#187 fixed the skill adding facts that were not in the source. This is the inverse failure on the same axis: the rewrite dropping a claim the source made. Rule 2 says "preserve the information, not the shape," but several style rules can remove information while appearing to only remove shape.
What happened
Running the skill on a technical recommendation document. Every number, filename, and identifier survived, which is the behaviour rule 3 promises and it works well. Two claims did not survive.
Superlative and ranking, dropped.
Before: The single most important new build is the Safe Completion compliance gate ...
After: The important new build is the Safe Completion compliance gate ...
"The single most important new build" ranks this item against every other item in the document. "The important new build" does not rank anything. In a build-vs-buy recommendation the ranking was the recommendation. The emphasis markup looks like §15 boldface cleanup, but the superlative went with it.
Simultaneity, dropped.
Before: it is simultaneously the product's main defensible differentiator, its legal shield in the one state it targets, and the deciding argument for the voice architecture below.
After: It is the product's main defensible differentiator, its legal shield in the one state it targets, and the deciding argument for the voice architecture below.
This reads like §10 rule-of-three cleanup, and the three items did survive. But the argument was that all three are true at once, which is why the item was worth prioritising. "Simultaneously" was the claim, not filler.
Why the current audit does not catch it
Step 3 asks whether the rewrite states any fact, name, number, date, or citation that is not in the source. That catches addition in the #187 direction. Nothing asks the reverse: whether a claim in the source is missing from the rewrite. Numbers and proper nouns are easy to check and survive reliably. Ranking claims, superlatives, and simultaneity assertions carry meaning in ordinary words, so they fall through, and they are exactly the words §10, §15, and §24 encourage cutting.
This shows up in analytical writing, where a rule-of-three is often three genuinely distinct things rather than padding. §10's examples are all filler triples ("innovation, inspiration, and industry insights"), so the rule reads as safe until it meets a load-bearing one.
Suggested fix
Add a clause to step 3's fact-integrity question, or to rule 2:
A deletion that costs the text a real claim is a defect too. If the original ranked something ("the single most important X"), asserted a superlative, or asserted that several things are true at once, the rewrite keeps that meaning or it has lost information, not shape.
One sentence, in the audit step that already exists.
#187 fixed the skill adding facts that were not in the source. This is the inverse failure on the same axis: the rewrite dropping a claim the source made. Rule 2 says "preserve the information, not the shape," but several style rules can remove information while appearing to only remove shape.
What happened
Running the skill on a technical recommendation document. Every number, filename, and identifier survived, which is the behaviour rule 3 promises and it works well. Two claims did not survive.
Superlative and ranking, dropped.
"The single most important new build" ranks this item against every other item in the document. "The important new build" does not rank anything. In a build-vs-buy recommendation the ranking was the recommendation. The emphasis markup looks like §15 boldface cleanup, but the superlative went with it.
Simultaneity, dropped.
This reads like §10 rule-of-three cleanup, and the three items did survive. But the argument was that all three are true at once, which is why the item was worth prioritising. "Simultaneously" was the claim, not filler.
Why the current audit does not catch it
Step 3 asks whether the rewrite states any fact, name, number, date, or citation that is not in the source. That catches addition in the #187 direction. Nothing asks the reverse: whether a claim in the source is missing from the rewrite. Numbers and proper nouns are easy to check and survive reliably. Ranking claims, superlatives, and simultaneity assertions carry meaning in ordinary words, so they fall through, and they are exactly the words §10, §15, and §24 encourage cutting.
This shows up in analytical writing, where a rule-of-three is often three genuinely distinct things rather than padding. §10's examples are all filler triples ("innovation, inspiration, and industry insights"), so the rule reads as safe until it meets a load-bearing one.
Suggested fix
Add a clause to step 3's fact-integrity question, or to rule 2:
One sentence, in the audit step that already exists.