wtf-p 0.1.0

package/write-the-f-paper/templates/narrative-arc.md

@@ -0,0 +1,227 @@
+# Narrative Arc Template
+
+Template for `.planning/structure/narrative-arc.md` — the story structure of your paper.
+
+**Purpose:** Map the narrative flow that makes your paper compelling beyond the logical argument.
+
+---
+
+## File Template
+
+```markdown
+# Narrative Arc
+
+**Created:** [date]
+**Last updated:** [date]
+
+## The Story
+
+### Act 1: The Problem (Introduction)
+
+**World state:** [Current understanding in the field]
+- What exists: [Current tools, methods, knowledge]
+- What works: [What's going well]
+- Who's affected: [Who deals with this domain]
+
+**Tension:** [What's wrong, missing, or broken]
+- The gap: [What doesn't exist that should]
+- The pain: [Problems caused by this gap]
+- The stakes: [What happens if unresolved]
+
+**Stakes:** [Why it matters]
+- For researchers: [Impact on the field]
+- For practitioners: [Impact on practice]
+- Broader: [Societal or scientific significance]
+
+### Act 2: The Journey (Methods + Results)
+
+**Approach:** [How we tackled the problem]
+- Strategy: [Overall approach]
+- Innovation: [What's new about how we did it]
+- Why this way: [Justification for approach]
+
+**Obstacles:** [Challenges faced]
+- Expected challenges: [What we anticipated]
+- Surprises: [What we didn't expect]
+- How overcome: [How we addressed challenges]
+
+**Discovery:** [What we found]
+- Main finding: [The headline result]
+- Supporting findings: [Additional results]
+- Unexpected: [Surprising discoveries]
+
+### Act 3: The Resolution (Discussion)
+
+**Insight:** [What it means]
+- Interpretation: [How to understand the findings]
+- Significance: [Why these findings matter]
+- Contribution: [What we've added to knowledge]
+
+**Transformation:** [How understanding changes]
+- Before: [What people thought/did before]
+- After: [What they can think/do now]
+- Shift: [The conceptual or practical change]
+
+**Horizon:** [What comes next]
+- Immediate: [Next steps from this work]
+- Future: [Longer-term possibilities]
+- Open questions: [What remains unanswered]
+
+## Reader Experience
+
+**Hook:** [Why they keep reading past abstract]
+- Opening question or scenario
+- Why this matters to them
+- Promise of insight
+
+**Promise:** [What they'll learn]
+- New understanding
+- Practical tools or methods
+- Answer to important question
+
+**Payoff:** [The "aha" moment]
+- Where the insight lands
+- How findings click together
+- Satisfying resolution
+
+## Pacing
+
+**Speed up (less detail):**
+- Background everyone knows
+- Standard methods
+- Expected/confirmatory results
+
+**Slow down (more detail):**
+- Novel contributions
+- Key methodology
+- Surprising or important findings
+- Critical interpretations
+
+## Emotional Journey
+
+| Section | Reader Feeling | Desired Transition |
+|---------|----------------|-------------------|
+| Opening | Curious | → Engaged |
+| Problem | Concerned | → Motivated |
+| Approach | Interested | → Hopeful |
+| Findings | Attentive | → Satisfied |
+| Meaning | Understanding | → Convinced |
+| Future | Thoughtful | → Inspired |
+
+## Key Moments
+
+**The hook:** [Opening line/scenario]
+"[Draft opening sentence or scenario]"
+
+**The turn:** [Where problem becomes opportunity]
+"[Draft sentence that pivots from gap to contribution]"
+
+**The reveal:** [Where main finding is presented]
+"[Draft sentence presenting key result]"
+
+**The resolution:** [Final takeaway]
+"[Draft closing message]"
+
+---
+
+*Narrative arc for: [Paper title]*
+*Update when story structure changes*
+```
+
+<guidelines>
+
+**Why narrative matters:**
+- Readers remember stories, not just facts
+- Narrative creates engagement and flow
+- Good papers tell a coherent story
+- Even technical papers benefit from arc
+
+**The three-act structure:**
+- Act 1: Establish problem and stakes
+- Act 2: Journey through investigation
+- Act 3: Resolution and meaning
+
+**Reader experience:**
+- Hook: Why start reading
+- Promise: What they'll gain
+- Payoff: Satisfying conclusion
+
+**Pacing:**
+- Not everything needs equal detail
+- Emphasize what's new and important
+- Don't belabor the obvious
+
+**Integration with argument-map:**
+- Argument map = logical structure
+- Narrative arc = emotional/experiential structure
+- Both needed for compelling paper
+</guidelines>
+
+<example>
+```markdown
+# Narrative Arc
+
+**Created:** 2025-01-15
+**Last updated:** 2025-01-20
+
+## The Story
+
+### Act 1: The Problem (Introduction)
+
+**World state:** AI writing tools are everywhere
