Multi Channel Publishing

Purpose

Produce a channel-ready content derivative from a source document — not a summary, but a structurally adapted compression that preserves the source's thesis, maintains evidence fidelity, and conforms to the target channel's format constraints, audience expectations, and hook conventions. The output is a publishable artifact with a compression log proving nothing was lost by accident.

When to Use / When NOT to Use

Use this skill when:

• Repurposing a long-form article (Substack, blog, thesis) into a LinkedIn post, conference abstract, podcast brief, newsletter, tweet thread, spoken script, or executive briefing
• Deriving a compressed format from a full argument (compression direction: long → short)
• Adapting content for a new audience or channel while preserving the core claim
• Producing a spoken script from written beats or a conference proposal
• Creating a distribution package (multiple derivatives from one source)

Do NOT use this skill when:

• You need to write the original long-form piece (use the source-appropriate writing methodology first — P2: Substack first, derivatives second)
• You need to combine multiple sources into one synthesis (use Narrative Building or Problem Framing)
• You need to translate between languages (this is structural adaptation, not linguistic translation)
• The source document is internal/confidential and the target channel is public (Context Gate will catch this, but flag it early)
• You need a generic summary for no specific audience or channel (summaries without channel constraints produce FM-1: Summary, Not Derivative)

Anti-inputs (what this skill does NOT handle):

• Original content creation from scratch (this skill DERIVES, it does not originate)
• Content strategy or editorial calendar planning (this is a single-derivation tool)
• SEO optimization (channel format rules include discoverability principles, but this is not an SEO skill)
• Visual design or layout (this produces text; design is a separate discipline)

Context Gate (Step -1) — Mandatory Pre-Check

Before deriving ANY content, answer these four questions. If any answer is "No" or "Uncertain," STOP and resolve before proceeding.

Context Gate Decision Table:

Format Rules (Read First)

These rules govern every output. They are quality enforcement mechanisms, not style preferences.

1. Compression is not omission. Every derivative must visibly contain the source's compressed argument — thesis, evidence beats, and framework logic — not a single extracted fact padded to length. A 300-word post with three evidence layers and a structural insight is compression. A 220-word post with one data point and no framework is omission (P16). If you cannot fit the argument, choose a longer channel format.

2. Source document first, derivative second. Always. Never write the compressed version before the full argument exists (P2). If the source doesn't exist, this skill does not apply. The production order is inviolable: full argument → compressed derivatives.

3. Per-channel format constraints are hard limits. Word counts, structural requirements, and hook conventions per channel are not guidelines — they are constraints derived from how each platform's algorithm and audience behavior reward content. Exceeding LinkedIn's fold (first 2-3 lines) with a philosophical opening is a format violation, not a style choice.

4. Thesis statement survives verbatim or near-verbatim. The one-sentence core claim from the source must appear in every derivative. If it cannot fit, the derivative must contain a faithful compression that a reader could reconstruct the original thesis from. Thesis Drift (FM-2) is the highest-severity failure mode.

5. Evidence density scales with channel length. Long-form: 5+ evidence layers. LinkedIn post: 2-3 compressed evidence beats. Tweet thread: 1 evidence point per tweet. Conference abstract: promise of evidence, not the evidence itself. The Evidence Density Calibration framework (Framework 4) provides exact targets.

6. Hook archetype must match channel. A Substack opening (vivid scenario, slow build) deployed on LinkedIn (where 2 lines decide whether the reader continues) is a channel-blind failure (FM-5). The Hook Adaptation framework (Framework 3) maps archetypes to channels.

7. Voice consistency across derivatives. All derivatives from the same source must sound like the same author. If the source is written in first person with short sentences and self-implicating humor, the LinkedIn post cannot read like a consultant's press release. Voice Fracture (FM-7) is detectable by reading the source and derivative side-by-side.

8. Cite what survives compression. When an evidence beat from the source survives into a derivative, the citation or attribution must survive too. Uncited claims in a derivative that were cited in the source is evidence laundering.

9. The Compression Log is mandatory output. Every derivative ships with a log showing: what was kept (with source location), what was cut (with reason), and what was adapted (with the adaptation rationale). This makes the derivation auditable and prevents FM-3 (Evidence Omission) from going undetected.

Output Template (Mandatory Document Skeleton)

Every channel derivative MUST include these sections. Copy this skeleton and fill it in. The channel-specific content section varies by target channel (see Channel Format Taxonomy below for the exact structure per channel).

