{"id":15332,"date":"2026-06-12T10:25:15","date_gmt":"2026-06-12T15:25:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aceygaspard.com\/?p=15332"},"modified":"2026-06-12T10:25:15","modified_gmt":"2026-06-12T15:25:15","slug":"reults","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aceygaspard.com\/?p=15332","title":{"rendered":"Reults"},"content":{"rendered":"

I read all three files closely against each other. Overall they’re in good shape \u2014 the cross-referencing between stages (Research owns the steps, Writing owns wording, Edit owns cleanup) is clear and mostly conflict-free. Here’s what I found, ordered by importance.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Internal contradiction in EDIT-INSTRUCTIONS (Pass 4, Part B).<\/strong> The hard example says “The watch shop sells luxury timepieces” is wrong. But the “Fix by” list a few lines later says the business may be rewritten so it “produces, supplies, offers, manages, provides, coordinates, stocks, sells<\/strong>, displays, serves, or supports the result.” So “sells” is both forbidden and approved in the same pass. A medium-effort model resolves this by context; a low-effort model may not. Remove “sells” (and consider “displays”) from the acceptable-verb list, or align it with the Writing file’s list.<\/li>\n
  2. The two acceptable-verb lists don’t match.<\/strong> Writing says a business can “provide, offer, operate, specialize in, be structured as, require, accept orders, or serve a market.” Edit uses a different list. Harmonizing them to one identical list means the writer and editor judge sentences by the same standard, which reduces edit churn.<\/li>\n
  3. Dead-weight currency\/date rules in EDIT-INSTRUCTIONS.<\/strong> The Language and Style Standard includes “Currency: $1,000” and “Always use numerals for money.” Since your system bans dollar amounts entirely, these rules never apply \u2014 and worse, they could signal to a weaker model that dollar figures are expected content. I’d cut the currency line or replace it with a one-line reminder that articles should contain no dollar amounts.<\/li>\n
  4. The 25-word cap makes the 2-sentence allowance nearly moot.<\/strong> Two sentences within 25 words must average ~12 words each. That’s fine if intended, but stating both limits in four places (Writing rules, Writing audit, Edit checklist, Edit audit) costs tokens and gives a low-effort model two rules to reconcile instead of one. You could simplify to “25 words max, 1\u20132 sentences” stated once per file.<\/li>\n
  5. Number style exists only in the Edit file.<\/strong> “Spell out one through nine” isn’t in the Writing file, so the writer produces inconsistent numbers the editor must fix. One line added to Writing closes that gap.<\/li>\n
  6. Leftover “opening readiness” phrasing.<\/strong> Research still uses “opening readiness” (Context Rule) and “opening-stage readiness” (Startup Scope). Since Research is internal-facing this may be deliberate, but if the pre-opening phrasing decision was meant to be system-wide, those remnants could leak into research output and then into articles.<\/li>\n
  7. For the low-effort problem specifically:<\/strong> the files are long, and weaker runs miss buried rules. Adding a short “Hard Rules \u2014 Never Violate” block of 5\u20137 lines at the top of each file (paragraph limits, no dollar amounts, human-actor rule, output format) would give a cheaper model the critical constraints up front even if it skims the rest. This is probably the single highest-leverage change for your token-cost goal.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Nothing here is broken enough to be causing bad output on Sonnet 4.6 at medium effort \u2014 items 1 and 3 are the only true conflicts. Let me know which items you want, and I’ll rewrite the affected files.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    I read all three files closely against each other. Overall they’re in good shape \u2014 the cross-referencing between stages (Research owns the steps, Writing owns wording, Edit owns cleanup) is clear and mostly conflict-free. Here’s what I found, ordered by importance. Internal contradiction in EDIT-INSTRUCTIONS (Pass 4, Part B). The hard example says “The watch … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15332","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aceygaspard.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15332","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aceygaspard.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aceygaspard.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aceygaspard.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aceygaspard.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15332"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.aceygaspard.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15332\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15333,"href":"https:\/\/www.aceygaspard.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15332\/revisions\/15333"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aceygaspard.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aceygaspard.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15332"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aceygaspard.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}