+- What exists: ChatGPT, Claude, and dozens of specialized tools
+- What works: General writing assistance is improving rapidly
+- Who's affected: Researchers, students, professionals
+
+**Tension:** Researchers don't know how to use them effectively
+- The gap: No systematic guidance for academic contexts
+- The pain: Ad hoc usage leads to quality issues, ethical concerns
+- The stakes: Potential to help or harm research quality
+
+**Stakes:** Getting this right matters
+- For researchers: More productive, ethical AI use
+- For science: Better research communication
+- Broader: Setting norms for a transformative technology
+
+### Act 2: The Journey (Methods + Results)
+
+**Approach:** Build and test a framework
+- Strategy: Interview researchers, synthesize needs, develop guidance
+- Innovation: Discipline-specific rather than generic approach
+- Why this way: One size doesn't fit all academic contexts
+
+**Discovery:** Framework improves outcomes
+- Main finding: Researchers with framework reported better quality, less anxiety
+- Supporting: Specific strategies vary by discipline but principles transfer
+- Unexpected: Ethical clarity reduced anxiety more than productivity tips
+
+### Act 3: The Resolution (Discussion)
+
+**Insight:** It's about integration, not replacement
+- The framework succeeds because it treats AI as tool, not author
+- Key is matching AI strengths to researcher needs
+- Transparency resolves most ethical concerns
+
+**Transformation:**
+- Before: "Should I use AI?" (anxiety, confusion)
+- After: "How should I use AI for this task?" (confident, intentional)
+
+## Key Moments
+
+**The hook:**
+"Dr. Chen stared at her half-finished methods section, the AI-generated text feeling foreign, the blank space feeling worse."
+
+**The turn:**
+"Yet the solution isn't to avoid AI tools—it's to integrate them intentionally."
+
+**The reveal:**
+"Researchers using the framework reported 40% less writing anxiety while maintaining quality standards."
+
+**The resolution:**
+"The question is no longer whether AI belongs in research writing, but how to use it responsibly."
+
+---
+
+*Narrative arc for: AI-Assisted Writing Framework*
+```
+</example>

package/write-the-f-paper/templates/outline.md

@@ -0,0 +1,274 @@
+# Document Outline Template
+
+Template for `.planning/structure/outline.md` — the section skeleton with word budgets.
+
+**Purpose:** Define the detailed structure of your document before writing.
+
+---
+
+## File Template
+
+```markdown
+# Document Outline
+
+**Created:** [date]
+**Last updated:** [date]
+**Total target:** [X] words
+
+## Template Type
+
+**Structure:** [IMRaD / Grant-NSF / Grant-NIH / Thesis / Custom]
+**Format:** [LaTeX / Markdown / Word]
+
+## Outline
+
+### 1. Abstract ([X] words)
+
+**Purpose:** Summarize entire paper in one paragraph
+
+- Background/Context (1-2 sentences)
+- Gap/Problem (1 sentence)
+- Approach (1-2 sentences)
+- Key findings (2-3 sentences)
+- Implications (1-2 sentences)
+
+### 2. Introduction ([X] words)
+
+**Purpose:** Establish context, gap, and contribution
+
+#### 2.1 Opening Hook
+- [Opening strategy: scenario / question / surprising fact]
+- Establish relevance and grab attention
+
+#### 2.2 Context
+- [Background paragraph 1: what exists]
+- [Background paragraph 2: current state]
+
+#### 2.3 The Gap
+- [Transition to what's missing]
+- [Articulate the specific gap]
+
+#### 2.4 Our Contribution
+- [What this paper provides]
+- [Specific thesis statement]
+
+#### 2.5 Roadmap (optional)
+- [Brief preview of paper structure]
+
+### 3. Related Work / Literature Review ([X] words)
+
+**Purpose:** Position contribution against existing work
+
+#### 3.1 Theme 1: [Name]
+- [Key works in this thread]
+- [How they relate to our work]
+
+#### 3.2 Theme 2: [Name]
+- [Key works in this thread]
+- [How they relate to our work]
+
+#### 3.3 Theme 3: [Name]
+- [Key works in this thread]
+- [How they relate to our work]
+
+#### 3.4 Positioning Statement
+- [How our work differs/advances beyond prior work]
+
+### 4. Methods ([X] words)
+
+**Purpose:** Enable replication, establish validity
+
+#### 4.1 Participants / Sample
+- [Who/what was studied]
+- [Sample size and characteristics]
+- [Recruitment/selection]
+
+#### 4.2 Materials / Instruments
+- [Tools, surveys, systems used]
+- [Relevant details for replication]
+
+#### 4.3 Procedure
+- [Step-by-step what happened]
+- [Timeline and conditions]
+
+#### 4.4 Analysis
+- [How data was analyzed]
+- [Statistical tests or qualitative approach]
+
+#### 4.5 Ethical Considerations
+- [IRB, consent, etc.]
