# Outline conventions: defects found in the brief itself > **Public version.** Written after the pilot found three defects in the outline, not in the models. > These are fixes to the **outline template**, not to the rubric. Until they are applied, C4 and G1 cannot be scored at all. > > Episode specifics are removed throughout. The defects are structural and survive the removal intact. --- ## Why the brief needed fixing at all Three models were given the same outline and resolved its internal contradictions **differently**. That is not a model difference. It is an instruction defect, and any evaluation run on top of it would attribute the outline's ambiguity to the writers. **An outline that can be read two ways is not a controlled brief.** This is the part of the exercise that is easy to skip. It is much more comfortable to grade the models than to discover that the instrument handing them their work is inconsistent with itself. The pilot found the defects only because the criteria were applied to real production data rather than to a curated sample. --- ## Fix 1: Declare which column is authoritative **Problem.** The outline has a `What to Include` column (the assigned beats) and an `Example` column (sample prose). Two of three writers tracked the Example column and stopped where it stopped. The third followed the beat list, which continues further. Nothing in the document says which one governs. **Fix.** Add this block to the top of every outline: ``` COLUMN AUTHORITY What to Include = the assignment. Every beat listed here must appear. Example = illustration only. Never copy it. It is not the assignment, and it is not a completeness signal: it may be shorter than the beat list. Synthesis Decisions = editorial commentary, written after the fact. NOT instructions. Writers must ignore this block. ``` That last line matters most. See Fix 2. --- ## Fix 2: Resolve the section-assignment contradiction **Problem.** The `What to Include` column for **ACT 2** does not mention a particular named figure. **ACT 3** assigns her explicitly. But the *Synthesis Decisions* block at the foot of the same document says: > `[original, ACT 2 integration] Merged her introduction into ACT 2 (not split across ACT 2 and ACT 3)...` Two of three writers put her in Act 2. One did not. **The same document supports both behaviours**, so it is impossible to say whether that is scope creep or obedience. This single contradiction decides C4 for two of the three sections. **Fix, and it is an editorial call rather than a technical one.** Pick one and make the beat table match: - **Option A: keep her in ACT 3.** Delete the ACT 2 integration line from Synthesis Decisions. Simplest, and it matches the section titles, since ACT 3's title is her part of the story. - **Option B: move her into ACT 2**, as the synthesis note intends. Then **move the bullets themselves** into ACT 2's `What to Include`, remove them from ACT 3, and rebalance both word counts. **Recommendation: Option B, if the merge was a real editorial decision.** The note reads like one, and it describes a deliberate narrative choice worth keeping. But the decision has to live in the beat table, not in a commentary block the writers were never told to read. **The general rule:** *if an editorial decision changes what a writer should produce, it belongs in `What to Include`. If it does not, it belongs nowhere the writer can see.* --- ## Fix 3: One word-count target per section **Problem.** ACT 2's row header says **~450 words**. The verification block at the foot of the same outline says **ACT 2: ~420**. The three sections came in at ~420, ~420 and ~450, so the writers picked different targets from the same document. **Fix.** The **row header is authoritative**. Regenerate the verification block from the row headers rather than maintaining it by hand, so the two cannot drift apart. Until this is fixed, **G1 is unscoreable**. A gate with two different pass lines is not a gate. --- ## Fix 4: Number the beats (recommended, not required) **Problem.** Beats are nested: headed groups containing bullets. One act in the pilot episode has 4 headed groups containing 15 bullets. C1 counts beats, and the count is 4 or 15 depending on how the outline is read. **Fix.** Number the groups and bullets explicitly. Illustrated below on the neutral demonstration topic used by the fixtures in [`04-test-cases.md`](04-test-cases.md), so the convention can be shown without publishing production material: ``` ACT 1 - assigned beats A. THE PROBLEM A1. 1937: shoppers carry hand baskets A2. A full basket is heavier than most people will carry A3. When the basket gets heavy, the shopping trip ends A4. Every heavy basket is a sale that never happened B. THE INVENTOR B1. Store owner in Oklahoma City notices the pattern B2. Diagnoses it as a physical limit, not a demand limit B3. Builds a wheeled cart from a folding chair frame B4. Solves the engineering problem completely C. THE REJECTION C1. Nobody uses it C2. Men refuse: pushing a cart reads as weak C3. Women refuse: it resembles pushing a pram C4. The social problem is harder than the engineering one D. THE FIX D1. Hires actors of both sexes and various ages to push carts D2. Places a greeter at the door to hand out carts D3. Refusing now means refusing a person, not an object D4. Within a year the carts are never idle ``` **Why this is worth doing.** It gives the rubric an unambiguous unit at both levels: **bullets for coverage (C1), groups for development (C2)**. It also makes grading machine-checkable, because a grader can return `A1: present, A2: present, C4: absent` instead of prose. And it costs nothing at authoring time. --- ## Applying these These are template changes, so they apply to every future episode. The pilot episode can be retro-fitted by hand for the run, or simply excluded from C4 and G1 scoring with the reason stated. > **This document is part of the artifact on purpose.** "The evaluation found defects in the instrument that produces the work, not only in the work" is a stronger finding than a model ranking, and it is the kind of thing that only turns up when someone actually applies a rubric to real production data instead of to a benchmark.