@litfamily/litopencode 1.0.7 → 1.0.10

package/skills/lit-humanizer/references/en-patterns-content.md

@@ -0,0 +1,243 @@
+# English patterns: content and wording
+
+These patterns combine overlapping observations from the five read-only sources. They are review cues for a local edit, not proof that a person used a model.
+
+## EN-C01 | Significance inflation
+- Overlap: HumanInk #1 (weight 9); humanizer 13; Wikipedia content section on significance and legacy.
+- What / why: A modest event receives a sweeping historical or social claim without supporting evidence. The extra claim can outgrow the fact.
+- Detect: Search for importance verbs and broad consequence claims, then ask which source supports each clause.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The office opened in 1989, marking a pivotal moment in regional statistics.
+> Better: The office opened in 1989.
+> Bad: The new form represents a historic shift for the department.
+> Better: The department replaced its paper form with an online form.
+- False positives: Keep importance when the source attributes it or a concrete measure supports it.
+- Evidence: weak as authorship evidence; strong as an editing check when the claim adds unsupported interpretation.
+
+## EN-C02 | Coverage and notability padding
+- Overlap: HumanInk #2 (7); Wikipedia coverage and notability category.
+- What / why: Several outlets or followers are listed as a substitute for what a source actually said.
+- Detect: Look for an outlet list without a claim, date, or context.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: Her work appeared in North Star, City Journal, and four national outlets.
+> Better: In a 2024 North Star interview, she argued for later school start times.
+> Bad: The group has 80,000 followers and broad online recognition.
+> Better: The group had 80,000 followers in its December 2024 profile.
+- False positives: A source list belongs in a bibliography; do not infer what coverage proves.
+- Evidence: weak; the source category is context-sensitive and does not make ordinary press coverage suspicious.
+
+## EN-C03 | Superficial analysis rider
+- Overlap: HumanInk #3 (8); humanizer 15; Wikipedia superficial-analysis category.
+- What / why: A trailing participle claims that a fact is said to represent a larger meaning without evidence.
+- Detect: Inspect “-ing” clauses attached after a complete factual sentence.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The gate opened at 6 p.m., highlighting the site’s commitment to access.
+> Better: The gate opened at 6 p.m.
+> Bad: The colors are blue and gold, symbolizing the region’s history.
+> Better: The design uses blue and gold to refer to the region’s history.
+- False positives: Keep the interpretation if a named source makes it and the wording represents that source accurately.
+- Evidence: weak; a recognizable style cue, not proof of unsupported intent.
+
+## EN-C04 | Promotional wording
+- Overlap: HumanInk #4 (8); humanizer 16; Wikipedia promotional-language category; no-ai-slop puffery checks.
+- What / why: A neutral description takes on brochure language: vivid praise, prestige, or excitement.
+- Detect: Search for clusters of praise words, then replace them with the thing’s location, feature, or action.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: Ridgefield is a breathtaking town nestled in a vibrant valley.
+> Better: Ridgefield is a town in the valley.
+> Bad: The groundbreaking service offers an exceptional booking experience.
+> Better: The service lets customers book a time online.
+- False positives: Keep quoted advertising language or an attributed review; marketing copy may require an approved brand voice.
+- Evidence: weak as an authorship clue; useful as a check for unsupported interpretation.
+
+## EN-C05 | Vague authority
+- Overlap: HumanInk #5 (7); humanizer 17; Wikipedia vague-attribution category.
+- What / why: A claim borrows authority from unnamed experts or reports.
+- Detect: Search for plural authorities with no source or named speaker.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: Experts expect the river level to rise.
+> Better: The forecast expects the river level to rise; cite the agency and date if supplied.
+> Bad: Some analysts say hiring will slow.
+> Better: The draft provides no named analyst for this claim; label it as an estimate or remove it.
+- False positives: A named source may be in the nearby sentence; do not invent a publication.
+- Evidence: weak; a source-quality concern, not a reliable authorship cue.
+
+## EN-C06 | Stock challenges and outlook paragraph
+- Overlap: HumanInk #6 (6), #24 (8), #28 (7); humanizer 13; Wikipedia challenge/future and recognition headings.
+- What / why: A generic obstacle paragraph and upbeat ending fill the expected outline without adding a specific problem or plan.
+- Detect: Check whether each challenge and future claim has a concrete example, owner, date, or source.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The district faces common urban challenges but remains poised for growth.
+> Better: The draft names traffic and water supply as open issues; remove the generic growth sentence.
