# Article Architecture

Use this reference when writing or rebuilding manuscript sections. The patterns
come from curated Nature and Nature Communications examples across materials,
energy, construction decarbonization and machine learning. They are structural
patterns, not wording templates.

## Full-paper argument

A strong paper can usually be reduced to:

`field-scale need -> unresolved bottleneck -> proposed move -> decisive evidence
-> broader implication -> boundary`

Before drafting, force the user's material into this chain. If one link is
missing, mark it as missing rather than writing around it.

## Abstract

Recommended paragraph movement:

1. Field-scale context or problem.
2. Why current routes do not fully solve it.
3. What this paper introduces or demonstrates.
4. The strongest result, preferably with quantitative or comparative support.
5. The mechanism, workflow or practical consequence.
6. Bounded implication.

Useful diagnostics:

- If the abstract begins with `Here, we`, it may be missing context.
- If it ends with a broad promise, it may need scope control.
- If it contains no number, comparison or concrete test, it may feel ungrounded.

## Introduction

Use a controlled funnel:

1. Establish the field stake.
2. Explain the bottleneck in existing practice.
3. Treat prior work fairly and specifically.
4. Identify the remaining capability gap.
5. State the present study as a direct response to that gap.

Avoid:

- a literature list without a narrowing logic
- claiming novelty by dismissing prior work
- announcing results before the reader understands the question

## Results

Arrange Results as an evidence ladder:

1. system, workflow or design space overview
2. validation that the platform or assay is credible
3. primary performance or discovery result
4. fair comparison with baseline, standard practice or prior method
5. mechanism, diagnostic analysis or interpretability
6. scale-up, application, generalization or stress test

Subsection opening rule:

`To test [question], we [action].`

Then report the result and evidence. Keep interpretation short unless the
paragraph explicitly transitions toward Discussion.

## Discussion

Discussion should widen from finding to meaning:

1. central advance
2. why the evidence supports it
3. how it changes a workflow, design rule or conceptual boundary
4. how it relates to previous studies
5. what limits or dependencies remain
6. what future work is now plausible

Do not restate every figure. Select the evidence that changes interpretation.

## Conclusion

Use a compact four-part close:

1. This work demonstrates or establishes the main contribution.
2. The decisive evidence is named.
3. The broader implication is stated.
4. The boundary condition is clear.

Conclusions should not introduce new data, new citations or new mechanisms.

## Title

Good titles are concrete and searchable:

`system/object + capability/action + application/consequence`

Examples of title logic:

- material plus function
- method plus task
- process plus scale
- model plus data regime

Avoid vague prestige words such as `novel`, `advanced`, `powerful`, `green`,
`efficient` unless they are made concrete by the rest of the title.
