Readable prose standard

Problem this solves: the claim is sound and the data are correct, but readers cannot move through the paragraph. This standard governs breath, sentence craft, and citation layout in body prose. Use it with book-standard.md (structural acceptance) and chapter-template.md (one-pager).

1. Means priority (what comes first) #

The primary means of fluency is whole-sentence rewriting: keep claim, data, and naming fixed; rewrite the sentence so it carries.
Deletion is secondary: remove only tour-guide words, zero-information restatement, and chaining dashes that block breath.

| Priority | Do | Do not treat as the main move | | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | Rewrite the sentence: clear subject, varied rhythm, information said once | Only delete words, only swap punctuation, chop long sentences into outline stubs | | 2 | Reorder inside the paragraph: scene/change → mechanism → name | Reorder the chapter's claims or change when terms are named | | 3 | Cut scaffolding: tour guides, empty restatement, packaging self-reference | Cut transitions and information to make the line "shorter" |

An earlier draft of this standard drifted into "prohibitions + deletion" because the don'ts were specific and the sentence craft was vague. This version puts whole-sentence rewriting first.

Acceptance target is fluency: the reader is carried through a passage.

2. Peer group #

This book is argumentative management nonfiction. Structure comes from the Western business canon. Breath comes from the same books when they are at their best—not from TED cadence or LinkedIn punch lines. The Chinese manuscript has its own breath layer (Wu Jun, Wu Xiaobo); see content/zh/standards/prose-standard.md §5. Do not import that oral cadence into English.

| Peer | Samples | Steal | Do not steal | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Structure: bestselling nonfiction | Crossing the Chasm, The Innovator's Dilemma, The Lean Startup, Zero to One; Gladwell / Kahneman-style | Scene → mechanism → name; density; name when needed | Forced landing in every paragraph; framework chapters as fiction | | Breath: English business bestsellers | Christensen and Moore at their calmest; Thiel's Zero to One; Lewis (Moneyball, The Big Short) for story-then-judgment | Author present; connectives that keep the paragraph moving; story walks half a step further before the landing; light bold; few slogans at one volume | TED punch; LinkedIn "It's not X. It's Y." stacks; McKinsey slide voice; motivational parallelism | | Secondary: literary breath | Median Nobel openings | Change/scene before the number; less self-reference | Lyricism, stream of consciousness, magical juxtaposition |

3. When it applies #

Applies to reader-facing body prose: preface, chapter sections, and judgment-boundary narration. Does not apply to status lines, acceptance checklists, or internal editorial notes.

4. Whole-sentence rewriting (primary means) #

When a passage stalls, find the stuck sentence and rewrite it before deleting. Stuck sentences are usually too long, subject-adrift, dash-chained, tour-guide interrupted, or definition-led openings.

Rewrite under four rules:

1. One job per sentence. Advance one piece of information; put turns in a new sentence instead of gluing with dashes.
2. Show, then explain. Prefer change or scene over metric bulletin; mechanism follows visible fact.
3. Rhythm varies; breath does not break. Most sentences crisp; the complex sentence after short setup. Short is not telegraphic outline, and a run of period-chopped slogans is not rhythm.
4. Say the information once, completely. Keep numbers, names, and conditions; do not create "cleanliness" by deleting information. Merge synonymous restatement into one clear sentence rather than leaving a half-thought.

Whole-sentence rewriting may change wording and syntax. It may not change: claim truth-value, data and sources, case facts, or when a concept is named (unless the original naming was itself misplaced).

5. English breath (primary craft for English body prose) #

An earlier pass made the English read like a translated argument outline: the claims were clear, the cadence was machine. The median craft of English business bestsellers is not shorter lines or denser pull-quotes. It is breath that holds, a writer who is present, and landings that are not stacked.

When rewriting English body prose, keep these eight:

1. Keep the breath. English walks on connectives. Use and, but, so, then, still, yet where a paragraph would otherwise break into three poster sentences. Short sentences are fine; a whole section of them is a slogan reel.
2. Do not announce the argument. Cut "Two boundaries are part of the claim," "Three direct corollaries," "In this chapter's terms," "In the language of the principal leader," "That is called X." Put structure in the narration, not on tour-guide signs.
3. Restrain "It's not X. It's Y." The most mechanical English sentence in this book. At most once per section. If you can say the positive, say the positive.
4. Lower bold density. Bold a concept the first time it is named. Default landing lines stay roman and go into the quotable-candidate list. Usually no bold in a section, at most one.
5. Let the story walk half a step further. Finish people, dates, and numbers first. Let the judgment land half a beat later. Do not label while you tell.
6. Author present, not performing. "I later realized" and "I have done this myself" are allowed when they are already true. Do not invent biography or write motivational asides.
7. No isomorphic paragraphs. Do not run scene → mechanism → name → punch in every paragraph. Some paragraphs only finish an event. Some only get the numbers straight. A landing can wait a paragraph.
8. Connectives are English breath. And, but, yet, so, still, then, already belong where the thought continues. Prose stripped of them reads like a slide deck.