+> Bad: The future looks bright as the company continues its journey.
+> Better: The company plans to open two locations next year.
+- False positives: Keep an actual risk section, attributed forecast, or documented award.
+- Evidence: weak; useful editorial test, not a universal pattern.
+
+## EN-C07 | Broad AI-associated vocabulary
+- Overlap: HumanInk #7 (9); humanizer 12; no-ai-slop vocabulary list; Wikipedia language section.
+- What / why: Dense clusters of high-register verbs and abstract nouns can make a passage sound generic.
+- Detect: Lexical search followed by a meaning check; one occurrence is not enough.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The plan leverages a robust framework to streamline the landscape.
+> Better: The plan uses one shared checklist to shorten review.
+> Bad: The report delves into the intricate interplay of four programs.
+> Better: The report compares how the four programs divide referrals.
+- False positives: Keep technical uses and a writer’s own preferred vocabulary.
+- Evidence: weak; source lists differ by genre, time, and model.
+
+## EN-C08 | Avoidance of simple copulas
+- Overlap: HumanInk #8 (7); humanizer 18; Wikipedia basic-copulative category.
+- What / why: Short verbs such as “is” and “has” are replaced with longer phrases.
+- Detect: Heuristic; test whether the subject simply is, has, or does something.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: Gallery 825 serves as the local exhibition space.
+> Better: Gallery 825 is the local exhibition space.
+> Bad: The folder features three sample files.
+> Better: The folder has three sample files.
+- False positives: A longer verb is right when it names a distinct action.
+- Evidence: weak; avoid turning a word preference into a ban.
+
+## EN-C09 | Vague relation word
+- Overlap: HumanInk #5 (7); Wikipedia connection/association category; humanizer 14.
+- What / why: The text says two items are connected but does not explain the relation.
+- Detect: Find a broad association phrase and check if the source names the actual relationship.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: Lee is associated with the Harbor Ensemble.
+> Better: Lee founded and conducts the Harbor Ensemble, if those facts appear in the source.
+> Bad: The meeting was connected to the anniversary.
+> Better: The meeting was part of the anniversary program.
+- False positives: Preserve a deliberately broad relation when the source gives no more precise one.
+- Evidence: weak; clarify only from supplied facts.
+
+## EN-C10 | Throat-clearing and filler
+- Overlap: HumanInk #22 (6), #30 (7); humanizer 4, 12; no-ai-slop list; stop-slop phrases.
+- What / why: An announcement delays the point or lengthens a simple relation.
+- Detect: Search for prefaces that can be deleted without losing content.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: It is worth noting that the sample has 42 rows.
+> Better: The sample has 42 rows.
+> Bad: Due to the fact that rain continued, the event was delayed.
+> Better: The event was delayed because rain continued.
+- False positives: Keep conversational language that contributes to a writer’s recognizable voice.
+- Evidence: validated only for the exact pasted service or filler residue; weak for general word lists.
+
+## EN-C11 | Empty conclusion
+- Overlap: HumanInk #24 (8), #28 (7); humanizer 2, 13; no-ai-slop ending review.
+- What / why: The close praises progress or restates the opening instead of leaving a new fact, choice, or action.
+- Detect: Compare the last paragraph with the lead and the body’s final concrete point.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The project made strong progress, and exciting times lie ahead.
+> Better: The project will open its second location in October.
+> Bad: As shown above, the clinic serves more patients now.
+> Better: The clinic added 14 appointments a day.
+- False positives: Keep a conclusion required by the format when it adds an actual decision or implication.
+- Evidence: weak; comparison helps editing, not authorship attribution.
+
+## EN-C12 | False range or synonym cycling
+- Overlap: HumanInk #11 (6), #12 (5); humanizer 7; no-ai-slop repetition check.
+- What / why: Near-synonyms rotate to avoid repetition, or unrelated endpoints are presented as a scale.
+- Detect: Track repeated referents and ask whether the endpoints belong to one measurable continuum.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The protagonist meets obstacles, challenges, and barriers before the hero returns.
+> Better: The protagonist faces several obstacles and then returns.
+> Bad: The course ranges from the first star to the farthest galaxy.
+> Better: The course covers stars and distant galaxies.
+- False positives: Keep different technical terms when they refer to different entities.
+- Evidence: weak; ordinary variation is not itself an issue.
+
+## EN-C13 | Rubber-stamp adjectives
+- Overlap: HumanInk #32 (5); no-ai-slop importance check.
+- What / why: General adjectives such as remarkable or substantial claim magnitude without a comparison.