# Channel Derivative: [Source Title] → [Target Channel]

> **Source:** [Title and location of source document]
> **Target channel:** [linkedin_post | linkedin_article | conference_abstract | spoken_script | podcast_brief | newsletter | tweet_thread | executive_briefing]
> **Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD] | **Author voice:** [Grounded / Ungrounded] | **Compression ratio:** [source words → derivative words, X:1]

---

## Context Gate Results

| Gate | Result | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Source exists? | ✅/❌ | |
| Channel appropriate? | ✅/❌ | |
| Public-safe? | ✅/❌ | |
| Voice grounded? | ✅/❌ | |

---

## Step 0: Framework Selection

| Source type | Target channel | Primary frameworks | Supporting frameworks | Skipped (why) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [e.g., "Published Substack"] | [e.g., "LinkedIn post"] | [e.g., "Compression Protocol, Hook Adaptation, Evidence Density"] | [e.g., "Audience Context Matching"] | [e.g., "Spoken Script Derivation — wrong channel"] |

---

## Thesis Fidelity Check

| Dimension | Source | Derivative | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core claim (verbatim or compressed) | [Source thesis sentence] | [Derivative thesis sentence] | ✅ Preserved / ⚠️ Compressed / ❌ Drifted |
| Key evidence beats preserved | [Count in source] | [Count in derivative] | [X of Y preserved] |
| Counterargument preserved | [Strongest counterargument in source] | [Present / Absent in derivative] | ✅/❌ |
| Framework/structural insight | [Framework in source] | [Compressed/present in derivative] | ✅/❌ |

---

## [Channel-Specific Content Section]

[The actual derivative content — structure varies by channel. See Channel Format Taxonomy.]

---

## Compression Log

| Element | Source Location | Action | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| [e.g., "Thesis statement"] | [e.g., "Paragraph 3"] | Kept verbatim | Core claim — non-negotiable |
| [e.g., "Evidence beat 2: Stanford study"] | [e.g., "Section 3, para 2"] | Kept, compressed | Strongest surprise factor for this audience |
| [e.g., "Philosophical layer: judgment erosion"] | [e.g., "Section 4"] | Cut | Channel constraint — LinkedIn post cannot support this depth; compressed to 1 sentence woven into evidence |
| [e.g., "Counterargument 2: privacy tradeoff"] | [e.g., "Section 6, para 3"] | Cut | Kept only the strongest counterargument (Counterargument 1) per Compression Protocol Step 6 |
| [e.g., "Framework table: 3-domain taxonomy"] | [e.g., "Section 5"] | Adapted | Compressed from table to inline list; structure preserved, visual format changed for feed readability |

---

## Audience Context Match

| Dimension | Channel default audience | This derivative's specific audience | Adaptation applied |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expertise level | [e.g., "Mixed: peers + executives + recruiters"] | [e.g., "Senior PMs at enterprise companies"] | [e.g., "Skipped basic definitions; led with strategic implication"] |
| Reading context | [e.g., "Feed scroll, 3-second attention"] | [Specific context if known] | [Adaptation] |
| What they care about | [Channel default] | [Specific if known] | [Adaptation] |

---

## Quality Check

- [ ] Thesis preserved (verbatim or faithful compression)
- [ ] Evidence density meets channel target (see Evidence Density Calibration)
- [ ] Hook archetype matches channel (see Hook Adaptation)
- [ ] Voice consistent with source author
- [ ] Format constraints met (word count, structure, platform rules)
- [ ] Compression Log complete — every cut is justified
- [ ] No uncited claims that were cited in source
- [ ] Counterargument preserved (at least one, the strongest)
- [ ] Framework/structural insight visible in derivative
- [ ] Context Gate passed before derivation began

---

## Assumption Registry

| # | Assumption | Confidence | Evidence | What would invalidate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [e.g., "This audience has not read the source"] | H/M/L | [basis] | [invalidation condition] |
| 2 | [e.g., "LinkedIn algorithm still rewards short paragraphs and line breaks"] | H/M/L | [basis] | [invalidation condition] |
| 3 | [e.g., "The source's evidence beats are still current"] | H/M/L | [basis] | [invalidation condition] |

---

## Adversarial Self-Critique

**Weakness 1: [Title]**
[What assumption is being made? What evidence would disprove it? Scenario where this derivative fails its purpose.]

**Weakness 2: [Title]**
[Same depth]

**Weakness 3: [Title]**
[Same depth]

---

## Revision Triggers

| Trigger | What to re-derive | Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| [e.g., "Source document is updated with new evidence"] | [Re-run derivation for all channels] | [Immediate] |
| [e.g., "Channel algorithm changes (e.g., LinkedIn changes fold behavior)"] | [Re-check format constraints] | [Within 1 week of change] |
| [e.g., "Evidence in derivative becomes stale (>6 months)"] | [Update evidence beats or add staleness flag] | [At 6-month mark] |

Rules for using this template:

1. Do not skip sections. If a section isn't applicable, write "Not applicable — [reason]" and move on.
2. The Compression Log is the audit trail. Every element from the source must appear in the log as Kept/Cut/Adapted with rationale.
3. The channel-specific content section uses the exact structure from the Channel Format Taxonomy for the target channel — not a generic paragraph format.
4. Thesis Fidelity Check is completed AFTER writing the derivative — it is a verification step, not a planning step.
5. The Quality Check is the final gate. If any checkbox fails, revise before delivering.

