psyclaw 0.28.1 → 0.28.3

package/vendor/nature-skills/skills/nature-shared/README_EN.md

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+# `nature-shared/` - shared support package for nature-* skills
+
+This is an installable support package, not a standalone user workflow. It keeps the shared definitions and references used by multiple `nature-*` skills in one place so those sources stay consistent and update together. A complete `npx skills` installation discovers and manages it alongside the user-facing skills.
+
+Sibling skills reference these files through relative paths such as:
+
+```yaml
+always_load:
+  - ../nature-shared/core/reader-workflow.md
+```
+
+## Contents
+
+| File | Consumers |
+|---|---|
+| `core/reader-workflow.md` | `nature-polishing`, `nature-writing` |
+| `core/paper-type-taxonomy.md` | `nature-polishing`, `nature-writing` |
+| `core/ethics.md` | `nature-polishing`, `nature-writing` |
+| `core/research-compliance.md` | `nature-writing` and skills needing Nature Portfolio specialist compliance checks |
+| `core/terminology-ledger.md` | `nature-polishing`, `nature-writing`, `nature-reader`, `nature-paper2ppt` |
+| `core/consistency-sweep.md` | `nature-polishing`, `nature-reviewer`, `nature-response`, `nature-statistics` |
+| `core/main-text-discipline.md` | `nature-writing`, `nature-polishing`, `nature-response` |
+| `core/nature-results-discussion.md` | Nature / Nature Portfolio Results claim escalation and Discussion synthesis for `nature-writing` and `nature-polishing`, distilled from published NMI and flagship Nature papers (not official policy) |
+| `core/discussion-argument-language.md` | Journal-general Discussion functions, reverse-funnel control, evidence-calibrated modality, claim boundaries, and future-work auditing for `nature-writing` and `nature-polishing` (writing guidance, not journal policy) |
+| `core/nature-introduction.md` | Nature / Nature Portfolio problem funnels, exact gaps, and Introduction–Results alignment for `nature-writing` and `nature-polishing`, initially distilled from NMI papers (not official policy) |
+| `core/nature-abstract.md` | Nature / Nature Portfolio discovery-centred abstract evidence chains, claim hierarchy, and numeric selection for `nature-writing` and `nature-polishing`, initially distilled from NMI papers (not official policy) |
+| `journal-formats/nat-comms.md` | `nature-polishing`, `nature-writing` |
+| `journal-formats/nature.md` | `nature-writing` and skills needing exact flagship `Nature Article` submission rules |
+| `journal-formats/nature-machine-intelligence.md` | Writing, polishing, figure, data, and statistics workflows for NMI submissions |
+
+`scripts/check_consistency.py` provides a mechanical first pass for terminology variants, equal values reported at different precision, and equivalent lengths expressed in different units. Its output is a set of warnings for contextual review, not automatic edits.
+
+## When to Put Files Here
+
+Only place a file here when two or more skills need to reuse the same content. If the content serves only one skill, keep it in that skill's own `static/` or `references/` directory.
+
+## When to Keep Content Local
+
+The shared layer should hold definitions and references only, such as paper-type classifications, reader workflows, ethics rules, or terminology ledgers. Skill-specific diagnosis, drafting, modification, and output logic should remain in each skill's own files.
+
+## Relationship With Other Skills
+
+`nature-shared/` is not a standalone workflow. It is a shared dependency package that other `nature-*` skills read on demand.

package/vendor/nature-skills/skills/nature-shared/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+---
+name: nature-shared
+description: Internal shared-reference support package for installed Nature Skills, including nature-writing, nature-polishing, nature-response, nature-reader, and nature-paper2ppt. Do not invoke it as a standalone user workflow. Load only the specific core or journal-format file requested by another Nature skill.
+---
+
+# Nature Shared References
+
+Use this package only as a dependency of another installed Nature skill.
+
+- Load the exact referenced file; do not preload the whole package.
+- Treat `core/` and `journal-formats/` as shared definitions, not standalone workflows.
+- Use `journal-formats/nature.md` only for the flagship journal Nature and
+  `core/research-compliance.md` only when its specialist applicability gate is
+  triggered.