+- Detect: Ask “how much, relative to what, or according to whom?”
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The company made substantial progress.
+> Better: The company shipped three of its four planned features.
+> Bad: The review found a remarkable improvement.
+> Better: The error rate fell from 7% to 4%.
+- False positives: Keep an attributed evaluation or a defined threshold.
+- Evidence: weak; the source itself says context determines whether a modifier carries information.
+
+## EN-C14 | Stacked hedging
+- Overlap: HumanInk #23 (7); no-ai-slop qualifier check; humanizer 9.
+- What / why: Several qualifiers signal one uncertain claim and make its scope hard to read.
+- Detect: Identify every qualifier and retain those with a distinct evidential role.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: It could possibly maybe affect the next release.
+> Better: It may affect the next release.
+> Bad: The estimate might potentially be somewhat higher.
+> Better: The estimate may be higher.
+- False positives: Medical, legal, policy, scientific, financial, and forecast qualifiers can each alter meaning. Do not remove them mechanically.
+- Evidence: weak; an editing heuristic, with important meaning-preservation exceptions.
+
+## EN-C15 | Source-gap speculation
+- Overlap: HumanInk #20 (8); humanizer 23; Wikipedia knowledge-cutoff and source-gap category.
+- What / why: A passage notes missing source detail, then guesses a date, motive, or biography.
+- Detect: Separate what the source states from what the writer inferred; look for model-knowledge references.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The filing does not give a launch date; the company likely began in the late 1990s.
+> Better: The filing does not give a launch date.
+> Bad: I cannot access current records, but the office probably moved in 2018.
+> Better: The supplied records do not establish when the office moved.
+- False positives: A precise statement of missing evidence can be important. Keep it without speculation.
+- Evidence: validated for pasted model-limit wrappers; weak for careful source-gap statements.
+
+## EN-C16 | Dead metaphor
+- Overlap: HumanInk #26 (6); humanizer 3; stop-slop quotable and metaphor checks.
+- What / why: A familiar metaphor substitutes for the mechanism or result.
+- Detect: Search for a standard image and ask what physically or procedurally happened.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The new plan is a bridge to a brighter future.
+> Better: The new plan links the west clinic to the transit station.
+> Bad: The upgrade is a double-edged sword for the staff.
+> Better: The upgrade removes duplicate entry but requires a second sign-in.
+- False positives: Keep an original metaphor that belongs to the author’s voice.
+- Evidence: weak; metaphor frequency depends strongly on genre.
+
+## EN-C17 | False analytical depth
+- Overlap: HumanInk #3 (8); stop-slop interpretation check; no-ai-slop generic portability check.
+- What / why: A sentence claims “commitment,” “impact,” or “resonance” without an observable connection.
+- Detect: Ask what evidence supports the interpretation and whether the sentence adds a testable fact.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The schedule reflects the team’s deep commitment to quality.
+> Better: The team added a second review before release.
+> Bad: This choice shows the company’s dedication to customers.
+> Better: The company added weekend support.
+- False positives: A quoted opinion or measured satisfaction result can support an interpretation.
+- Evidence: weak; resolve the claim against its source instead of guessing the author’s motive.
+
+## EN-C18 | Exhaustive feature inventory
+- Overlap: HumanInk #31 (6); no-ai-slop proportionality; stop-slop detail check.
+- What / why: A list continues beyond the few items relevant to the reader, sometimes cycling through near-synonyms.
+- Detect: Look for five or more list items and ask which ones affect the decision.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The tool supports speed, flexibility, extensibility, reliability, stability, and robustness.
+> Better: The tool starts quickly and recovers after a failed request.
+> Bad: The form records every optional preference, contact detail, and background note.
+> Better: The form records the contact details needed to schedule the visit.
+- False positives: Keep complete inventories required for compliance or implementation.
+- Evidence: weak; completeness can be the assignment.
+
+## EN-C19 | Announced point and emphasis filler
+- Overlap: stop-slop throat-clearing and emphasis phrases; no-ai-slop filler review; HumanInk #22 (6) and #30 (7).
+- What / why: An announcement or emphatic phrase delays a claim that can stand on its own.
+- Detect: Read the words after the preface. If they contain the full point, remove the runway.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: It is worth noting that the deadline is 14 June.
+> Better: The deadline is 14 June.
+> Bad: The thing that matters most is that three clinics opted out.
+> Better: Three clinics opted out.
+- False positives: Keep an opening that adds an actual transition, disclosed reaction, or authorial voice the task calls for.