Reader Navigation

How to Read This Skill

If you have 5 minutes: Read the Context Gate (Step -1) and the Compression Protocol (Framework 2). These two sections give you the decision logic for whether to derive and the 7-step method for doing it.

If you have 15 minutes: Add the Channel Format Taxonomy (Framework 1) for your target channel and the Hook Adaptation table (Framework 3). You now have channel-specific constraints and the right opening strategy.

If you have 30 minutes: Read the full skill. The Evidence Density Calibration (Framework 4), Audience Context Matching (Framework 5), and Source Fidelity Verification (Framework 6) add the quality layers that separate consultant-tier from elite-tier derivatives. The Spoken Script Derivation (Framework 7) is only needed for talk/presentation outputs.

By Role

Notation Key

Domain Frameworks

This section IS the knowledge weapon. Each framework is encoded with scoring rubrics, decision tables, and application rules. A writer using this skill produces derivatives that require these frameworks; without them, the output degrades to generic summarization.

Framework 1: Channel Format Taxonomy

Structured definitions of each target channel with hard constraints. These are not guidelines — they are derived from platform algorithms, audience behavior research, and publishing failure modes.

LinkedIn Post (Feed Format)

Scoring Rubric — LinkedIn Post Quality:

LinkedIn Article (Long-Form)

Conference Talk Abstract

Decision Table — Abstract Quality:

Spoken Script / Talk

Podcast Brief

Newsletter / Email

Tweet Thread

Executive Briefing

Framework 2: Compression Protocol

The 7-step methodology for deriving a compressed format from a full argument. This is the operational core of the skill. Every derivation follows these steps in order.

Prerequisite: The source document must be fully read and its structure mapped before starting. Identify: (a) the thesis statement, (b) all evidence beats, (c) all framework applications, (d) all counterarguments, (e) the philosophical/deeper layer (if present), (f) the opening hook, (g) the closing invitation.

Step 1: Sharpen the Hook (Channel-Appropriate)

The source's opening rarely transfers directly. Adapt using the Hook Adaptation framework (Framework 3).

Decision Table — Hook Adaptation:

Step 2: Keep the Thesis Statement Intact

The thesis is the one sentence the reader could repeat back. It survives every derivation.

Fidelity test: After writing the derivative, extract the thesis from BOTH source and derivative. If a reader would state the core claim differently after reading each, you have thesis drift (FM-2).

Step 3: Pick 3 Evidence Beats (From the Source's N Beats)

Most sources have 4-7 evidence beats. Most derivatives need 2-3. Selection criteria:

Decision Table — Evidence Selection:

Step 4: Keep 1 Framework Application (The Most Accessible)

If the source applies multiple frameworks, the derivative keeps one — the one that is most intuitive to the target audience.

Compression rule: The framework goes from a full section (500-1000 words) to an inline reference (1-3 sentences) or a compressed visual (a list instead of a table). The structure is preserved; the explanation is cut.

Step 5: Drop Philosophy (Keep Mechanism)

The source's "deeper layer" — philosophical implications, societal commentary, abstract reflection — rarely survives compression. The mechanism behind the philosophy does.

The 10% Rule: Philosophical/personal passages should be ≤10% of any derivative. If the derivative is 300 words, that's 30 words of philosophical depth — one sentence. Earn it.

Step 6: Keep 1 Counterargument (The Strongest)

Intellectual honesty survives compression. Counterarguments are what separate a confident argument from a confident assertion.

Selection criterion: The strongest counterargument is the one that, if true, would most seriously undermine the thesis. Not the easiest to defeat — the hardest.

Step 7: Shorten the Invitation/CTA

The source's closing (often 1-2 paragraphs: forward look + invitation) compresses to 1-2 sentences.

Framework 3: Hook Adaptation by Channel

Four hook archetypes mapped to channel effectiveness. Every source document opens with one of these (explicitly or implicitly). The derivative must adapt the archetype to the target channel's constraints.

The Four Hook Archetypes:

Hook × Channel Effectiveness Matrix:

Key: 🟢 = Strong fit (use as-is or lightly adapt) | 🟡 = Moderate fit (adapt significantly) | 🔴 = Poor fit (choose different archetype)

Channel-Specific Hook Constraints:

Framework 4: Evidence Density Calibration

How much evidence per channel. This framework provides exact targets for the number, depth, and annotation of evidence beats per derivative format.

Evidence Density Targets:

…(truncated)