Evaluate an AI Article for Depth, Not Just Polish

A hypothetical draft says retained context “unlocks efficient workflows and improves productivity.” It reads smoothly, but a team choosing how to manage a brief still has no mechanism to inspect. Another paragraph explains that version B reuses the brief while version A asks for it again, then states that completion time has not been measured.

The second paragraph does more useful work with a smaller claim. It gives the reader an observable difference, a reason it matters and a limit on what follows. That is the kind of depth the Write Like an Expert instructions aim to support.

Ask what the reader can now understand

Identify the article’s main claim before judging the writing. If you cannot state it, the draft may be a tour of the topic rather than an argument. Then find the passage that explains why the claim holds.

A mechanism names a relationship: which input, action or condition leads to the proposed result. “More efficient” is a conclusion; reusing an existing brief instead of requesting it is an action the reader can inspect. An article needs the level of detail appropriate to its question, not maximum technical density.

Use a rubric that can find a real gap

| Review question | Evidence to look for | |---|---| | What is the claim? | One proposition the article actually supports | | Why should it hold? | A concrete mechanism, not another benefit adjective | | What supports it? | Source passages, observations or clearly identified hypothetical material | | Where does it stop? | A condition, alternative explanation or unresolved question | | What can the reader do with it? | A decision or understanding connected to the original question |

This rubric does not create domain expertise. A reviewer still needs to recognize a technically wrong explanation or an inappropriate source. When that judgment is unavailable, mark the gap rather than assigning a reassuring score.

Edit the weakest relationship first

If evidence is missing, request it or narrow the claim. If the source is present but the reasoning is missing, explain the relationship. If the passage answers a different reader question, reconsider its place in the article. None of those problems is reliably fixed by making the tone more authoritative.

The argument-strengthening guide isolates that editorial job. A source brief helps when the evidence is scattered. Once the argument survives review, a separate humanizing pass can improve its wording while retaining the substance.

In the first library release, the worked revisions are authored fixtures and the live model behavior suite is pending recorded runs. Apply this rubric to the actual output from your own tool; do not treat a downloadable instruction as a guarantee that the article already meets it.