@litfamily/lithermes 1.0.8 → 1.0.9

package/assets/lithermes-plugin/skills/lit-humanizer/references/ko-patterns-a-d.md

@@ -0,0 +1,659 @@
+# Korean pattern catalog: A–D
+
+This shard expands the 85 source IDs into editing guidance. An ID is a review cue, not an authorship finding. Evidence labels describe the source taxonomy: validated means it reports comparative corpus or model evidence for the cue; weak means the entry is a linguistic or editorial hypothesis without direct comparative support for that exact cue; hold means the source explicitly says not to use it as a rewrite basis. Several validated findings show that a form is more common in human writing, so validation can support preservation rather than removal. Never rewrite a sentence merely to satisfy a count.
+
+## A. Translation-shaped syntax
+
+### A-1 | Topic-framing phrase
+- What: A noun is repeatedly wrapped in a formal “about this topic” phrase.
+- Why: The wrapper postpones the verb and can mirror an English preposition.
+- Detect: Heuristic only; consider it only when the same construction clusters three times in one paragraph.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: We need to discuss the new rule in relation to its rollout.
+> Better: We need to discuss how the new rule changes the rollout.
+> Bad: This chapter is about the district budget.
+> Better: This chapter covers the district budget.
+- False positives: The source measured the equivalent as more common in human Korean than model text. Keep ordinary uses.
+- Evidence: validated; measured direction argues for restraint, with density as the only editing trigger.
+
+### A-2 | Means-and-pathway phrase
+- What: Many actions are expressed as “through” a method instead of naming the action.
+- Why: Repeating one connector makes distinct processes sound interchangeable.
+- Detect: Heuristic only; review three or more uses in a paragraph, not an isolated occurrence.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The team gained insight through analysis of the logs.
+> Better: The team analyzed the logs and found the timeout.
+> Bad: Applicants can submit the form through the portal.
+> Better: Applicants can submit the form in the portal.
+- False positives: Korean corpus evidence in the source shows this construction is common in original Korean. Do not treat one use as a tell.
+- Evidence: validated; prior corpus comparison rejects the simple “translationese” claim.
+
+### A-3 | Situation-padding phrase
+- What: A sentence begins with a formal phrase meaning “in this matter.”
+- Why: It inserts a noun wrapper where a direct topic or location works.
+- Detect: Regex or heuristic; look for the fixed phrase at a sentence boundary.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: In the matter of access, the deadline is Friday.
+> Better: The access deadline is Friday.
+> Bad: In the question of staffing, two posts remain open.
+> Better: Two staffing posts remain open.
+- False positives: Legal or academic prose may need to delimit a formal domain.
+- Evidence: weak; the source offers a conventional editorial diagnosis, not comparative counts.
+
+### A-4 | Reason-label clause
+- What: A clause ends by labeling its preceding claim as a “point” or “aspect.”
+- Why: The label can restate the relation instead of adding evidence.
+- Detect: Heuristic; look for repeated noun-plus-reason endings and test whether a causal connector is clearer.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The queue is shorter, in the sense that fewer requests wait.
+> Better: Fewer requests wait, so the queue is shorter.
+> Bad: The route is useful in that it avoids the bridge.
+> Better: The route avoids the bridge.
+- False positives: Preserve it where a formal distinction really matters.
+- Evidence: weak; the source reports no observed cases in two comparison sets, which is not evidence of a strong tell.
+
+### A-5 | Related-to wrapper
+- What: A sentence names a topic through a long relation phrase.
+- Why: The phrase hides the actual action or relation.
+- Detect: Regex or heuristic; flag clusters, not a single technical relation.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: We raised two issues related to account recovery.
+> Better: We raised two account-recovery issues.
+> Bad: The notice concerns matters related to scheduling.
+> Better: The notice covers scheduling.
+- False positives: “Related to” is useful when the relation is genuinely broad or not yet classified.
+- Evidence: weak; no direct comparative measurement is given for this entry.
+
+### A-6 | Basis-wrapper repetition
+- What: A decision is repeatedly said to rest on a named basis.
+- Why: The wrapper can conceal whether the writer used, compared, or merely received that basis.
+- Detect: Heuristic; inspect repetition and replace only where the action is known.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: We chose the date on the basis of the booking records.
+> Better: The booking records set the date.
+> Bad: The score was determined based on the submitted totals.
+> Better: We calculated the score from the submitted totals.