+- Use `journal-formats/nature-machine-intelligence.md` for exact NMI article
+  types, limits, initial-submission files, data/code duties and production
+  requirements; do not import flagship Nature or Nature Communications limits.
+- Use `core/main-text-discipline.md` for result placement, main-text compression,
+  revision accretion, caption/SI allocation, and claim-repetition checks.
+- Use `core/nature-results-discussion.md` for corpus-derived Nature-style
+  Results claim escalation, evidence-bound local interpretation, and Discussion
+  synthesis; do not present it as official journal policy.
+- Use `core/discussion-argument-language.md` for journal-general Discussion
+  function sequencing, reverse-funnel control, evidence-calibrated modality,
+  claim-specific limitations, and uncertainty-driven future work.
+- Use `core/nature-introduction.md` for corpus-derived Nature-style problem
+  funnels, exact knowledge gaps, literature tension, question-first novelty,
+  and Introduction–Results alignment; do not present it as official journal
+  policy.
+- Use `core/nature-abstract.md` for corpus-derived Nature-style
+  discovery-centred abstract compression, claim hierarchy, selective numeric
+  support, and field-level payoff; do not present it as official journal policy.
+- Return to the requesting skill for task logic, output format, and final QA.

package/vendor/nature-skills/skills/nature-shared/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Nature Shared References"
+  short_description: "Shared references for dependent Nature Skills only"
+  default_prompt: "Use $nature-shared only as a support package requested by another Nature Skill."
+policy:
+  allow_implicit_invocation: false

package/vendor/nature-skills/skills/nature-shared/core/consistency-sweep.md

@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+# Consistency Sweep
+
+A retrospective audit of a manuscript that already exists. `terminology-ledger.md` is preventive:
+it fixes the vocabulary before drafting. This file is detective: it finds the drift that a
+manuscript has already accumulated, which is what happens to every manuscript that has been revised
+more than once.
+
+Use it when polishing or proofreading a full manuscript, when self-reviewing before submission, when
+auditing a revision, or whenever multiple rounds of editing have touched the same document. Do not
+use it as a substitute for building a ledger on a fresh draft.
+
+Two facts drive the method:
+
+- **Multi-round editing fragments a manuscript.** Each round produces wording that fits its local
+  context and diverges from the rest. Nobody notices, because nobody re-reads the whole document
+  after each small edit.
+- **Reviewers verify arithmetic and cross-check tables.** Numbers that do not reconcile and claims
+  that contradict the paper's own data are the cheapest possible findings for a referee, and they
+  cast doubt on everything that is harder to check.
+
+## 1. Sweep, then inspect
+
+Count variants mechanically first, then read the contexts before changing anything. Raw counts
+over-report: Title Case in captions and headings, sentence-initial capitals, first-use acronym
+expansions, and grammatically required inflections are legitimate variation.
+
+For each axis, count every variant, then open the contexts of the minority forms. A term used 33
+times one way and once another way is almost always a real slip; a term split 5/4 usually means two
+different concepts are being conflated.
+
+Start the mechanical pass with the bundled checker, resolving it relative to the
+`nature-shared` package directory:
+
+```bash
+python scripts/check_consistency.py manuscript.tex tables.tex \
+  --term-group 'test-object=specimen|sample|test article' \
+  --term-group 'method-name=GraphNet|Graph Net'
+```
+
+The checker reports built-in self-reference and standard-deviation variants, user-supplied term
+groups, equal numeric values printed at different precision, and equivalent lengths written in
+different units. Use `--json` for machine-readable results or `--fail-on-findings` in a local
+quality gate. Findings are warnings, not automatic corrections: identical numbers may denote
+different quantities, and two terms may represent a real conceptual distinction. Inspect every
+reported context before editing. This first pass does not replace the claim, tense, acronym,
+cross-reference, or redundancy checks below.
