xiaolai Defamation Wording
Global Five Over-Rules
- Evidence before elegance. Never improve the story by weakening the evidence.
- Responsibility follows control, benefit, knowledge, and preventability. Do not stop at the most visible actor.
- Keep the taxonomy intact. Distinguish pure scapegoat, partial scapegoat, system/object alibi, and cost-bearing goat.
- Steelman before judgment. Every major claim must face its strongest counterargument before it is asserted.
- Handoff cleanly. Every output must state assumptions, evidence grade, open questions, and next owner.
Procedural-stage wording table
The defamation risk of a sentence about a living person or company is determined by whether the wording is consistent with the procedural status of the underlying claim. Match wording to stage; never reach above the stage's ceiling.
| Procedural stage | Allowed verbs | Forbidden verbs | Attribution pattern |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reported / alleged (journalism, no charge) | "is alleged to", "is reported to", "according to ", "X says Y did Z" | "guilty", "lied", "deliberately", "knew", "is responsible for" (without qualifier) | Always name the source. Never present as fact. |
| Under investigation / preliminary examination | "is under investigation by X for", "X is examining whether Y" | charges-implying verbs ("indicted", "charged"); guilt-implying verbs | Name the investigating body + the date of the status. |
| Charges filed / indictment / preliminary ICC examination | "was charged by X with", "was indicted on", "faces charges of" | guilt verbs ("is guilty", "did", "committed"); "war crime" before that stage advances | Distinguish indictment from conviction in every sentence. |
| Settled without admission / DPA / consent decree | "settled the matter with X for $N without admitting wrongdoing", "entered into a DPA in which X admitted " | "admitted guilt"; "was found"; any guilt verb beyond what is literally inside the settlement document | Quote the admitted facts verbatim; do not paraphrase into broader admission. |
| Found liable (civil) | "was found civilly liable by for", "a jury found that X" | criminal-guilt verbs ("convicted", "is a criminal") | Distinguish civil from criminal in the sentence. |
| Convicted (criminal, including plea) | "was convicted of", "pleaded guilty to", "was sentenced to" | hedging language that suggests open question ("alleged to have", "is reported to have") | Cite the court + date of judgment. |
| Conviction overturned / vacated / pardoned | "was convicted in and the conviction was vacated by in ", "was pardoned by X in " | language that implies the original conviction stands | Always include the reversal. |
Decision rubric
For every sentence that names a living person or company AND attributes conduct, harm, mental state, or motive:
- Identify the strongest procedural-stage source. If none reaches charges-filed or higher, you are in journalism-allegation territory.
- Determine what the source actually says. Quote the operative verb (e.g., the DOJ press release says "misled the FAA" — the chapter can say "misled" because the source uses that verb; it cannot escalate to "deceived" or "knowingly lied").
- Match the wording to the stage. Use only verbs in the row's "allowed" column. Reject anything in "forbidden".
- Add the attribution. Every claim names its source on the same line or in the same paragraph. No floating accusations.
- Distinguish person from entity. A corporation can "violate", "settle", "be found liable" without implicating any named individual. A named individual needs their own per-person procedural status.
- Live-event check. If the underlying event is still developing, add a date stamp: "as of , X is under investigation". Flag the chapter for re-verification before publication.
Conflict handling
- The chapter argument needs the stronger verb but the procedural stage doesn't support it: Rewrite the claim to attribute through the available verb. If the argument collapses without the stronger verb, the claim is not yet ready for the chapter. Handoff to Stephen for a re-grade after sourcing, or to Bonnie for a structural rewrite that does not require the stronger claim.
- Two sources disagree on procedural stage (e.g., a press release says "settled" but a regulator filing says "consent decree"): Use the narrower, more conservative formulation. Cite both.
- The named person disputes the public record: Their dispute is recorded; the public record stands unless they have produced an authoritative correction. Do not soften the chapter just because the subject objects.
- A quote from a primary source uses a forbidden verb: The quote may stand verbatim inside quotation marks with attribution. The chapter's surrounding prose must not adopt the verb as its own narration.
Escalation conditions
- Escalate to Stephen when the underlying procedural status is unclear or contested — wording cannot be decided until the status is fixed.
- Escalate to Jerry when removing the unsupported claim would gut the chapter — this is a structural decision, not a wording fix.
- Escalate to a real attorney when the proposed wording involves: an active US/UK defamation suit against a publisher; a non-US jurisdiction with stricter libel law; a per se defamation category (criminal accusation, professional misconduct accusation, loathsome-disease accusation); or any named-individual claim where the chapter cannot reach evidence grade A or B.
Boundary-case recipes
- Named executive accused in a press piece, no charges. Allowed: "The Wall Street Journal reported that X said Y in an internal email obtained by the paper." Forbidden: "X knew Y." Use journalism-allegation phrasing only.
- DPA with specific admitted facts about a corporation but not about named individuals. Allowed: "Boeing admitted in its 2021 DPA that it misled the FAA about MCAS." Forbidden: "Boeing executives knew." Distinguish corporate admission from personal knowledge.
- A subject's quote that itself defames a third party. Quote the subject verbatim with attribution: "X told Reuters that Y 'lied repeatedly' about the matter." The chapter is now reporting that X said this; it is not adopting X's claim. Add Y's response if on record.
- Conviction later overturned. Allowed: "X was convicted in 2018 of fraud; the conviction was vacated in 2022 by the Ninth Circuit." Forbidden: "X is a convicted fraudster." Including the reversal is mandatory, not optional.
- The chapter wants to call something a "scapegoat".
The word "scapegoat" carries an evaluative claim that the blame is unjust. It is acceptable as a category label (per
.claude/rules/01-case-taxonomy.md) when the documented chain evidence supports the classification (run thetaxonomy-classificationskill first). It is not acceptable as a rhetorical flourish without that classification.
Output format
Subject (named person/company):
Claim being made:
Strongest procedural-stage source:
Procedural stage:
Source's operative verb:
Proposed safer wording:
Attribution pattern:
Open question:
Handoff: