Give every article a claim ledger before you give it a hook

---
name: write-evidence-article
description: Write a practical article from retained evidence, separating drafting, factual editing and style review while preserving claim boundaries.
---

# Write an evidence article

Create an article that answers a specific reader question and makes factual claims the retained sources can support. Preserve the user's audience, publisher, voice and scope.

## Build the factual foundation

Identify the reader's question, desired action, intended publisher and any commercial interest that needs disclosure. Inspect supplied evidence before choosing a thesis. When current facts matter, use available research tools to verify primary sources and retain the publication/access date. If browsing is unavailable, label the source cutoff and avoid presenting older facts as current.

Keep a working claim ledger: proposed claim, source/location, date, scope, denominator or unit, and limits. Distinguish measured outcomes, observations, internal tests, estimates, illustrative examples and unverified supplied assertions. Unknown is not zero. Do not mix aggregation levels or turn search impressions into search volume, sampled answers into market share, or product demonstrations into customer results.

Choose a thesis supported by the evidence. Unsupported attractive details should be removed, qualified or listed as research gaps. Do not invent a scene, person, dialogue, quote or metric to improve the opening.

## Draft and review in distinct roles

Write a complete first draft in the requested voice. Explain the mechanism, a usable workflow, the decision or human handoff, and a bounded next step. Use citations near the claims they support. Adapt structure and length to the publication rather than imposing a fixed article template.

Review separately for:

1. **Editorial and factual accuracy:** thesis, structure, source fidelity, scope, dates, denominators, causal language, disclosures and practical completeness.
2. **Style and reader usefulness:** generic openings, formulaic contrasts, repeated instructions, vague abstractions, forced humor and unsupported certainty.

Independent reviewers may be used when available and useful; otherwise perform the passes sequentially. A style assessment does not prove whether a person or AI wrote the text. Never report an invented detector score.

Revise material issues, then check changed passages and any dependent claims. Avoid endless polishing once the factual and editorial issues are resolved. If an essential fact remains missing, identify it and return the best bounded draft the evidence permits rather than silently filling it in.

## Deliver the article and its limits

Return the finished draft and, when useful, concise source/editorial notes with the evidence cutoff and unresolved issues. Keep private source records and personal details outside publishable copy. Preserve source links across revisions.

For product articles, recheck claims about pricing, availability and behavior immediately before publication; old evidence supports a historical account only. Do not imply that drafting authorizes posting, outreach or changes to the product.