+- False positives: Keep the phrase when it distinguishes evidence from a rule or assumption.
+- Evidence: weak; a general style recommendation, with no direct tier study for this form.
+
+### A-7 | Possession verb for a quality
+- What: A quality is framed as something an entity “has.”
+- Why: The sentence can turn a simple property into a padded noun phrase.
+- Detect: Heuristic; inspect whether the quality can be stated as a predicate.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The motor has high efficiency.
+> Better: The motor is efficient.
+> Bad: The page has good readability.
+> Better: The page is easy to read.
+- False positives: Keep literal possession, inventory, or an object held by a person.
+- Evidence: weak; the source extends the cue to light-verb constructions but gives no comparative count for this pattern alone.
+
+### A-8 | Double passive
+- What: Two passive or causative layers stack around one action.
+- Why: The extra layer hides the actor and lengthens the predicate.
+- Detect: Regex or heuristic for doubled passive endings; inspect the actual actor before switching to active voice.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The request was being processed through the queue.
+> Better: The queue processed the request.
+> Bad: The label came to be assigned by the import job.
+> Better: The import job assigned the label.
+- False positives: Keep a passive when the actor is unknown, irrelevant, or intentionally withheld.
+- Evidence: weak; the source links it to translation studies but presents no per-item corpus result.
+
+### A-9 | Agent-by phrase plus passive
+- What: A sentence names an agent in a preposition-like phrase while keeping a passive predicate.
+- Why: The agent appears late, even though it could lead the sentence.
+- Detect: Heuristic; require both an explicit actor phrase and a passive action.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The image was generated by the render service.
+> Better: The render service generated the image.
+> Bad: The file was deleted by the cleanup task.
+> Better: The cleanup task deleted the file.
+- False positives: Passive voice remains appropriate when the affected object is the topic.
+- Evidence: weak; a translation-shaped syntax cue without direct comparative measurement here.
+
+### A-10 | Repeated ability modality
+- What: Several adjacent claims use the same “can” form for possible outcomes.
+- Why: Repetition can make a paragraph sound mechanically parallel.
+- Detect: Heuristic only; look for four or more repetitions and preserve modality.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The patch can reduce retries. It can lower load. It can shorten the queue.
+> Better: The patch may reduce retries; load and queue time may fall too.
+> Bad: The filter can hide drafts. It can group them. It can export them.
+> Better: The filter hides drafts and groups them; export remains available.
+- False positives: In medical, legal, policy, and forecast text, possibility strength is part of the claim. The source now says not to vary this form there.
+- Evidence: weak; even the source’s suggested rhythm edit is restricted because modality changes meaning.
+
+### A-11 | Purpose-clause repetition
+- What: Each action is introduced by a long “for the purpose of” clause.
+- Why: The purpose wrapper delays the action and can overstate intent.
+- Detect: Heuristic; repeated use may warrant a shorter purpose clause.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The team met for the purpose of comparing bids.
+> Better: The team met to compare bids.
+> Bad: She opened a second window in order to check the total.
+> Better: She opened a second window to check the total.
+- False positives: The source measured this family as more common in human prose; retain ordinary uses.
+- Evidence: validated; source data argues against treating it as a standalone AI marker.
+
+### A-12 | Event made passive
+- What: A natural event or agreement is described as something “made” or “achieved.”
+- Why: The nominal event plus generic verb can hide who agreed or what changed.
+- Detect: Heuristic; ask who acted and whether an event verb exists.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: An agreement was reached on Tuesday.
+> Better: The two teams agreed on Tuesday.
+> Bad: A review was conducted before release.
+> Better: The team reviewed the build before release.
+- False positives: Keep conventional institutional wording when the actor is unknown or deliberately general.
+- Evidence: weak; the source gives editorial examples but no direct counts.
+
+### A-13 | Unmarked noun chain
+- What: Several nouns are placed next to each other without showing their grammatical relation.
+- Why: The reader must infer which noun modifies or acts on another.
+- Detect: Heuristic; inspect compact headline-like strings in body prose.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: Regional water demand forecast update begins today.
+> Better: The agency updates its forecast of regional water demand today.
+> Bad: Battery storage safety review summary is ready.
+> Better: The safety review of battery storage is ready.
+- False positives: Keep established compounds, table headings, and search labels.
+- Evidence: weak; no comparative evidence is listed for this individual cue.
