bendemartin97 Substantiate idea and translate into content
Two tasks, in this order:
- Does the idea hold up to the evidence? If not, everything else is moot.
- How does it become a video? Several paths, not one.
This is not recycling. It doesn't check what's already run, and nothing is derived
from existing posts — that's what /recycling is for. The source is outside
evidence, not the account's own archive.
What comes in
An idea, as rough as it happens to be: a topic, an observation from daily work, a question, a hunch, a sentence someone said.
If no idea comes with it, propose some — but from the state of knowledge: where has the evidence shifted recently without common practice or public perception catching up? Never from the account's own past posts.
Step 1 · Sharpen the idea
Formulate in one sentence what the testable claim behind it is. "Make something about sleep" becomes "caffeine after 2 p.m. measurably cuts deep sleep — its half-life is longer than most people assume."
Without this sentence, nothing can be substantiated. If the idea is too vague to form it, say so and ask exactly once.
Step 2 · Search for evidence
Actively research. If web search is available, use it — don't rely on memory. Search for the strongest sources the field has:
- for scientific claims: guidelines from professional societies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, large original studies
- for craft, tech, and business claims: standards, primary data, manufacturer documentation, documented tests — never blogs citing blogs
- and explicitly also for counter-positions
Binding rules
Credibility is the account's only capital. A fabricated piece of evidence costs more than a hundred good ideas bring in.
- A source is only named if it can be pinned down — for a study: first author,
year, journal; for anything else: origin and date. Otherwise
to be researched— never a plausible-sounding source. - No number without a source. No percentages, counts, or ratios from memory. Without a source, the number is left out, not estimated.
- State the strength of the source: for scientific claims the level of evidence (RCT, meta-analysis, cohort study, guideline, expert opinion), otherwise the source type (standard, primary data, documented test, single account). These are not the same and are not presented as if they were.
- Name counter-positions, even when they're inconvenient. A one-sidedly substantiated idea gets torn apart in the comments.
Step 3 · Verdict
State clearly what the research found. Exactly one of these four answers:
| Verdict | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Holds | well substantiated, implementation follows below |
| Holds with caveat | substantiated, but only for a narrower claim — say which |
| Contested | studies contradict each other. Usually the better idea: the contradiction itself becomes the topic |
| Doesn't hold | the evidence doesn't support the claim |
At "doesn't hold," the work stops. Then don't propose an implementation, but explain what's true instead — and ask whether that should become an idea. Burying an idea is a full-fledged result, not a failure.
Step 4 · Implementation
Three variants with different angles, not the same thing three times. They should differ in what they use to enter the topic — say, via the gap between common practice and the evidence, via a mistake the viewer recognizes in their own routine, or via a widespread misconception.
Each variant consists of the triad that FORMATS.md requires, plus whatever's needed
for production:
### Variant <n> · <angle in two words>
ANCHOR: <quote, striking phrase, or pointed thesis – not the topic>
MISCONCEPTION: <what is widely believed or practiced>
RESOLUTION: <mechanism, number, or causal chain – concrete>
EVIDENCE: <source, year · type and strength>
TO SHOW: <what's displayed as proof – which screenshot, which spot>
STRUCTURE: <the beats in one line>
PILLAR: <from PILLARS.md>
STRENGTH: <one sentence on what this variant can do that the others can't>
On the TO SHOW field: the proof image is the strongest building block of the format — the evidence is shown, not claimed. Name concretely what's displayed and which line on it needs to be legible. "Show the source" is not enough.
After that:
Recommendation — which variant, justified in two sentences.
To be reviewed by a professional — every claim that would appear in the video, as a checklist. Claims in regulated fields — health, finance, law — need review by someone qualified, even when they appear substantiated.
Not proposed — one or two obvious angles you deliberately left out, with a reason. Makes the selection verifiable.
What this skill doesn't do
- No repurposing. For a second cut or a story version, there's
/recycling. - No topic lists. "Ten ideas about sleep" is not a result. Better one idea that's substantiated and actionable.
- No sugarcoating. If the evidence is thinner than hoped, that goes in the verdict — not in a footnote.