writing style guide

Writing and Style Guide

Document Positioning: This document specifies the writing style division for different document types in this project. It does not replace terminology.md, but supplements: How the same theoretical temperament adopts different expression methods in manifesto, theory, mechanism, critique, and case documents.

Core Principle: The project should maintain unified temperament, but should not forcibly use unified writing style. Unified temperament is clarity, seriousness, arguability, and self-critical capability; writing style should obey document function.

I. General Principles

The writing goal of Stairway Universalism is not to polish text smoother, but to increase theoretical strength. Style adjustments must serve the following goals:

Make judgments more arguable: Strong expressions can be retained, but must be traceable to conceptual distinctions, mechanism consequences, or failure conditions.
Make critique more internalized: Critique is not decorative counter-opinion, but a source of pressure on theoretical structure.
Make mechanisms more executable: Mechanism documents should reduce rhetoric, prioritizing presentation of rules, trigger conditions, exceptions, and responsibility attribution.
Make concepts more stable: The same term can bear different tones in different documents, but cannot change definition.
Keep open questions open: Judgments not yet completed in argumentation must not be processed into established conclusions by writing style.

II. Writing Styles by Document Type

2.1 Manifesto Documents: Restrained Normative Declarative Style

Applicable location: Manifesto documents

Manifesto documents are responsible for explaining core positions, legitimacy structures, and principle boundaries. They can have clear positions, but should not stack mobilizing language.

Writing requirements:

Can use strong judgments, but strong judgments should be followed by conceptual explanation or institutional consequences.
Avoid continuous use of propulsive words like "firmly," "absolutely not," "truly," "must," to avoid forming propaganda tone.
Principle sentences should be short; explanation paragraphs should explain what problem the principle solves.
Manifesto should not undertake all detailed argumentation; details should link to theoretical foundations, mechanism design, or critique documents.
For incomplete parts, should clearly mark "to be argued," "open questions," or "needs further testing."
Do not add maintenance headers such as "version," "last updated," "this update," or "change log" to the beginning of public documents. Public readers need the problem framework, argument structure, and current expression; revision history should be handled by Git or archive materials.

Suitable sentence patterns:

High authority must be open, but openness must have constraints; baseline service users must be protected, but protection cannot become abandonment.

Patterns not to be abused:

True justice necessarily requires thoroughly defeating all technocrats.

2.2 Theoretical Foundations: Analytical Discriminative Style

Applicable location: Theoretical foundation documents

Theoretical foundation documents are responsible for dialogue with political philosophy, social theory, and institutional thought. Their focus is not citing authorities, but clarifying what this project inherits, revises, rejects, and still cannot resolve.

Writing requirements:

Avoid writing external theorists as simple targets.
Distinguish "reference," "inheritance," "revision," "rejection," and "incompatible."
Summaries of external theories should be cautious, avoiding unverified assertions.
Can retain sharp judgments, but should prioritize advancement through conceptual distinction.
Endings should list stable conclusions, judgments to be argued, and open questions.

Suitable sentence patterns:

What Stairway Universalism references is the structure of this theory, not directly accepting its normative conclusions.

2.3 Mechanism Design: Institutional Manual Style

Applicable location: Mechanism design documents

Mechanism design documents are responsible for explaining how authority, certification, audit, appeal, downgrade, feedback, and other institutions operate. This should be the calmest, least rhetorical part of the entire project.

Writing requirements:

Prioritize use of definitions, tables, rules, trigger conditions, processes, and exceptions.
Minimize use of metaphors and emotional expressions, unless used to illustrate risks.
Each mechanism should explain applicable subjects, trigger conditions, executing subjects, and review methods.
Do not disguise "in principle should" as "already executable."
When specific numbers lack basis, should explain they need to be operationalized by domain conditions and empirical data.

Suitable sentence patterns:

When the access solidification rate of a certain risk threshold exceeds the preset red threshold, the relevant certification standards enter freeze and review procedures.

2.4 Critique and Rebuttal: Sharp Internal Trial Style

Applicable location: Critique and rebuttal documents

Critique documents are responsible for raising external critique, self-critique, and theoretical failure conditions. Stronger expressions can be retained here, because they undertake stress testing and immune layer construction.

Writing requirements:

Can use strong concepts like "technocracy," "gentle abandonment," and "chronic under-provisioning."
Strong expressions must land on failure mechanisms, collapse indicators, or immune layer design.
Do not weaken critique to maintain the manifesto.
Do not write critique as already resolved problems unless mechanism documents have already given executable responses.
Critics need not attach alternative solutions; critique itself can stand.

Suitable sentence patterns:

If baseline service users can only be protected but cannot understand protection rules, safety encapsulation will slide from protective mechanism to epistemic control.

2.5 Boundary Tests: Case Deduction Style

Applicable location: Boundary test documents

Boundary test documents are responsible for testing theoretical performance in extreme scenarios, compound crises, and counterexamples. They do not repeat principles, but track how principles deform, fail, or need revision under pressure.

Writing requirements:

Prioritize use of "scenario, conflict, failure path, trigger condition, institutional response, residual risk" structure.
Use more conditional and deductive sentences, fewer declarative sentences.
Do not rush to give triumphant conclusions; should retain residual risks that institutions cannot fully resolve.
If cases expose manifesto defects, should rewrite back to critique documents or mechanism documents.

Suitable sentence patterns:

If the audit chain is interrupted in crisis, the accountability chain may degenerate from an accountability mechanism to a post-hoc scapegoating mechanism.

2.6 Index and Terminology: Reference Book Style

Applicable location: Index and glossary

Index and terminology documents are responsible for entry, definitions, and cross-referencing. They do not undertake complete argumentation tasks.

Writing requirements:

Short, stable, low rhetoric.
Definitions should prioritize consistency rather than pursuing expressive variation.
Index explanations only answer "where," "what," and "what is it related to."
Do not add unexpanded new claims in the index.

III. Modification Priority

When subsequently polishing writing style, should process in the following order:

First correct terminology and obvious faulty sentences: Including repeated words, incorrect spaces, terminology inconsistencies.
Then compress repeated definitions: Retain first complete definition, subsequent text changes to specific inferences.
Then adjust document tone: Manifesto reduces declarative density, mechanism reduces rhetorical density, critique retains edge.
Finally do sentence polishing: Do not sacrifice theoretical tension for smoothness.

IV. Prohibitive Reminders

Do not grind all documents into the same voice.
Do not change critique documents into defense documents.
Do not write mechanism documents as value declarations.
Do not delete theoretical risks to reduce aggressiveness.
Do not use pretty expressions to cover unargued premises.
Do not add version, update time, or update-content headers to public documents.