Refine Draft

Refine Draft

Improve existing draft content through review and targeted improvements.

When to Use

• When a todo item is type refine-draft
• When /refine-draft [filepath] is invoked
• Weekly draft refinement runs

Instructions

1. Select Draft to Refine

If a specific file is provided, use it.

Otherwise, select using this priority:

1. Drafts flagged for refinement in todo.md
2. Oldest draft by created date
3. Drafts with lowest quality scores (if reviewed)

2. Check for Review Context

If the task context includes a Review file field (e.g., from an outer review):

1. Read the referenced review file (e.g., reviews/outer-review-2026-01-28-*.md)
2. Find the specific issue being addressed in the task notes
3. Check the Verification Notes section to understand what was confirmed
4. Use the reviewer's specific guidance for the fix

This provides crucial context for targeted fixes rather than general refinement.

3. Run Quality Review

Use the existing review tool:

uv run python scripts/curate.py review [filepath]

This provides:

• Overall quality score (1-10)
• Strengths list
• Improvements list with priorities
• Missing concepts

3.5 Attribution Accuracy Check (Required for Source-Based Articles)

If the article is based on a specific source (research paper, philosopher's work), run this checklist:

Misattribution Check

• Are all claims attributed to the source actually in the source?
• Did we attribute framework/constraints to the right author? (e.g., "five constraints" are Saad's, not Chalmers')
• Did we claim the author discusses something they don't? (e.g., "Many-Worlds" when they don't mention it)

Qualifier Preservation Check

• Are crucial qualifiers preserved? ("default causal profile" not just "causal profile")
• Did we change "X or at least Y" to just "X"?
• Did we change "some" to "all" or "wherever"?

Position Strength Check

• Did we present exploratory positions as commitments?
• Did we claim shared commitments that aren't shared? (e.g., "shares our rejection of MWI" when author expresses "sympathy for MWI")
• Did we use "solves" or "answers" when source uses "addresses" or "explores"?

Source/Map Separation Check

• Is source exposition clearly separated from Map interpretation?
• Are Map-specific arguments (tenets, quantum interactionism) clearly labeled as such?
• Did we inject Map arguments as if they came from the source?

Self-Contradiction Check

• Did we claim something is "not required" but also "required" in different sections?
• Are claims about the theory's commitments consistent throughout?

If any check fails, fix the issue before proceeding to other improvements.

4. Apply Improvements

Based on the review, make targeted improvements following obsidian/project/writing-style.md.

Clarity

• Simplify convoluted sentences
• Define jargon on first use
• Improve paragraph flow

Structure

• Verify opening summary front-loads key information
• Check for undefined forward references (use named-anchor pattern)
• Ensure "Relation to Site Perspective" section exists
• Add transitions between sections

Style Guide Compliance

• Important information front-loaded (truncation resilience)
• Named-anchor summaries for forward references
• Standard background minimised (focus on what's novel)
• H2/H3 headers are descriptive and aid navigation

Tenet Alignment

• Ensure content doesn't contradict tenets
• Add explicit connections to tenets where natural
• Address obvious objections

5. Check for Description

If the article lacks a description field in frontmatter:

• Add one: 150-160 characters
• Emphasize human+AI collaboration, iterative refinement, and pursuit of truth
• Avoid generic phrases—make it distinctive to The Unfinishable Map's approach
• Example style: "AI-assisted exploration of X—continuously refined to get closer to the truth."

6. Preserve Voice

When refining:

• Keep the original style and approach
• Don't over-edit - targeted improvements only
• Preserve unique phrasings that work
• Maintain the original argument structure unless flawed

7. Update Frontmatter

After refinement:

ai_modified: YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS+00:00  # Update timestamp

If the original was human-authored (ai_contribution: 0), update to mixed:

ai_contribution: 20  # Or appropriate percentage based on changes

8. Document Changes

Add a comment at the end of the file (to be removed by human):

<!-- AI REFINEMENT LOG - YYYY-MM-DD
Changes made:
- [Change 1]
- [Change 2]
- [Change 3]

Based on review scoring X/10.
Key improvements: [summary]

This log should be removed after human review.
-->

9. Update Todo

If this was a todo item, mark it complete.

If significant issues remain, create a new todo:

### P2: Further refine [filename]
- **Type**: refine-draft
- **Status**: pending
- **Notes**: Initial refinement done but [remaining issues]

10. Log to Changelog

Prepend to obsidian/workflow/changelog.md (add immediately after frontmatter, before existing entries):

## [current time from prompt] - refine-draft
- **Status**: Success
- **File**: [[filepath without .md extension]]
- **Original score**: X/10
- **Changes**: [brief list]
- **Published**: yes

11. Commit

Create a git commit with message:

refine(content): Improve [filename]

Changes:
- [Change 1]
- [Change 2]

Changes applied directly.

What NOT to Do

• Don't change the fundamental argument unless it's flawed
• Don't add unnecessary content to pad length
• Don't remove content without clear reason
• Don't change draft: false to draft: true on published content
• Don't make stylistic changes just for the sake of change

Attribution Errors to Avoid

These errors have been identified in outer reviews and must be fixed when found:

• Don't attribute framework X to author Y when it's actually from author Z (e.g., "five constraints" are Saad's, not Chalmers')
• Don't claim an author discusses topic X when they don't mention it (e.g., Saad doesn't discuss Many-Worlds)
• Don't drop crucial qualifiers from definitions (e.g., "default causal profile" → "causal profile" loses essential meaning)
• Don't strengthen hedged claims (e.g., "explores" → "argues"; "sympathy for X" → "rejects alternatives to X")
• Don't present Map interpretations as source claims — keep Channel A (source) and Channel B (Map) separate
• Don't claim shared commitments that aren't shared (e.g., claiming author "shares our rejection of MWI" when they express sympathy for MWI)

Important

• ALWAYS update ai_modified timestamp
• ALWAYS document changes made
• Preserve the original author's voice