+
+### 5. Results ([X] words)
+
+**Purpose:** Present findings objectively
+
+#### 5.1 Main Finding 1
+- [Description of finding]
+- [Supporting data: stats, quotes, figures]
+
+#### 5.2 Main Finding 2
+- [Description of finding]
+- [Supporting data]
+
+#### 5.3 Main Finding 3
+- [Description of finding]
+- [Supporting data]
+
+#### 5.4 Additional Analyses
+- [Secondary or exploratory findings]
+
+### 6. Discussion ([X] words)
+
+**Purpose:** Interpret findings and situate in field
+
+#### 6.1 Summary of Findings
+- [Brief recap of key results]
+
+#### 6.2 Interpretation
+- [What the findings mean]
+- [Why they turned out this way]
+
+#### 6.3 Relation to Prior Work
+- [How findings compare to existing research]
+- [What's consistent, what's different]
+
+#### 6.4 Implications
+- [For theory]
+- [For practice]
+
+#### 6.5 Limitations
+- [Honest assessment of weaknesses]
+- [How they affect interpretation]
+
+#### 6.6 Future Work
+- [What comes next]
+- [Open questions]
+
+### 7. Conclusion ([X] words)
+
+**Purpose:** Final takeaway
+
+- [Restate main contribution]
+- [Key implications]
+- [Closing thought]
+
+## Word Budget
+
+| Section | Target | % of Paper | Notes |
+|---------|--------|------------|-------|
+| Abstract | 250 | - | Last to write |
+| Introduction | 800 | 10% | Funnel to contribution |
+| Literature | 1200 | 15% | Organize thematically |
+| Methods | 1200 | 15% | Detail for replication |
+| Results | 2000 | 25% | Data-driven |
+| Discussion | 1800 | 23% | Interpretation |
+| Conclusion | 400 | 5% | Memorable close |
+| **Total** | **7650** | **~93%** | + refs, figures |
+
+## Dependencies
+
+| Section | Depends On | Blocks |
+|---------|------------|--------|
+| Abstract | All other sections | - |
+| Introduction | Argument map | Literature |
+| Literature | Sources | Methods |
+| Methods | Data collection complete | Results |
+| Results | Methods | Discussion |
+| Discussion | Results, Literature | Conclusion |
+| Conclusion | Discussion | - |
+
+---
+
+*Outline for: [Paper title]*
+*Update as structure evolves*
+```
+
+<guidelines>
+
+**Outline depth:**
+- Section level: Main sections
+- Subsection level: Major divisions
+- Point level: Key items to cover
+
+**Word budgets:**
+- Flexible, not rigid
+- Guide pacing
+- Adjust based on content
+
+**Dependencies:**
+- What needs to exist before writing each section
+- Helps plan writing order
+
+**When to update:**
+- After initial planning
+- When structure changes during writing
+- After feedback on drafts
+
+**Integration:**
+- Feeds into ROADMAP.md section definitions
+- Informs section PLAN.md structure
+- Checked during verification
+</guidelines>
+
+<example>
+```markdown
+# Document Outline
+
+**Created:** 2025-01-15
+**Last updated:** 2025-01-20
+**Total target:** 8000 words
+
+## Template Type
+
+**Structure:** IMRaD with Literature Review
+**Format:** LaTeX (CHI template)
+
+## Outline
+
+### 1. Abstract (200 words)
+- Context: AI writing tools proliferating
+- Gap: No framework for academic use
+- Approach: Interview + framework development + pilot
+- Finding: Framework improves outcomes
+- Implication: Guidance for responsible adoption
+
+### 2. Introduction (850 words)
+
+#### 2.1 Opening Hook (100 words)
+- Scenario: Researcher struggling with AI-generated text
+- Hook question: How should researchers use AI tools?
+
+#### 2.2 Context (250 words)
+- AI tool proliferation (stats from Smith 2023)
+- Current state: ad hoc usage, confusion
+
+#### 2.3 The Gap (200 words)
+- Transition: "Yet despite this growth..."
+- Gap: No systematic guidance for academic contexts
+- Consequence: Quality and ethical concerns
+
+#### 2.4 Our Contribution (200 words)
+- Thesis: Discipline-specific framework needed
+- What we provide: Framework + validation
+- Preview: "The following sections..."
+
+[... continues for all sections ...]
+
+## Word Budget
+
+| Section | Target | Actual | Status |
+|---------|--------|--------|--------|
+| Abstract | 200 | 0 | Not started |
+| Introduction | 850 | 0 | Not started |
+| Literature | 1200 | 0 | Not started |
+| Methods | 1400 | 0 | Not started |
+| Results | 2000 | 0 | Not started |
+| Discussion | 1500 | 0 | Not started |
+| Conclusion | 350 | 0 | Not started |
+| **Total** | **7500** | **0** | **0%** |
+
+---
+
+*Outline for: AI-Assisted Writing Framework*
+```
+</example>