+
+## 2. Axes
+
+| Axis | What to look for | Typical real finding |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Experimental factors | Every name used for one variable | One factor under four names, while a fifth name denotes a *different* concept |
+| Physical objects | One word denoting two things | `specimen` meaning both a physical test article and a row in the test set |
+| Acronyms | Definition site vs first use | Abbreviation used pages before it is defined; defined twice; never expanded |
+| Model and method names | Expansion and capitalization at each mention | `Multi-Layer Perceptron` vs `Multilayer Perceptron`; `Extreme` vs `eXtreme Gradient Boosting` |
+| Units | The **same quantity** in two units | `35 mm` cover in one section, `3.5 cm` cover in another |
+| Statistical terms | Abbreviation and technical precision | `SD` in one table, `Std` in another; `confidence interval` where `prediction interval` is meant |
+| Number formatting | Decimal places per metric; percent spacing | `8.26` in a table against `8.258` in the text |
+| Self-reference | `this study` / `this paper` / `this work` / `this article` | One stray variant among many |
+| Tense | Parallelism inside a list | Three conclusion items in past tense, one in present |
+| Hyphenation | Compound modifiers | Genuine distinction: `residual-capacity check` (modifier) vs `the residual capacity` (noun) |
+| Spelling variety | `-ise`/`-yse` vs `-ize`/`-yze`, `-our` vs `-or` | New text in British spelling inside a US-spelling manuscript |
+| Cross-references | Non-breaking space before the number | `Figure~\ref` vs `Figure \ref` mixed |
+
+Two axes are technical errors rather than style, and reviewers treat them as competence signals:
+
+- **Interval terminology.** A confidence interval covers a parameter; a prediction interval covers a
+  future observation. A paper reporting per-observation uncertainty must say *prediction interval*.
+  `confidence level` for the alpha level is a different, correct term — do not "fix" it.
+- **Same quantity, two units.** Converting for local readability forces the reader to verify that the
+  two numbers match, and invites the suspicion that they do not.
+
+Run several passes. Each pass surfaces axes the previous one did not, because fixing one axis makes
+the next one visible. In practice a heavily revised manuscript yields findings on at least three
+successive passes before converging.
+
+## 3. Numeric self-consistency
+
+- **Headline counts must be derivable from the Methods.** A design described as "640 samples covering
+  32 states, four positions and four orientations" invites the reader to compute 512. If the real
+  design is 32 x 4 positions x 5 signals (four orientations plus an averaged waveform), say so in
+  the abstract and conclusion, not only in the Methods.
+- **One metric, one precision, everywhere.** Cross-check every number that appears in more than one
+  place — abstract, results prose, tables, conclusion — mechanically, not from memory.
+- **Reused numbers must denote the same thing.** When two different quantities happen to share a
+  value, label them distinctly; the same integer meaning "design combinations" in one section and
+  "test-set size" in another will be read as one quantity.
+
+## 4. Claims versus the paper's own data
+
+Check every superlative against the table behind it.
+
+- "Consistently highest across all three methods" fails if one column shows another item higher.
+  State what the data supports and name the exception explicitly. A reviewer who finds the exception
+  unaided assumes nothing else was checked either.
+- Overlapping error bars do not support "outperformed". Use "statistically indistinguishable".
+- Check for **under**claiming too. A conclusion saying "matched the best conventional model" when the
+  results section reports first place on every metric throws away a real result.
+- Internal summaries must agree with each other. If the results section concludes that features A and
+  B are jointly dominant, the abstract and conclusion cannot credit only A.
+
+## 5. Redundancy between prose and displays
+
+Prose that restates a table's numbers adds length without information. Keep in the text only what the
+display cannot show: the interpretation, the comparison, the reason a value matters.
+
+The same applies within a paragraph — a sentence that re-states the immediately preceding sentence in
+different words is padding, and it is easy to introduce when adding material in response to a
+comment. After any insertion, re-read the neighbouring sentences and check that the new text is not
+saying what the old text already said.
+
+## 6. Order of operations
+
+1. Numeric self-consistency and claims-versus-data (sections 3 and 4). Fix content before wording.
+2. Terminology sweep (sections 1 and 2), repeated until a pass finds nothing new.
+3. Redundancy pass (section 5).