+- Evidence: weak; phrase lists are genre and context dependent.
+
+## EN-C20 | Sweeping intensifiers and absolutes
+- Overlap: stop-slop adverb and lazy-extreme checks; no-ai-slop precision review; humanizer word-choice guidance.
+- What / why: An intensifier or universal claim enlarges a statement beyond the evidence it carries.
+- Detect: Check whether the modifier changes the measurable claim. Replace a broad universal with the observed group or remove the modifier.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: Every team always gets the same result.
+> Better: The three teams in the pilot got the same result.
+> Bad: The update completely solves every import problem.
+> Better: The update fixes the malformed UTF-8 import reported in issue 82.
+- False positives: Preserve quantities, scope words, and adverbs when they change the claim accurately.
+- Evidence: weak; individual adverbs and absolutes are ordinary language.

package/skills/lit-humanizer/references/en-patterns-structure.md

@@ -0,0 +1,375 @@
+# English patterns: structure, formatting, and source use
+
+These entries combine formatting and communication observations from HumanInk, humanizer, stop-slop, no-ai-slop, and Wikipedia’s field guide. A pattern is a reason to inspect a passage, not a reason to normalize every document.
+
+## EN-S01 | Negative-then-positive contrast
+- Overlap: HumanInk #9 (weight 6); humanizer 1; stop-slop binary contrast; Wikipedia negative parallelism.
+- What / why: A sentence creates an opponent or weak view, then announces the writer’s positive claim.
+- Detect: Look for paired negatives and positives; the current detector warns only for a sentence-opening contrast or two occurrences in a document.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The issue is not the server, but the cache key.
+> Better: The cache key causes the issue.
+> Bad: This is not merely a form change; it is a new review process.
+> Better: The form change also adds a review step.
+- False positives: Keep the contrast when it corrects a claim the reader actually holds or when both halves add facts.
+- Evidence: weak; structure alone is not authorship evidence.
+
+## EN-S02 | Forced three-part list
+- Overlap: HumanInk #10 (5); humanizer 6; stop-slop rhythm check; Wikipedia rule-of-three category.
+- What / why: Related ideas are forced into a triad for a feeling of completeness.
+- Detect: Check whether all three members are distinct and needed.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The meeting covered speed, quality, and excellence.
+> Better: The meeting covered speed and output quality.
+> Bad: The town needs innovation, inspiration, and investment.
+> Better: The town needs investment for the two planned repairs.
+- False positives: Keep three true alternatives, stages, or measurable dimensions.
+- Evidence: weak; lists of three are ordinary writing.
+
+## EN-S03 | Repeated sentence opening
+- Overlap: humanizer 7; stop-slop rhythm check.
+- What / why: Several neighboring sentences begin with the same subject or phrase without a rhetorical reason.
+- Detect: Compare sentence starts across a paragraph.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The clerk checked the form. The clerk called the applicant. The clerk closed the case.
+> Better: The clerk checked the form, called the applicant, then closed the case.
+> Bad: It stores the key. It renews the key. It removes the key.
+> Better: It stores and renews the key, then removes it.
+- False positives: Keep an intentional refrain or legal sequence that relies on repeated wording.
+- Evidence: weak; repetition can be a deliberate voice choice.
+
+## EN-S04 | Staged question or false alternative
+- Overlap: humanizer 4–5; stop-slop rhetorical setup; HumanInk #21 (weight 9) for praise framing.
+- What / why: A question, confession, or rejected option announces an insight without adding support.
+- Detect: Ask whether the following sentence answers an objection that appears nowhere else.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: Have you ever wondered why the printer stops? The paper sensor is dirty.
+> Better: A dirty paper sensor stops the printer.
+> Bad: You might think the team needs another server, but the query is unindexed.
+> Better: The query lacks an index.
+- False positives: Keep a real interview question or a concern that the draft explicitly answers.
+- Evidence: weak; the exact setup can be effective in essays and conversation.
+
+## EN-S05 | Dramatic fragments and negative listing
+- Overlap: stop-slop structures; humanizer 2 and 5.
+- What / why: Short fragments build drama before stating one ordinary point.
+- Detect: Look for a row of fragments that can be stated as a complete claim.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: No handoff. No owner. No plan. Just a missed deadline.
+> Better: Nobody owned the handoff, so the deadline passed without a plan.
+> Bad: The button moved. Then the icon. Then the label.
+> Better: The redesign moved the button, icon, and label.