+
+### A-14 | Clause joined by a stock conjunction
+- What: A full new clause is repeatedly attached with the same additive connector.
+- Why: It can flatten actions into a sequence without showing their relation.
+- Detect: Heuristic; check whether clauses are sequential, causal, or independent.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: He signed the form, and then he sent it.
+> Better: He signed the form and sent it.
+> Bad: The gate opened. And the bus left.
+> Better: The gate opened, so the bus left.
+- False positives: Keep the conjunction when it marks an actual addition or a deliberate spoken rhythm.
+- Evidence: weak; this is a prose-editing cue, not a measured classifier.
+
+### A-15 | Abstract subject with a generic verb
+- What: An event, idea, or tool is made to “show,” “offer,” or “bring” a broad result.
+- Why: It can avoid naming the person or process that supports the claim.
+- Detect: Heuristic; check for an abstract subject plus a generic perception or provision verb.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The launch shows the value of the new queue.
+> Better: The launch cut the queue from 18 minutes to 6.
+> Bad: The policy offers better outcomes for families.
+> Better: The policy raises the monthly child allowance.
+- False positives: Keep a figurative subject when it is precise and familiar in the genre.
+- Evidence: weak; the source connects the pattern to translation theory but does not provide a clean standalone comparison.
+
+### A-16 | Unanchored pronoun
+- What: A pronoun is used where Korean would normally omit it or repeat a noun.
+- Why: Translation can preserve English pronouns and leave an unclear referent.
+- Detect: Judgment only; identify the antecedent in the preceding two sentences and keep the pronoun if more than one candidate remains.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The report names two buyers. They approved it.
+> Better: The report names two buyers. The board approved the plan.
+> Bad: The router stores the token. It expires in an hour.
+> Better: The router stores the token, which expires in an hour.
+- False positives: Never delete a pronoun by percentage target; restore a noun only when the referent is known.
+- Evidence: weak; the source calls its own window and noun-phrase approximation preliminary.
+
+### A-17 | Plural marker on inanimate abstract nouns
+- What: An abstract or inanimate noun receives a plural marker mechanically.
+- Why: Korean often leaves plurality unmarked when number is not contrastive.
+- Detect: Judgment only; this source ID is on hold and is not a rewrite instruction.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The report compares three informations from the survey.
+> Better: The report compares three pieces of survey information.
+> Bad: Several data were removed before analysis.
+> Better: Several records were removed before analysis.
+- False positives: Do not alter quoted text, technical usage, or legitimate counted sets.
+- Evidence: hold; the source found no positives in two small review rounds and awaits machine-translation samples.
+
+### A-18 | Deep left-branch modifier
+- What: Several clauses accumulate before the noun they describe.
+- Why: Readers wait too long to learn the subject of the modifier.
+- Detect: Heuristic; look for three or more nested pre-nominal clauses, not a single modifier.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The file that the service that handles image uploads created failed.
+> Better: The upload service created the file, and that file failed.
+> Bad: The team that the director that joined in June formed left.
+> Better: The director joined in June and formed the team. The team later left.
+- False positives: Long modifiers can be essential in legal or technical definitions; split only if the referent stays clear.
+- Evidence: weak; the source cites translation scholarship but gives no direct model-versus-human measurement.
+
+### A-19 | Stacked case particles
+- What: Multiple Korean case particles are joined into one heavy noun modifier.
+- Why: A phrase can be clearer as a clause or a simpler relation.
+- Detect: Regex or heuristic for the source’s listed compound endings; simple possessive marking is outside scope.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The review of the proposal from the committee starts Monday.
+> Better: The committee starts reviewing the proposal Monday.
+> Bad: The route toward the station was closed.
+> Better: The road to the station was closed.
+- False positives: Preserve conventional terminology and a simple possessive; do not flatten exact spatial relations.
+- Evidence: weak; the source explicitly excludes broad single-particle forms because evidence is unsettled.
+
+### A-20 | Passive-progressive clustering
+- What: A paragraph repeats passive progressive predicates to describe every trend.
+- Why: Repetition produces a report-like metronome and can hide a changing state.
+- Detect: Heuristic; consider three or more instances in a paragraph.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: Costs are rising. Delays are increasing. Complaints are growing.
+> Better: Costs rose, delays lengthened, and complaints increased.
+> Bad: The queue is being expanded while limits are being tightened.