+4. Recompile and re-verify anything that depends on pagination.
+
+Content fixes change wording, and wording fixes change pagination, so this order avoids redoing work.
+Any downstream artifact that quotes the manuscript — a response letter, a cover letter, a slide deck
+— must be re-synchronized after every change; see `nature-response/references/package-consistency-audit.md`
+when a revision package is involved.

package/vendor/nature-skills/skills/nature-shared/core/discussion-argument-language.md

@@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
+# Discussion Argument and Language Calibration
+
+Use this reference when drafting, restructuring, or polishing a scientific
+Discussion. It applies across journals; journal-specific article structures,
+word limits, and reporting requirements still take precedence.
+
+This is **writing guidance, not an official Nature Portfolio requirement**.
+Its functional model is informed in part by the author-supplied public article
+[“学术训练 | How to Write the Discussion？”](https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/exPlMmjkrDPchE6dCfjINw)
+(22 August 2026), which summarizes material from *Science Research Writing for
+Non-native Speakers of English*. The rules below are a selective,
+accuracy-checked synthesis rather than a transcription of that article or book.
+
+## Contents
+
+- [Use the reverse funnel as a direction, not a template](#use-the-reverse-funnel-as-a-direction-not-a-template)
+- [Build the Discussion from four functions](#build-the-discussion-from-four-functions)
+- [Separate interpretation from Results replay](#separate-interpretation-from-results-replay)
+- [Calibrate modality to evidence strength](#calibrate-modality-to-evidence-strength)
+- [Write limitations as claim boundaries](#write-limitations-as-claim-boundaries)
+- [Make future work resolve an uncertainty](#make-future-work-resolve-an-uncertainty)
+- [Run the sentence-function audit](#run-the-sentence-function-audit)
+
+## Use the reverse funnel as a direction, not a template
+
+Introduction usually narrows from the field to the paper's precise question.
+Discussion generally moves in the opposite epistemic direction:
+
+`specific findings -> integrated interpretation -> relation to the field -> bounded implications`
+
+This is a reader-orientation principle, not a demand that every Discussion
+begin with a Results summary or end with a grand claim. Expand only as far as
+the evidence permits. A narrow study may properly end with a narrow
+implication.
+
+Choose the opening anchor that best restores the central context:
+
+- revisit the unresolved problem when solving that problem is the main advance
+- revisit the design or method when the method changes what can be inferred
+- state the central finding when the discovery itself is the main advance
+
+Use one compressed anchor. Do not repeat the Introduction's background or the
+Results section's full evidence chain.
+
+## Build the Discussion from four functions
+
+Treat the following as functions, not four mandatory paragraphs. Combine,
+reorder, or omit a function when the paper does not need it.
+
+### 1. Anchor
+
+State the central advance in one bounded judgement and identify the specific
+Results claims that must be understood together. One indispensable anchor
+number is acceptable; replaying all effect sizes, intervals, tests, or panels is
+not.
+
+### 2. Position
+
+Place the finding on the scholarly map. Specify whether the work:
+
+- supports or independently confirms earlier evidence
+- extends an earlier result to a new mechanism, population, scale, or regime
+- qualifies the conditions under which an earlier claim holds
+- conflicts with prior work and requires reconciliation
+- connects findings that were previously treated separately
+
+Do not use citation clusters as decoration. Every literature comparison should
+state the relationship that matters for the current claim.
+
+### 3. Interpret and contribute
+
+Explain what the integrated findings make newly supportable. Separate three
+levels:
+
+1. **Established contribution** — directly supported by the paper's design and
+   evidence.
+2. **Supported interpretation** — a mechanism or explanation favoured by the
+   evidence but not uniquely proven.
+3. **Open implication** — a plausible broader consequence that requires a new
+   test.
+
+Name credible rival explanations before presenting a non-unique mechanism as
+the preferred interpretation. Make novelty explicit when it is defensible, but
+do not substitute “first”, “novel”, or “unprecedented” for the actual
+conceptual or practical advance.
+
+### 4. Bound and extend
+
+State where the inference may fail, what that limitation changes, what remains
+valid, and which next experiment or analysis would reduce the uncertainty.