+- False positives: Preserve fragments in dialogue, poetry, or a voice that uses them intentionally.
+- Evidence: weak; cadence and genre matter.
+
+## EN-S06 | Colon reveal or announced takeaway
+- Overlap: humanizer 4; HumanInk #15 (6) for label lists; no-ai-slop colon check.
+- What / why: A short headline announces a routine fact as a reveal.
+- Detect: Inspect a colon whose text after it is one plain sentence.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: Key takeaway: the review took two days.
+> Better: The review took two days.
+> Bad: The surprise: both files were already present.
+> Better: Both files were already present.
+- False positives: Keep colons for lists, quotes, definitions, and real section labels.
+- Evidence: weak; a local editing cue.
+
+## EN-S07 | Transition-word chain
+- Overlap: HumanInk #27 (5); stop-slop transition guidance; Wikipedia signposting.
+- What / why: Repeated connectors announce every paragraph’s relation, even when the relation is obvious or absent.
+- Detect: Count repeated transitions in one section and check the logic each one expresses.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: Meanwhile, the clinic closed. On the other hand, the bus ran. That said, the road remained open.
+> Better: The clinic closed, but the bus kept running while the road stayed open.
+> Bad: Also, the launch moved. Moreover, the build took longer.
+> Better: The launch moved because the build took longer.
+- False positives: Keep a transition that clarifies a genuine contrast or consequence.
+- Evidence: weak; the source’s own threshold is a frequency check, not a block rule.
+
+## EN-S08 | Repeated one-line closer
+- Overlap: HumanInk #28 (7); humanizer 2 and 13; no-ai-slop ending review.
+- What / why: A final one-sentence paragraph repeats the point or adds a generic slogan.
+- Detect: Compare it with the immediately preceding paragraph and the opening.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The cache cut repeat work. That is the real win.
+> Better: The cache cut repeat work.
+> Bad: The team shipped the fix Friday. The future is bright.
+> Better: The team shipped the fix Friday.
+- False positives: Keep a one-line ending that adds an action, date, or distinct conclusion.
+- Evidence: weak; a paragraph’s last line can carry deliberate emphasis.
+
+## EN-S09 | Uniform paragraph lengths
+- Overlap: HumanInk #29 (6); stop-slop rhythm checks.
+- What / why: Several paragraphs have the same sentence count and length despite changing subject.
+- Detect: A rough metric can flag four or more similarly sized prose paragraphs; review the content before editing.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: Four report sections each use three sentences of similar length.
+> Better: Let the one-sentence result stand alone and keep the methods section at its needed length.
+> Bad: Every chapter paragraph ends with a short summary line.
+> Better: Keep summary lines only where they help navigation.
+- False positives: Templates and manuals may need regular paragraph shapes.
+- Evidence: weak; uniformity is not proof and can aid scanning.
+
+## EN-S10 | Bold-label vertical list
+- Overlap: HumanInk #15 (6); humanizer 19; Wikipedia inline-header lists.
+- What / why: Each bullet repeats a bold category label and then explains it.
+- Detect: Scan for several consecutive bullets with the same label-and-colon structure.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: - Speed: The query is faster. - Safety: The gate is safer.
+> Better: The query is faster, and the gate rejects unsigned input.
+> Bad: - Owner: Mira reviews. - Date: Friday is due.
+> Better: Mira will finish the review by Friday.
+- False positives: Keep labels in dashboards, forms, slides, and reference lists.
+- Evidence: weak; formatting depends on the reader’s scanning task.
+
+## EN-S11 | Bullets replacing connected prose
+- Overlap: HumanInk #34 (5); humanizer 19; Wikipedia list-format observations.
+- What / why: A paragraph becomes a long list even though the items form one sentence or cause chain.
+- Detect: Ask whether items are independent and whether the list materially improves scanning.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: - The server restarted. - The queue cleared. - The alert stopped.
+> Better: The server restarted, which cleared the queue and stopped the alert.
+> Bad: - Rain began. - The field closed. - The match moved indoors.
+> Better: Rain forced the match indoors after the field closed.
+- False positives: Keep checklists, requirements, decisions, and true enumerations.
+- Evidence: weak; many professional genres rely on lists.
+
+## EN-S12 | Numbered steps for a simple sequence
+- Overlap: HumanInk #35 (5); humanizer layout categories.
+- What / why: A short procedure receives numbered packaging that implies complex stages.
+- Detect: Ask if sequence, prerequisites, or cross-reference require numbers.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: 1. Open the lid. 2. Pour the water. 3. Close the lid.