+> Better: The operator is expanding the queue and tightening its limits.
+- False positives: Retain the form for a continuing process or when the source leaves the actor unknown.
+- Evidence: validated; the source reports human usage too and requires a dense cluster before editing.
+
+### A-21 | “Beyond a simple X” escalation
+- What: A sentence first dismisses a smaller frame and then elevates the subject.
+- Why: The contrast can add importance without a concrete relation.
+- Detect: Regex or heuristic for a simple-thing-overcome construction.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The update goes beyond a dashboard to transform planning.
+> Better: The update adds a dashboard that shows weekly demand.
+> Bad: The club is more than a hobby; it shapes the city.
+> Better: The club meets twice a week and runs the city tournament.
+- False positives: A real comparison can be meaningful when both sides are specified.
+- Evidence: validated; the source reports no matching human examples in its tested set, but do not generalize beyond that set.
+
+### A-22 | Confidence label added to a claim
+- What: A sentence says a conclusion is “clear” or “obvious” instead of stating it.
+- Why: The confidence label can substitute for evidence.
+- Detect: Heuristic; distinguish the evaluative predicate from an adverb that preserves the author’s intended confidence.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: It is clear that the valve leaks at 4 bar.
+> Better: The valve leaks at 4 bar.
+> Bad: The result is obvious from the first run.
+> Better: The first run shows the result.
+- False positives: If the author intends emphatic certainty, retain it in a natural form without deleting the proposition.
+- Evidence: weak; the source warns against changing the strength of a conclusion.
+
+### A-23 | Groundwork metaphor
+- What: A measure is said to pave a way, lay a foundation, or open a horizon without naming what it enables.
+- Why: A construction metaphor can replace a concrete mechanism with future promise.
+- Detect: Regex or heuristic for the fixed metaphor family.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The new registry lays the groundwork for safer reviews.
+> Better: The registry records who approved each review.
+> Bad: The pilot opens a new horizon for local transit.
+> Better: The pilot adds an evening bus between the station and the hospital.
+- False positives: Keep literal foundations, routes, doors, and physical access.
+- Evidence: validated; source saw no direct AI or translation examples and no removals in its sampled editing pass, so treat it as a narrow check.
+
+### A-24 | “No longer” negation frame
+- What: A change is described through a repeated “no longer X” construction.
+- Why: It may state the new condition indirectly or create a binary reveal.
+- Detect: Heuristic; check for two document-level uses or a climactic redefinition.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The file is no longer stored on the laptop.
+> Better: The file now lives on the shared drive.
+> Bad: The group is no longer a volunteer team.
+> Better: The group became a paid service in May.
+- False positives: Preserve the negative proposition when a positive rewrite would invent what replaced it.
+- Evidence: validated; the source measured low rates in human material and also observed the phrase being introduced by editors.
+
+## B. English terms inside Korean
+
+### B-1 | Repeated parenthetical English
+- What: Every technical term is followed by its English label or acronym.
+- Why: Repeated parentheticals interrupt Korean sentence flow.
+- Detect: Heuristic; count repeated expansions after the first definition.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The model (model) reads the token (token) and returns a score.
+> Better: The model reads the token and returns a score.
+> Bad: The dashboard shows the API (application programming interface) on every page.
+> Better: Define API once, then use API consistently.
+- False positives: Retain the first needed expansion and terms for a specialist audience.
+- Evidence: weak; no direct comparison is reported for this formatting habit.
+
+### B-2 | Decorative English buzzword
+- What: English adjectives are inserted for prestige rather than technical precision.
+- Why: They can make a simple action sound like product marketing.
+- Detect: Judgment only; ask whether the term names a recognized interface or standard.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The service gives a seamless onboarding experience.
+> Better: The service lets new members finish setup without losing their place.
+> Bad: We leverage a robust framework for handoffs.
+> Better: We use the framework to hand off requests safely.
+- False positives: Keep API names, protocol terms, and vocabulary the reader expects.
+- Evidence: weak; the source gives editorial examples rather than language-pair counts.
+
+### B-3 | Long English quotation with duplicate translation
+- What: A full English statement is reproduced beside a Korean paraphrase.
+- Why: The quotation can double the reading load without adding tone or legal precision.
+- Detect: Heuristic; review only when both versions carry the same point.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: “The road was closed at noon.” 도로는 정오에 폐쇄됐다.