+Keep speculation and future work proportional to the demonstrated contribution.
+
+A useful overall move order is:
+
+`central finding anchor -> cross-Results synthesis -> position in prior work -> interpretation and contribution -> boundary -> next discriminating question`
+
+## Separate interpretation from Results replay
+
+Results and Discussion may refer to the same finding, but the sentence must do
+a different job:
+
+- **Results:** `A exceeded B under condition C; this establishes X within C.`
+- **Discussion:** `Taken together with Y, X favours interpretation Z and
+  qualifies the prevailing account of Q.`
+
+Delete a Discussion sentence when it only repeats a comparison, number, test,
+or local inference already used to establish the result. Retain recap only when
+the reader needs it to understand the synthesis that follows.
+
+## Calibrate modality to evidence strength
+
+Choose the strongest wording the evidence justifies, not the strongest wording
+that sounds persuasive.
+
+| Evidence status | Typical language | Gate |
+|---|---|---|
+| Directly established within the tested design | `shows`, `establishes`, `demonstrates` | The design directly tests the proposition and important alternatives do not support a weaker reading. |
+| Supported but not uniquely established | `supports`, `indicates`, `suggests`, `is consistent with`, `is likely to reflect` | At least one credible alternative remains or the mechanism is inferred indirectly. |
+| Plausible interpretation or extrapolation | `may`, `might`, `could`, `appears to`, `raises the possibility` | The statement goes beyond the direct test and is clearly marked as provisional. |
+| Near-necessity or exclusion | `must`, `cannot` | Use only when logic, design, or physical constraints genuinely exclude reasonable alternatives; rarity is expected. |
+
+### Modal safeguards
+
+- `may not` means that something is possibly not true; `cannot` expresses
+  impossibility or inability and is much stronger.
+- `must not` normally expresses prohibition, not absence of necessity. Use
+  `need not`, `does not need to`, or `is not required to` for the latter.
+- Do not teach spaced `can not` as a routine hedge. Write `may not` when the
+  intended meaning is possibility of non-occurrence.
+- Distinguish a community recommendation (`future studies should test X`) from
+  an author commitment (`we will test X`). Do not promise work unless the
+  authors have actually committed to it.
+- Avoid hedge stacking such as `may perhaps suggest that`. Usually one modal or
+  calibrated reporting verb is enough. Multiple qualifiers are justified only
+  when they express genuinely different uncertainties.
+- Do not attach a hedge mechanically to every interpretive sentence. Excessive
+  hedging obscures the claim just as overstatement distorts it.
+
+Before using `must`, `cannot`, `demonstrates`, or a causal verb, state the
+specific design feature that licenses that strength. If no such feature can be
+named, step down one level.
+
+## Write limitations as claim boundaries
+
+Avoid generic limitation inventories. Use this sequence:
+
+`claim affected -> untested or constrained condition -> consequence for interpretation -> what remains supported -> resolving test or data`
+
+For example, a single-site sample is not merely “a limitation”; it limits the
+population or setting to which the claim can be generalized. Say whether it
+threatens the central inference, only its transportability, or neither.
+
+Do not use a positive result to cosmetically cancel a serious limitation.
+Conversely, do not describe a boundary as fatal when it leaves the central
+within-design conclusion intact.
+
+## Make future work resolve an uncertainty
+
+Future work should follow from an unresolved inference, boundary, or capability
+revealed by the paper. For every proposal, specify:
+
+- the open question
+- why the current evidence cannot answer it
+- the discriminating experiment, dataset, comparison, or analysis
+- how the outcome would change the interpretation or application
+
+Prefer one or two consequential next tests over a shopping list. Avoid generic
+calls for larger samples, more datasets, or broader applications unless their
+scientific purpose is stated.
+
+## Run the sentence-function audit
+
+Label each Discussion sentence with one primary function:
+
+`anchor | synthesize | position | interpret | contribute | qualify | bound | extend`
+
+Then apply these checks:
+
+1. **Reverse-funnel direction:** does the section move from the paper's specific
+   findings toward broader meaning without outrunning the evidence?