+> Better: Open the lid, pour the water, then close it.
+> Bad: Step 1: Save the file. Step 2: Open the folder.
+> Better: Save the file and open the folder.
+- False positives: Keep numbered steps when order is consequential or users need to cite a step.
+- Evidence: weak; procedure shape is task-dependent.
+
+## EN-S13 | Heading repeats title or body
+- Overlap: humanizer 20 and 24; Wikipedia heading and title categories.
+- What / why: A page title is repeated as an H1, or a heading is followed by a sentence that restates it.
+- Detect: Compare title, first heading, and first sentence for duplicate content.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: # Performance / Performance matters.
+> Better: # Performance / The page opens in 400 ms on the test device.
+> Bad: ## Results / The results were positive.
+> Better: ## Results / The error rate fell from 7% to 4%.
+- False positives: Some site templates require an H1 that matches the page title.
+- Evidence: weak; format and platform conventions decide.
+
+## EN-S14 | Title Case or heading-level decoration
+- Overlap: HumanInk #16 (4); Wikipedia title case, skipped levels, many top-level headings, and thematic breaks.
+- What / why: Headings capitalize every word, jump levels, or use repeated rules as decoration.
+- Detect: Follow the document or platform style guide; inspect hierarchy before changing case.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: ## Results From The Winter Trial
+> Better: ## Results from the winter trial
+> Bad: # Main / #### Detail / --------
+> Better: # Main / ## Detail
+- False positives: Keep proper names, publication styles, and headings required by an editor.
+- Evidence: hold as an authorship clue; it is ordinary style and platform variation.
+
+## EN-S15 | Bold used as decoration
+- Overlap: HumanInk #14 (4); humanizer 19; Wikipedia boldface category.
+- What / why: Many phrases are bolded, so emphasis loses contrast.
+- Detect: Review bold density in body text, not navigation labels.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The **new** form **replaces** the **old** form **on Friday**.
+> Better: The new form replaces the old form on Friday.
+> Bad: The plan uses **three** separate **review** stages.
+> Better: The plan uses three separate review stages.
+- False positives: Keep emphasis that helps navigation or accessibility.
+- Evidence: hold as authorship evidence; the source severity is low and formatting varies by product.
+
+## EN-S16 | Emoji as professional formatting
+- Overlap: HumanInk #17 (5); Wikipedia emoji formatting.
+- What / why: Decorative symbols replace a clear heading or sentence.
+- Detect: Contextual review; do not remove icons that encode status consistently.
+- 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: Social posts, informal chat, and accessible status legends may use emoji deliberately.
+- Evidence: hold as a general signal; conventions differ.
+
+## EN-S17 | Em dash as a default connector
+- Overlap: HumanInk #13 (5); humanizer 8; Wikipedia em-dash category; stop-slop punctuation rule.
+- What / why: Dashes repeatedly bridge clauses without specifying their relationship.
+- Detect: Count clusters and compare with the writer’s sample and publication style.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The build—after review—shipped—the same day—on Friday.
+> Better: The build shipped Friday after review.
+> Bad: The test—once restarted—passed—the second time.
+> Better: After a restart, the test passed on its second run.
+- False positives: A single dash can be natural; some writers use them as a signature.
+- Evidence: hold as a single-instance indicator; only a repeated cluster merits review.
+
+## EN-S18 | Hyphenated compound overuse
+- Overlap: humanizer 10; no-ai-slop hyphen check.
+- What / why: Compounds are hyphenated in positions where the house style uses open forms.
+- Detect: Compare attributive and predicative uses against the publication style guide.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The report is high-quality and data-driven.
+> Better: The report is high quality and driven by the data.
+> Bad: The interface is user-friendly after launch.
+> Better: The interface is easy to use after launch.
+- False positives: Hyphens are often correct before a noun and in established terms.
+- Evidence: hold as authorship evidence; orthography varies.
+
+## EN-S19 | Parentheses and tables used as a holding bin
+- Overlap: Wikipedia unusual-table notes; humanizer format rules; stop-slop trust-the-reader principle.
+- What / why: Parentheses or dense tables collect details that the sentence or a note could state more clearly.
+- Detect: Ask whether each aside changes the main claim and whether a table has real comparison columns.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The router (after restart) (following an alert) accepted the key.
+> Better: After the alert, the router accepted the key when it restarted.
+> Bad: A two-column table repeats each paragraph in shorter form.
+> Better: Keep the paragraph and use a table only for the actual comparison.