+> Better: 도로는 정오에 폐쇄됐다. 원문 표현이 중요하면 각주에 둔다.
+> Bad: “No further action is required.” 추가 조치는 필요하지 않다.
+> Better: 추가 조치는 필요하지 않다.
+- False positives: Preserve exact quotations, contract language, and wording under linguistic analysis.
+- Evidence: weak; no direct comparative evidence is attached to the source entry.
+
+### B-4 | “Known as” naming wrapper
+- What: A name is introduced with an unnecessary phrase meaning “known as.”
+- Why: It can make a simple name sound like a translation.
+- Detect: Regex or heuristic around naming clauses.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The method known as sparse caching cuts storage.
+> Better: Sparse caching cuts storage.
+> Bad: The group called the North Dock Team meets Friday.
+> Better: The North Dock Team meets Friday.
+- False positives: Keep it when a nickname, disputed label, or alternative name needs attribution.
+- Evidence: weak; the source rates the cue as mild and gives no comparison.
+
+## C. Layout and paragraph rhythm
+
+### C-1 | Mechanical numbered trio
+- What: A three-part sequence is built even when the ideas do not need it.
+- Why: Equal labels and cadence can flatten differences in importance.
+- Detect: Judgment only; test each item for a distinct role.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: We checked speed, quality, and scalability.
+> Better: We measured startup time and checked output quality; scaling remains untested.
+> Bad: The workshop covers plan, build, and review in three identical blocks.
+> Better: The workshop starts with a plan, spends most time building, then closes with a review.
+- False positives: Keep a true three-part classification and vary item length only when content supports it.
+- Evidence: weak; the source cautions that enumeration is ordinary Korean rhetoric.
+
+### C-2 | Bullets where prose would connect the ideas
+- What: A flowing explanation is split into a long block of full-sentence bullets.
+- Why: Each bullet loses the link between cause, result, and exception.
+- Detect: Heuristic; compare the list with a paragraph; do not impose a percentage target.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: - The room closed. - Staff moved the session. - Attendees got an email.
+> Better: Staff moved the session after the room closed and emailed attendees.
+> Bad: - The patch adds a cache. - It cuts database calls. - It expires after an hour.
+> Better: The patch caches results for an hour, cutting database calls.
+- False positives: Preserve checklists, scan-friendly slides, and truly independent items.
+- Evidence: weak; genre matters more than raw bullet count.
+
+### C-3 | Repeated generic section headings
+- What: Sections use a uniform outline such as introduction, body, and conclusion.
+- Why: Headings may describe document mechanics instead of the section’s subject.
+- Detect: Judgment only; inspect the actual section content.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: Introduction / Main Points / Conclusion.
+> Better: Why the gate failed / The missing header / How to reproduce it.
+> Bad: Background / Analysis / Next steps for every incident report.
+> Better: Name the incident, observed effect, and owner in each heading.
+- False positives: Keep required academic sections and templates that readers navigate by.
+- Evidence: weak; the source calls out an editorial pattern, not a measured predictor.
+
+### C-4 | Paragraph preview sentence
+- What: A paragraph starts with a summary that the next sentence repeats.
+- Why: The preview delays the supporting fact.
+- Detect: Heuristic; compare the first two sentences for duplicate information.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The cache is faster. It reduced the endpoint time from 900 ms to 240 ms.
+> Better: The cache cut endpoint time from 900 ms to 240 ms.
+> Bad: Two teams objected. The API and design teams both rejected the date.
+> Better: The API and design teams both rejected the date.
+- False positives: A short thesis sentence is useful when the supporting paragraph is long.
+- Evidence: weak; no standalone validation is described.
+
+### C-5 | Emoji used as report structure
+- What: Decorative icons replace meaningful labels or headings.
+- Why: The symbols add noise and may render differently across export formats.
+- Detect: Regex can find emoji; judgment decides whether the medium expects them.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: 🚀 Launch: The service opens in Q3.
+> Better: The service opens in Q3.
+> Bad: ✅ Result: All 14 checks passed.
+> Better: All 14 checks passed.
+- False positives: Keep icons in social copy, chat, or a slide system where they carry consistent meaning.
+- Evidence: weak; category severity comes from editorial taxonomy rather than a broad corpus result.
+
+### C-6 | One-line summary box under a heading
+- What: A heading is followed by a short boxed or bold summary, then the same detail.
+- Why: The summary can repeat the first sentence and create a second opening.