+2. **Function coverage:** are the necessary anchor, positioning,
+   interpretation/contribution, and boundary functions present?
+3. **No Results replay:** does every repeated finding enable a new synthesis?
+4. **Literature relationship:** does each citation-bearing comparison say how
+   the current result relates to prior work?
+5. **Modality fit:** could every strong verb or modal survive an evidence audit?
+6. **Boundary consequence:** does each limitation identify which claim or scope
+   it changes?
+7. **Future-work necessity:** does each proposed next step resolve a named
+   uncertainty rather than advertise the topic?
+8. **Sentence economy:** can duplicate functions, stacked hedges, or generic
+   transitions be deleted without loss?

package/vendor/nature-skills/skills/nature-shared/core/ethics.md

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+# Citation, ethics, and AI boundaries
+
+## Intellectual debt
+
+Originality is usually an amendment, combination, or extension of prior knowledge. A careful writer acknowledges that debt openly. Do not minimize others' contributions just to make the present work seem more original.
+
+## Position attribution clearly
+
+Make it obvious:
+
+- how the paper builds on prior work
+- who was responsible for the earlier idea, method, data, or interpretation
+- where the reader can locate the source
+
+## Cite the source you actually read and verified
+
+- Cite paper `A` for `A`'s own data, methods, claims, or conclusions.
+- Cite paper `B` for `B`'s interpretation, comparison, critique, or commentary on `A`.
+- Avoid leaning on secondary sources when the source article can be cited directly.
+
+## What needs citation
+
+- someone else's ideas
+- data
+- methods
+- wording
+- structure
+- images
+- distinctive interpretation
+
+Do not assume internet material is public domain just because it is online.
+
+## Proofreading checks
+
+Always verify:
+
+- grammatical errors
+- typographical errors
+- figure numbering
+- missing citations
+- whether the paper is a pleasure or an ordeal to read
+
+## AI risk and disclosure boundary
+
+Nature Portfolio applies a risk-based framework. Keep human accountability and
+verification explicit at every level.
+
+`Green — assistive`: generally acceptable with author verification
+
+- improve grammar, clarity, concision, or tone
+- generate outline options or paragraph structures
+- produce alternative titles or abstract phrasings
+- summarize literature for categorization, not as a substitute for reading
+- translate with terminology and hedging checks
+
+`Amber — evaluative or interpretive`: allowed only with strong human control,
+verification and transparent disclosure
+
+- explain methods or results for wording support
+- draft reviewer-response frameworks that are then checked line by line
+- help with code or statistics explanations only if outputs are reproduced and validated
+
+`Red — AI replacing scholarly judgement or lacking transparency`: not permitted
+
+- ask AI to draft the paper's core argument from scratch
+- insert AI-generated references, data, or claims without checking them
+- upload unpublished manuscripts, sensitive data, or peer-review material to public models
+- use AI to fabricate, manipulate, or conceal substantive image creation
+
+## Nature Portfolio submission gate
+
+- AI systems and LLMs do not satisfy authorship criteria and must not appear in
+  the author list.
+- Human authors remain accountable for originality, accuracy, integrity,
+  interpretation and every submitted conclusion.
+- For a flagship Nature submission, document LLM use in Methods or, if no
+  Methods section exists, in a suitable alternative section.
+- Disclose evaluative or interpretive AI use clearly enough that an editor can
+  understand what the system contributed and how humans verified it.
+- Do not upload an unpublished manuscript, peer-review report, sensitive data
+  or confidential editorial material to an unsecured or public AI system.
+- Do not present AI-generated hypotheses, analyses, conclusions, references,
+  data or photorealistic images as accountable human work.
+
+The main danger is not that AI cannot write. The main danger is that it can write incorrectly with great confidence.
+
+Current policy source, verified 2026-08-08:
+<https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/ai>.

