Writing Judgment Framework
A cognitive framework for making writing decisions. Complements the diagnostic writing_quality_check.md with judgment heuristics.
The Clarity Test
For every paragraph, ask: "If I remove this paragraph, does the paper still make sense?"
- Yes, and nothing is lost → Delete the paragraph
- Yes, but context is lost → Keep, but it's a supporting paragraph — keep it short
- No, the argument breaks → This is a load-bearing paragraph — it deserves the most careful writing
Judgment heuristic: Most AI-generated academic text fails the clarity test because every paragraph is given equal weight. Vary your investment: load-bearing paragraphs get multiple drafts; supporting paragraphs get one.
The Reader's Journey
Academic writing is a guided tour. At any point, the reader should be able to answer:
- Where am I? (Section structure, signposting)
- Why am I here? (Connection to the research question)
- What should I take away? (The point of this section)
- Where am I going next? (Transition logic)
If ANY of these is unclear, the writing needs revision — regardless of how accurate the content is.
Discipline-Specific Voice
| Discipline | Typical Voice | What Makes It Credible |
|---|---|---|
| Hard sciences | Impersonal, passive, hedged | Precision of measurement and method |
| Social sciences | Semi-personal, active, qualified | Transparency about limitations |
| Humanities | Personal, argumentative, interpretive | Depth of engagement with sources |
| Engineering | Direct, specification-oriented | Reproducibility of results |
| Medical | Structured, protocol-focused | Adherence to reporting guidelines |
Judgment heuristic: If you're writing "We argue that..." in a physics paper or "The data indicates..." in a humanities essay, you've adopted the wrong voice for the discipline.
The "So What" Hierarchy for Sections
| Section | The reader's "So What?" | Your job |
|---|---|---|
| Introduction | Why should I care about this topic? | Hook with a real-world consequence or knowledge gap |
| Literature Review | What's missing from what we know? | Build to the gap, don't just summarize |
| Methodology | Can I trust these results? | Show rigor, acknowledge limitations upfront |
| Results | What did you actually find? | Lead with the finding, not the statistical test |
| Discussion | What does this mean for the field? | Connect back to the gap; state the delta clearly |
| Conclusion | What should I remember? | One sentence that captures the contribution |
Revision Decision Matrix
When revising based on reviewer feedback:
| Reviewer Says | Your Options | Decision Framework |
|---|---|---|
| "Unclear" | Rewrite for clarity | Always do this — it costs nothing |
| "Missing reference" | Add if relevant | Check if it genuinely fills a gap or is self-citation promotion |
| "Wrong method" | Evaluate, justify, or change | If your method is defensible, justify with evidence; if not, this may require Major changes |
| "Not novel enough" | Strengthen framing | Reframe contribution, don't add unnecessary analyses |
| "Too long" | Cut ruthlessly | Apply the Clarity Test paragraph by paragraph |