+- Detect: Heuristic; compare the callout to the section’s first paragraph.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: **Performance:** Faster pages. The first page now loads in 400 ms.
+> Better: The first page now loads in 400 ms.
+> Bad: Key point: three workers remain. Three workers are still assigned.
+> Better: Three workers remain assigned.
+- False positives: Keep the summary when a dashboard or executive brief requires a scan-first takeaway.
+- Evidence: weak; the source gives examples but no measured tier.
+
+### C-7 | Fixed transition sequence
+- What: Paragraphs repeatedly follow the same “first, contrast, therefore” sequence.
+- Why: The sequence can force a conclusion that the evidence did not establish.
+- Detect: Heuristic; look for the same three transition roles across neighboring paragraphs.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: First, demand rose. By contrast, supply fell. Therefore, prices changed.
+> Better: Demand rose while supply fell; prices then increased by 8 percent.
+> Bad: First came the pilot. In contrast, the rollout was larger. Finally, costs increased.
+> Better: The pilot covered two clinics. The rollout reached twelve and cost $40,000 more.
+- False positives: Keep transitions that accurately mark chronology or contrast.
+- Evidence: weak; the source presents it as a recurrent editorial template.
+
+### C-8 | Repeated rhetorical binary
+- What: Several sections pose a symmetrical “A or B?” question.
+- Why: Repeating the question shape can turn analysis into a sequence of staged pivots.
+- Detect: Judgment only; count the repeated structure at document level.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: Is the problem capacity or demand? Is the risk speed or accuracy?
+> Better: Demand exceeds capacity, and slower review raises the accuracy risk.
+> Bad: Is this a staffing issue or a training issue?
+> Better: New staff need two weeks of training before they can cover the evening shift.
+- False positives: A single real decision question may be the clearest framing.
+- Evidence: hold-like caution; the source promoted it from repeated examples but provides no stable cross-model measurement. Keep it a manual review cue.
+
+### C-9 | Parenthesized numbered sequence
+- What: A list uses inline forms like (1), (2), (3) where ordinary prose would flow.
+- Why: The syntax can make a simple paragraph feel like a legal checklist.
+- Detect: Heuristic; verify whether order or cross-reference matters.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: We test (1) login, (2) export, and (3) deletion.
+> Better: We test login, export, then deletion.
+> Bad: The review covered (1) cost and (2) staffing.
+> Better: The review covered cost and staffing.
+- False positives: Keep numbered controls where readers must cite a specific step.
+- Evidence: weak; the source notes the form as a discovered pattern without a broad comparison.
+
+### C-10 | Colon subtitle headings
+- What: Many headings use a repeated “topic: dramatic restatement” shape.
+- Why: The title can announce a transition instead of naming the section.
+- Detect: Heuristic; examine repeated heading patterns, not a useful single colon.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: Results: What the team learned.
+> Better: Results from the second test.
+> Bad: Migration: From old settings to the new flow.
+> Better: The new settings flow.
+- False positives: Colons are appropriate in references, subtitles, and technical specifications.
+- Evidence: weak; the source associates it with limited model samples.
+
+### C-11 | Comma after a connective ending
+- What: Korean connective endings are followed by commas in a repeated English-like cadence.
+- Why: Commas can segment clauses where Korean syntax normally carries them forward.
+- Detect: Regex or morphology-aware heuristic; validate that the ending is grammatical, not a word substring.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: She opened the window and, checked the latch.
+> Better: She opened the window and checked the latch.
+> Bad: The sensor warmed up, then, returned a value.
+> Better: The sensor warmed up, then returned a value.
+- False positives: Keep a comma when it marks a real interruption or prevents ambiguity.
+- Evidence: validated; the source reports a 4.84× separation in one external study, not a universal threshold.
+
+### C-12 | Document-wide comma density
+- What: Many sentences contain multiple commas, including long clause chains.
+- Why: Several subordinate ideas may be competing for one sentence.
+- Detect: Metric candidate; measure comma-bearing sentence share and inspect the longest spans.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The team opened the gate, checked the seal, and logged the pressure, before the pump started.
+> Better: The team checked the seal and logged the pressure. Then the pump started.
+> Bad: The sensor, which arrived Monday, after a delayed customs review, passed calibration.
+> Better: The sensor arrived Monday after customs delayed it. It passed calibration.