package/vendor/nature-skills/skills/nature-shared/core/main-text-discipline.md

@@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
+# Main-Text Discipline for Scientific Papers
+
+Use this shared contract when drafting, restructuring, compressing, or revising
+the main text of a scientific manuscript, especially Results. It operationalizes
+an author-supplied writing discipline; it is not a journal policy. Current
+journal instructions and field-specific reporting standards override it when
+they require information in the main text.
+
+## Contents
+
+- [1. Separate evidence completeness from main-text completeness](#1-separate-evidence-completeness-from-main-text-completeness)
+- [2. Classify every result before placement](#2-classify-every-result-before-placement)
+- [3. Build the shortest sufficient evidence chain](#3-build-the-shortest-sufficient-evidence-chain)
+- [4. Prevent revision accretion](#4-prevent-revision-accretion)
+- [5. Separate main text, captions, and SI](#5-separate-main-text-captions-and-si)
+- [6. Apply statistical reporting discipline](#6-apply-statistical-reporting-discipline)
+- [7. Run the paragraph necessity test](#7-run-the-paragraph-necessity-test)
+- [8. Stop explanatory recursion](#8-stop-explanatory-recursion)
+- [9. Audit claim repetition](#9-audit-claim-repetition)
+- [10. Return an auditable compression record](#10-return-an-auditable-compression-record)
+- [Non-negotiable exceptions](#non-negotiable-exceptions)
+
+## 1. Separate evidence completeness from main-text completeness
+
+Preserve the complete evidential record across the manuscript, figures, tables,
+Methods, source data, and Supplementary Information (SI). Do not force that full
+record into the main text. Reserve main-text space for evidence that establishes,
+advances, or materially bounds the central claim.
+
+Do not use compression to hide inconvenient evidence. If an observation changes
+the direction, magnitude, scope, or credibility of the central conclusion, keep
+it visible in the main text even if it is nominally a robustness or subgroup
+analysis.
+
+## 2. Classify every result before placement
+
+Build a result-allocation table before drafting or restructuring Results:
+
+| Class | Decision test | Default destination |
+|---|---|---|
+| `core_discovery` | Does it advance the paper's central conclusion? | Main text, with adequate evidence |
+| `necessary_support` | Must the reader see it to accept the core discovery? | Main text briefly |
+| `qualification` | Does it materially bound or alter the central interpretation? | Main text if yes; otherwise SI |
+| `robustness` | Does it show the result survives an alternative specification, estimator, seed, threshold, or inference procedure without changing the conclusion? | SI, with a concise pointer when useful |
+| `heterogeneity` | Is variation across groups, settings, tasks, or models itself part of the central claim? | Main text if central; otherwise SI |
+| `provenance_detail` | Does it document traceability, preprocessing, implementation, or audit detail without advancing the conclusion? | Methods, Source Data, repository, or SI |
+| `alternative_inference` | Does it test the same claim using a secondary inferential route? | SI unless it changes acceptance of the claim |
+| `edge_case` | Does it define a failure boundary that changes how the claim must be read? | Main text if interpretation changes; otherwise SI |
+
+Classify by function in this paper, not by analysis name. An ablation can be a
+core discovery in a mechanism paper; heterogeneity can be the headline result;
+a confidence interval can be the primary inferential evidence.
+
+## 3. Build the shortest sufficient evidence chain
+
+After classification, write the minimum ordered chain that lets the reader:
+
+1. understand the central observation
+2. see the decisive comparison or mechanism evidence
+3. judge the primary uncertainty or inference
+4. understand any boundary that changes the conclusion
+
+Do not reproduce the chronological record of analyses. Route supporting checks
+to SI with stable pointers. Draft the final Results narrative only after the
+analysis and result-allocation table are stable.
+
+## 4. Prevent revision accretion
+
+Every requested addition triggers a deletion check across the whole affected
+paragraph:
+
+1. State what new function the proposed sentence serves.
+2. Find existing sentences that already serve that function.
+3. Prefer replacement, combination, or compression before appending.
+4. Re-read the paragraph after the edit and delete any sentence made redundant.
+5. Re-run the paragraph necessity test and claim-repetition audit below.
+
+For reviewer-driven edits, ask:
+
+> Does this sentence tell the reader what was discovered, or does it mainly tell
+> a reviewer why an objection does not overturn the result?