+- False positives: Preserve technical notes, citations, cross-reference tables, and parenthetical author voice.
+- Evidence: weak; layout purpose determines clarity.
+
+## EN-S20 | Broken or unexplained markup
+- Overlap: Wikipedia markup and template categories; humanizer 25; detector-research synthesis.
+- What / why: Leftover editor markup, malformed references, or tool tokens appear in prose.
+- Detect: Validate links, brackets, code spans, citation tokens, and rendering in the target host.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The result{{ref?}} appears in [section 3.
+> Better: The result appears in section 3, with a valid citation.
+> Bad: The source marker is followed by an unexplained internal cite token.
+> Better: Replace it with the actual reference or remove it if no source exists.
+- False positives: Code examples and quoted markup are data, not prose defects.
+- Evidence: validated for a broken artifact that fails to render; it does not identify who wrote it.
+
+## EN-S21 | Citation integrity problems
+- Overlap: Wikipedia citation categories: broken links, invalid identifiers, unrelated references, incomplete book details, unused references, tracking parameters.
+- What / why: A citation may fail to support the claim even when its syntax looks plausible.
+- Detect: Resolve each link or identifier; check the cited page and the claim it supports.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: A report cites a dead URL with no archived copy.
+> Better: Replace the link with a working primary source, or state that support is unavailable.
+> Bad: A DOI opens a paper about a different method.
+> Better: Cite the paper that contains the stated method.
+- False positives: A broken link can have a human cause. Repair evidence instead of labeling authorship.
+- Evidence: validated as a reference-quality check, not a prose-origin signal.
+
+## EN-S22 | Placeholder text and pseudo-citations
+- Overlap: Wikipedia phrasal templates, placeholder text and reference-markup issues; HumanInk #20.
+- What / why: Draft notes or source-shaped placeholders remain where a real citation should be.
+- Detect: Search for empty names, template markers, or citations that do not resolve to an item.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The population rose, according to [source needed].
+> Better: Add the source that measured the population or remove the unsupported claim.
+> Bad: The report cites an unnamed “recent survey.”
+> Better: Name the survey and its date if supplied; otherwise call the statement unverified.
+- False positives: A visible TODO is appropriate in a draft handed to an editor.
+- Evidence: weak for authorship, strong as a completion check.
+
+## EN-S23 | Process-heavy edit narration
+- Overlap: Wikipedia edit-summary categories; humanizer 25; local workflow-jargon cues.
+- What / why: The artifact narrates that it preserved, retained, or carefully complied instead of stating the revised content.
+- Detect: Ask whether the sentence describes the subject or the editing process.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: I preserved all relevant citations and fixed the formatting.
+> Better: The report cites the survey in note 4 and uses one heading style.
+> Bad: The change was made in order to retain the original behavior.
+> Better: The change keeps the original behavior.
+- False positives: Change logs, review notes, and audit records need process narration.
+- Evidence: weak in internal records; strong as leftover text in a standalone deliverable.
+
+## EN-S24 | Abrupt style shift
+- Overlap: Wikipedia pronounced-style-shift category; humanizer voice-preservation section.
+- What / why: One section differs sharply in tone, sentence structure, or vocabulary from its neighbors.
+- Detect: Compare adjacent sections and the author’s supplied samples; do not use a detector score.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: A plain report switches to a promotional paragraph midway through.
+> Better: Keep the stated facts and return to the report’s established register.
+> Bad: A first-person essay suddenly uses a formal generic biography voice.
+> Better: Preserve the author’s original point of view throughout.
+- False positives: A quoted passage, change in audience, or authored section boundary may explain the shift.
+- Evidence: weak; verify provenance and keep distinct voices intact.
+
+## EN-S25 | Internal citation or editor marker in published prose
+- Overlap: Wikipedia tool-specific citation residue and comment indicators; source-synthesis workflow keys.
+- What / why: A model or editing interface marker appears as if it were a reader-facing citation.
+- Detect: Review rendered output and link target, not just the text source.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The sentence ends with an unexplained internal search-result token.
+> Better: Replace the token with a checked citation or remove it.
+> Bad: A comment includes a tool command as its only source.
+> Better: Link to the document or explain the source in ordinary prose.
+- False positives: An article explaining markup may quote these markers as examples.
+- Evidence: validated as publication cleanup; never infer authorship from the marker alone.
+
+## EN-S26 | Chat residue and reflexive agreement
+- Overlap: HumanInk #19 (weight 10), #21 (9), #33 (8); humanizer chatbot residue; no-ai-slop conversation residue.