+- False positives: Numeric lists and formal prose naturally use commas; edit only when the clause load harms reading.
+- Evidence: validated; source cites a 2.32× separation but leaves genre-specific limits.
+
+## D. Recurrent phrases and endings
+
+### D-1 | Stock conclusion pivots
+- What: Several paragraphs close with the same small group of summary transitions.
+- Why: The transition may supply formality instead of a new inference.
+- Detect: Lexicon metric can count conclusion cues; source recommends a document threshold of three total.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: In conclusion, the trial ended Friday.
+> Better: The trial ended Friday.
+> Bad: Therefore, the next review is in March.
+> Better: The next review is in March.
+- False positives: A conclusion marker can distinguish a real inference from the preceding evidence.
+- Evidence: weak; the lexicon originates in comparative research but should not be used alone as a block rule.
+
+### D-2 | Significance inflation
+- What: Ordinary facts are described as pivotal, historic, or deeply consequential without support.
+- Why: Evaluative language can inflate a detail while obscuring the detail itself.
+- Detect: Lexical review plus evidence check; do not block one adjective in context.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The update marks a pivotal moment for the service.
+> Better: The update adds scheduled exports, its first new feature this year.
+> Bad: The office plays a vital role in the process.
+> Better: The office approves the permit before construction.
+- False positives: Preserve importance claims supported by an explicit criterion or attributed assessment.
+- Evidence: weak; the source groups this under a family of stock formulas without Korean corpus counts.
+
+### D-3 | List-announcing introduction
+- What: A sentence announces a list before restating the same items.
+- Why: The introduction adds a layer of ceremony.
+- Detect: Heuristic; check for a short preview followed by a full list.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: Three changes matter: the API, cache, and retry policy.
+> Better: The patch changes the API, cache, and retry policy.
+> Bad: Two factors affected timing: snow and road work.
+> Better: Snow and road work delayed the delivery.
+- False positives: Keep a list lead when it helps scan a long or complex set of items.
+- Evidence: weak; no direct comparison is provided for this entry.
+
+### D-4 | Model-hype adjectives
+- What: Strong praise words cluster around a product or plan without measurable support.
+- Why: Repeated intensity sounds like promotion, not description.
+- Detect: Lexical heuristic and density review; match the source’s genre and claim.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The system delivers a revolutionary, unprecedented leap in safety.
+> Better: The system reduced false alarms from 12 to 7 per shift.
+> Bad: The pilot brought a remarkable and groundbreaking improvement.
+> Better: The pilot cut setup time by 18 minutes.
+- False positives: Keep an attributed quotation or a precise award description.
+- Evidence: validated; the source reports repeated model-specific clusters, while warning that model and genre affect them.
+
+### D-5 | Abstract noun as a human actor
+- What: An abstraction is said to decide, collide, or lead as if it were a person.
+- Why: The metaphor can hide the people or events that caused the result.
+- Detect: Judgment only; identify the implied actor before rewriting.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The disagreement decided the final schedule.
+> Better: The managers changed the schedule after they disagreed.
+> Bad: A clash of priorities delayed the permit.
+> Better: The planning office delayed the permit because the teams disputed the boundary.
+- False positives: A conventional metaphor may be vivid and accurate in an essay.
+- Evidence: weak; source classification is illustrative rather than directly measured.
+
+### D-6 | Formulaic “now is the time” ending
+- What: A recommendation ends with a generic call to act at the right moment.
+- Why: The ending asserts urgency without naming an owner or date.
+- Detect: Heuristic; check for a concrete action hidden beneath a ceremonial close.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: Now is the time to modernize the intake process.
+> Better: The intake team will test the new form in April.
+> Bad: This is the moment to invest in training.
+> Better: Schedule two training sessions before the June rollout.
+- False positives: Keep a time call when an actual deadline or decision follows.
+- Evidence: weak; no measured comparison is listed.
+
+### D-7 | “From X to Y” transformation arc
+- What: A small change is framed as a journey from one state to another.
+- Why: The arc can suggest a larger transformation than the facts support.
+- Detect: Heuristic; require a stated before-and-after relation and check whether the range is real.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The redesign takes support from reactive to proactive.
+> Better: The redesign adds an alert before a ticket exceeds 24 hours.
+> Bad: The program moves from access to empowerment.
+> Better: The program lets 40 residents book a weekly clinic visit.
+- False positives: Preserve real migrations and measured changes in state.