+
+Keep the first in the main text when necessary. Route the second to SI or the
+response letter unless the objection is essential to the central inference.
+Answer every reviewer fully in the response letter even when the manuscript
+change is deliberately short.
+
+## 5. Separate main text, captions, and SI
+
+- **Main text:** what was found, the decisive support, and what it means for the
+  central claim.
+- **Figure or table caption:** what is shown and how to read it, including
+  definitions needed to interpret the display.
+- **SI:** why the conclusion survives deeper scrutiny, including secondary
+  analyses, robustness, implementation detail, extended diagnostics, and
+  non-central edge cases.
+
+Do not repeat a full set of effect sizes, confidence intervals, and P values in
+both the main text and caption. Choose one authoritative location for the full
+numeric report and use the other location for the minimum narrative or reading
+cue. Preserve journal-mandated caption content.
+
+## 6. Apply statistical reporting discipline
+
+Compute and retain every analysis required by the design, protocol, reporting
+standard, and integrity audit. In the main text, normally report:
+
+- the descriptive quantity needed to understand the effect
+- the primary inferential statistic or interval needed to support the claim
+
+Route secondary intervals, alternative estimators or inference procedures,
+multiplicity checks, sensitivity analyses, and model-level heterogeneity to SI
+unless they change the conclusion or are required in the main text. Never select
+only the most favorable statistic. Record the complete analysis family and the
+reason for each reporting location.
+
+## 7. Run the paragraph necessity test
+
+For every Results paragraph, ask:
+
+> If this paragraph were removed, would the reader still understand and have
+> adequate evidence for the paper's central claim?
+
+- **No:** keep it.
+- **Yes, but a reviewer might ask for it:** route it to SI or the response letter.
+- **Yes, and the point appears elsewhere:** delete it.
+
+When only one sentence is necessary, keep that sentence and relocate the rest.
+Do not preserve an unnecessary paragraph merely because one clause matters.
+
+## 8. Stop explanatory recursion
+
+Do not explain an explanation in the main text. If a statistical or graphical
+detail needs several sentences to reconcile it with the main result, state the
+result and any conclusion-changing boundary simply, then move the extended
+reconciliation to SI. Keep the longer explanation in the main text only when the
+reconciliation itself is part of the discovery.
+
+## 9. Audit claim repetition
+
+A major claim may be introduced, demonstrated, and synthesized, but each
+appearance must perform a different function. Build a claim-location map across
+the heading, transition, figure/table caption, Results paragraph, Discussion,
+and closing sentence. For each occurrence, mark `introduce`, `demonstrate`,
+`interpret`, `synthesize`, `shorten`, or `delete`.
+
+Delete or compress restatements that add no new evidence, boundary, or
+interpretation. Do not force the same full claim into every rhetorical slot.
+
+## 10. Return an auditable compression record
+
+For a Results or full-manuscript restructuring task, return or maintain:
+
+1. **Result-allocation table:** result, class, effect on central interpretation,
+   destination, and SI/caption pointer.
+2. **Shortest evidence chain:** ordered main-text claims and their decisive
+   evidence.
+3. **Deletion log:** appended, replaced, compressed, relocated, or deleted text,
+   with a short reason.
+4. **Statistics-location record:** primary main-text report and secondary SI
+   analyses.
+5. **Claim-repetition map:** retained rhetorical function at each location.
+6. **Word-count delta:** before and after for every revised Results subsection.
+
+The prose remains the deliverable. Keep the audit compact unless the user asks
+for the full table.
+
+## Non-negotiable exceptions
+
+- Do not move information required for reproducibility, research integrity,
+  participant safety, ethics, or a mandatory reporting checklist merely to save
+  words.
+- Do not bury contradictory or conclusion-changing evidence in SI.
+- Do not strip a qualification that prevents a misleading causal, clinical,
+  societal, or generalization claim.
+- Do not remove statistics required by the target journal, study design, or
+  field standard.
+- When the user or editor explicitly requires a point in the main text, comply
+  but still replace or compress neighboring redundancy before appending.