+- What / why: A pasted greeting, praise, agreement, or invitation speaks to a chat user instead of advancing the document.
+- Detect: Check opening and final lines for service phrases, then remove them only when they are not part of a quoted exchange.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: Great question! The permit portal closes at 4 p.m.
+> Better: The permit portal closes at 4 p.m.
+> Bad: The new form has four sections. Let me know if you'd like me to explain them.
+> Better: The new form has four sections: contact, dates, eligibility, and signature.
+- False positives: Keep actual interview dialogue, user-facing service copy, or a requested conversational reply.
+- Evidence: validated for identifying pasted response residue; the phrase does not establish the origin of surrounding prose.
+
+## EN-S27 | Context-free modern-world opener
+- Overlap: HumanInk #25 (weight 8), #7 (9); Wikipedia generalization and significance categories.
+- What / why: A broad claim about the modern era delays the topic without giving a date, location, or change.
+- Detect: Search opening clauses for claims about today's world, changing conditions, or a new era; retain only a sourced time frame.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: In today's world, clinics need reliable appointment systems.
+> Better: Clinics need reliable appointment systems.
+> Bad: As we navigate an increasingly connected era, residents file forms online.
+> Better: Residents file the forms online.
+- False positives: Keep a dated historical comparison or a specifically sourced change over time.
+- Evidence: weak; the phrase family is a searchable editorial clue, not a universal marker.
+
+## EN-S28 | Passive voice
+- Overlap: stop-slop passive-voice structure; Wikipedia communication and source-attribution checks.
+- What / why: A passive can hide an actor who matters to the reader.
+- Detect: Ask whether the source names the actor and whether naming them improves the sentence. Do not infer an actor.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The request was approved on Tuesday.
+> Better: The review board approved the request on Tuesday, if the source identifies it as the board's decision.
+> Bad: The notice was sent by the clinic on Monday.
+> Better: The clinic sent the notice on Monday.
+- False positives: Keep passive voice when the actor is unknown, irrelevant, protected, or intentionally omitted.
+- Evidence: weak; grammar is not an authorship signal. Attribution accuracy is the reason to review.
+
+## EN-S29 | Quote-style normalization
+- Overlap: HumanInk #18 (weight 3); document-specific typography conventions.
+- What / why: Straight and curly quotation marks are mixed without a house-style reason.
+- Detect: Compare the document with its style guide; do not scan quote glyphs as a universal defect.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The notice calls the event “optional” and later says it is "required."
+> Better: The notice calls the event "optional" and later says it is "required." (when the guide specifies straight quotes)
+> Bad: The guide defines 'active status' as the current subscription state, then uses “active status” for the same term.
+> Better: The guide uses “active status” consistently for the subscription state. (when the guide specifies curly quotes)
+- False positives: Preserve exact source quotations when changing punctuation would violate a citation, transcript, legal, or archival requirement.
+- Evidence: hold; typography follows the publication's style guide and carries no authorship weight.
+
+## EN-S30 | False agency in objects and abstractions
+- Overlap: stop-slop false-agency structure; Wikipedia communication observations; humanizer active-voice guidance.
+- What / why: A document, dataset, rule, or abstract noun appears to decide or act when a person or system performed the action.
+- Detect: Find the verb's real actor in the supplied material. If the actor is unavailable, keep the original scope without inventing one.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: The dataset tells us that families prefer June.
+> Better: In the survey, 18 of 25 families chose June.
+> Bad: The complaint became a repair plan.
+> Better: The facilities team used the complaint to write a repair plan.
+- False positives: Conventional subjects such as “the report states” or “the system rejects” are clear when they name a real source or function.
+- Evidence: weak; check agency for clarity and attribution, not as a detector of authorship.
+
+## EN-S31 | Distant narrator and rhetorical setup
+- Overlap: stop-slop narrator-distance and sentence-starter checks; humanizer guidance on direct openings.
+- What / why: A sentence tells readers that an explanation is coming instead of stating it.
+- Detect: Remove the introductory question or announcement temporarily. Keep it only if it changes the reader's understanding.
+- Bad → better:
+> Bad: This is why the callback takes five seconds.
+> Better: The callback takes five seconds because the client reuses its token.
+> Bad: Nobody designed the paper form to be clear.
+> Better: The paper form puts the signature field below the fold.
+- False positives: Keep a genuine question, scene-setting voice, or attributed personal observation.
+- Evidence: weak; a direct start is often clearer, while narrative voice remains a valid choice.