The feel to steal: Lewis lets you stand in the scene before he explains; Christensen and Thiel put the judgment down quietly after the case, not as a poster under every paragraph. Steal that temperature, not their subjects, and not their occasional punch-line habits.

6. Five prohibitions (secondary: spot hard joins) #

Use the five prohibitions to diagnose. Treat with Section 4 rewriting and Section 5 breath first; delete only as support.

1. Open like a bulletin
   Do not open by reading a chart or bare definition. Start with change or scene.
   Framework sections may use one orientation line before axes; if cutting leaves a naked definition, rewrite the orientation back—do not bare-delete.

2. Stack slogans at one volume
   No same-intensity pull-quote runs. Usually one landing line per paragraph; a landing can wait a paragraph. Do not close every paragraph as a poster.

3. Replace story with inventory
   In narrative argument, no roll call in place of mechanism. Framework captions, Monday lists, and acceptance items may enumerate.

4. Point at the bookshelf mid-argument
   Packaging only: title, part name, cover, table of contents.
   Not: main frame, axes, metric tables, how to read a sample hall.

5. Glue clauses with em dashes
   When dashes stack or chain explanation/enumeration/turns, prefer splitting and rewriting sentences, then punctuation.
   Zero dashes is not an acceptance target.

7. Asides and forced metaphor #

• Asides: tour-guide talk ("first, a number," "see below," "notice how this differs") should disappear by rewriting into a sentence that advances judgment, not by hollowing into an outline. Keep questions, information, and suspense.
• Forced metaphor: if it does not stand, rewrite the sentence another way; do not strip the image and leave a stump.

8. Rewrite discipline #

1. Primary means is whole-sentence rewriting plus breath; deletion alone cannot count as a complete fluency pass.
2. Every edit should name which stuck-sentence pattern was rewritten, which prohibition was hit, or which Section 5 breath rule was restored; if none, do not edit.
3. Read aloud after: if worse, more outline/bulletin-like, or more TED/LinkedIn, revert.
4. No chapter overhaul for checklist theater (literary quotas, forced scenes, delayed naming, stripping framework orientation, zero-dash hunts).
5. Focus one problem class at a time; do not reorder claims under a fluency banner.
6. Judge English revision by Christensen / Moore / Thiel / Lewis breath, not by quotable density or bold density.

9. Data and citation layout #

Cite with mainstream author–year parentheses (e.g. Jones & Nisbett, 1972):

• Preferred: …about one two-hundred-and-eightieth of the prior level (Stanford HAI, 2025).
• Forbidden: standalone "Source: …"; forbidden: methodological asides inside the cite.
• Full institution/report title may expand on first deep chapter treatment; preface uses author–year only.
• Report medians, not means; thin evidence gets in-sentence qualification.

10. Actions (self-check after a draft paragraph) #

1. Was the stuck sentence rewritten whole, or were only a few words deleted?
2. Does the first sentence show change, scene, judgment, or framework orientation—not a bare definition?
3. More than one poster line in the paragraph? A bold landing at the end?
4. Any "It's not X. It's Y.," argument signposts, or slide-deck fragments?
5. Is information complete (numbers, names, conditions still there)?
6. Are dashes chaining clauses? After split-and-rewrite, does it read cleaner (not chasing zero)?
7. Read aloud: smoother than before? Any place the reader must translate the author's intent? Does it sound like a machine reading an outline?

11. Acceptance #

A finished prose passage must satisfy all of the following:

1. It can be read straight through, breath intact.
2. The core claim remains restatable in one sentence; data checkable; sources locatable.
3. Revision was primarily whole-sentence rewriting and breath; Section 5, prohibitions, and aside rules hold; citations follow Section 9.
4. It reads like an author talking, not a standard executing.

12. Boundaries #

• Quotable-candidate lists, acceptance self-checks, and status lines need not be polished here.
• Framework captions and Monday lists may enumerate.
• Do not trade falsifiability for "literary" effect.
• Do not treat novelist tools as methods-book optimization.
• Do not slide into TED or LinkedIn voice in the name of orality.
• Whole-sentence rewriting is not synonym polish: new syntax that does not improve fluency does not count.

13. Revision triggers #

1. Reader feedback across two or more chapters names unreadability or a "machine" feel, and the hard join is not covered here.
2. Citation layout conflicts systematically with publication or on-site evidence labels.
3. Fluency edits dilute claim sharpness or evidence quality.
4. After edits, the chapter is harder to read / more outline-like / more TED-like, or the revision log is deletion-only with no whole-sentence rewrites (roll back and tighten Sections 1, 4, 5, and 8).