+- Evidence: weak; source notes a narrow model sample.
+
+### D-8 | Cleft emphasis frame
+- What: A sentence delays its subject by saying “what matters is X.”
+- Why: The frame can manufacture emphasis when a direct clause would suffice.
+- Detect: Regex or heuristic for a cleft opener; check whether it adds contrast.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: What the second test found was a 12 percent loss.
+> Better: The second test found a 12 percent loss.
+> Bad: The important thing is that the queue is full.
+> Better: The queue is full.
+- False positives: Keep the cleft when it contrasts with a specific alternative already under discussion.
+- Evidence: validated; the source reports task-matched corpus evidence, while cautioning against changing the claim.
+
+### D-9 | Causal “ultimately leads to” close
+- What: A paragraph concludes with a broad causal chain and no intermediate evidence.
+- Why: A summary verb can imply causation that the preceding facts do not prove.
+- Detect: Heuristic; trace each link to an already stated observation.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: Delays ultimately lead to a stronger team.
+> Better: Delays extended the handoff by two days.
+> Bad: The change ultimately resulted in better coordination.
+> Better: The change moved approval into one shared queue.
+- False positives: Keep a causal conclusion when the source establishes its mechanism.
+- Evidence: validated; source findings caution that the formula can also be injected during editing.
+
+### D-10 | Reverse explanation ending
+- What: A sentence ends by calling a prior event “the reason why.”
+- Why: The ending can turn a sequence into a causal claim without support.
+- Detect: Heuristic; confirm the causal link before making the sentence direct.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The restart is why the outage ended.
+> Better: The outage ended after the restart.
+> Bad: A late signature is why the order missed Monday.
+> Better: The order missed Monday because the signature arrived late.
+- False positives: Keep a causal claim only when the source supports it; preserve correlation otherwise.
+- Evidence: validated; source reports task-matched mined examples and warns against adding the formula during rewrite.
+
+### D-11 | Vague future horizon at the end
+- What: A conclusion gestures toward the long term without naming a date or event.
+- Why: A temporal phrase can make a generic prediction sound like a plan.
+- Detect: Heuristic; inspect the last paragraph for an unsupported future promise.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The change will matter over the long term.
+> Better: The next review is scheduled for September.
+> Bad: Going forward, the team will keep improving access.
+> Better: The team will add weekend access in October.
+- False positives: Keep a forecast horizon when a cited model or plan specifies it.
+- Evidence: validated; the source describes corpus-mined examples, with no basis to invent a replacement date.
+
+### D-12 | Empty challenges slot
+- What: A balanced conclusion says challenges remain without naming one.
+- Why: It performs fairness without informing the reader.
+- Detect: Heuristic; require a named unresolved issue before retaining the slot.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: Some challenges remain for the next phase.
+> Better: The next phase still lacks a backup approver.
+> Bad: Risks remain, but the team is optimistic.
+> Better: The vendor has not confirmed delivery of the two test devices.
+- False positives: A real risk section can be required; name actual risks rather than deleting them.
+- Evidence: validated; source reports convergence across independent mining; do not add a risk that was absent from the draft.
+
+### D-13 | Reflective adverb as a manufactured insight
+- What: A general reflection is introduced with a slow or profound-sounding adverb.
+- Why: The modifier may announce emotion that the facts do not support.
+- Detect: Judgment only; use only for reflective essays, not reports or testimony.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: Slowly, the project taught us the value of patience.
+> Better: The team missed two dates before it added a weekly review.
+> Bad: At last, we learned that maps need labels.
+> Better: We added labels after readers confused the two routes.
+- False positives: Preserve an author’s real memory, uncertainty, or cadence.
+- Evidence: validated but genre-limited; source says the signal comes from essay mining and should not generalize to reports.
+
+### D-14 | Generic generated metaphor
+- What: Broad images of horizons, journeys, bridges, or foundations replace concrete outcomes.
+- Why: The metaphor can make unrelated projects sound the same.
+- Detect: Judgment only; identify the literal event before editing.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The dashboard is a bridge to a brighter future.
+> Better: The dashboard shows each clinic its open referrals.
+> Bad: The course opens a new horizon for learners.
+> Better: The course lets learners practice three interview questions.
+- False positives: Keep a specific, author-owned metaphor or quoted language.
+- Evidence: validated; the source reports repeated user-observed cases, while prescribing no universal ban.