

- `Introduction`: open the territory, narrow to the gap, then state the study
- `Discussion/Conclusion`: start from the specific findings, then widen to implications and limits

Use this pattern when deciding paragraph order and section scope. If a draft jumps between background, results, and implications without control, rebuild the progression first.

## Writing order is not reading order

The author may draft in one order and the reader may consume in another. A useful planning sequence is:

1. results
2. introduction and conclusion
3. title
4. discussion
5. methods
6. abstract

The practical rule for this skill is simple: organize around evidence and argumentative function, not around the chronology of the raw draft.

## Claim, evidence, boundary

Every important scientific statement should have three parts:

1. `claim`: what is being said
2. `evidence`: what supports it
3. `boundary`: where the claim stops, or what uncertainty remains

Typical failures:

- claim without evidence
- data without an explicit point
- implication without a scope condition
- correlation rewritten as mechanism

When polishing, repair these failures before polishing rhythm.

## Section responsibilities

### Introduction

The Introduction should answer four questions:

1. What is already known?
2. What remains unresolved?
3. What exact question does this study ask?
4. How does the study address it?

Do not summarize results or conclusions here.

### Results

Results state what was observed. They should provide:

- object or system
- condition
- quantitative support
- direct result

Do not turn Results into a Discussion section by adding long mechanistic interpretation.

### Discussion

Discussion explains what the findings mean. It should address:

- how the work fits the broader field
- what has been added to understanding
- which earlier work is being supported, revised, or complicated
- which explanations are plausible
- which limitations constrain the interpretation

Discussion is the natural home for hedging.

### Methods

Methods should pass a reproducibility test: could another group repeat the work from this description, or from this description plus a clearly cited prior protocol?

Reject vague writing such as:

- `under standard conditions`
- `using routine methods`
- `data were analysed statistically`

### Conclusion

Conclusion is not a mini-discussion. A strong closing usually does three things:

1. restates the central contribution
2. identifies the decisive evidence
3. states the implication with a boundary

Do not introduce new data here.

### Abstract

The abstract is a mini-paper:

1. context or problem
2. gap
3. approach
4. key result
5. implication

It should help the reader decide whether the paper is relevant, credible, and potentially important.

## Citation as positioning

Citation is not just a formatting issue. It tells the reader how the current work stands relative to earlier work.

Useful categories:

- `support`: prior work supports the premise
- `borrow`: current work adopts a method, framework, or protocol
- `contrast`: current work differs in result, setting, or interpretation
- `reuse/adaptation`: material, data, code, or images come from elsewhere

Always cite the source actually read and verified. Do not cite a paper as direct support if you only know it through another paper's summary.

## Fairness to earlier work

Do not manufacture novelty by flattening previous studies into a weak baseline. Prefer language like:

- `Although previous studies showed ..., their performance in ... remains unclear.`
- `Earlier work established ..., but did not address ...`

This preserves intellectual honesty while still making the gap explicit.

## Overclaim control

Watch for:

- `prove`
- `conclusively`
- `unprecedented`
- `best`
- unqualified `first`

Replace or qualify them unless the evidence is unusually strong and the scope is tightly defined.
