NSTD.3:4 - Solution
Work on the connection the reader needs: what changed, what depends on what, why an action follows or which condition limits the conclusion. The optional note below is useful when several passages, collaborators or later comparisons need to retain that analysis. A single passage can be repaired directly.
NarrativeEventMechanismSupport@Context:
narrativeRenderingRef:
sourceStructureKind:
requiredReaderReconstruction:
eventOrMechanismModel:
participants?:
dependencyOrConstraintRefs?:
causalClaimBasis?:
uncertaintyOrUnknownRefs?:
reconstructionTaskRefs?:
sourceReturnCondition:
Compare the intended reconstruction with the passage and its source. An unknown source relation and a relation merely omitted from the explanation call for different repairs.
Use the following questions to repair a passage; retain answers only where the working use needs them.
- State the connection on which the passage depends, its source or premise, and what remains unknown.
- Identify the relation and its grounds. For example, a time sequence, mathematical dependency, physical cause and fictional motivation answer different questions; they are not successive strengths on one scale.
- State what the reader needs to reconstruct: for example a state change, explanation, prediction or limit of an analogy.
- Find wording or omissions that invite a different reconstruction from the one supported.
- Repair the connection: supply a missing step, correct its kind or strength, add a relevant uncertainty, or return to the source question. Keep a strong claim when its grounds support it; weakening every claim can also mislead.
Connectors are cues to inspect the complete claim, not automatic triggers for another procedure.
| Wording | Question about this passage | Repair when needed |
|---|---|---|
| “then” or “after” | Does the source establish this sequence, or is this only the chosen presentation order? | State the supported sequence or explain the ordering choice. |
| “because” | Does it introduce a cause, a reason, a proof dependency or a fictional motive? | Supply or qualify that relation. Use C.28 only when its causal-use question is at issue. |
| “therefore” | Which premises and inference make the conclusion follow? | Restore the missing premise or step, or state the remaining uncertainty. |
| “had to” | Which condition makes the action necessary, and under which alternatives? | Name that condition or replace necessity with the supported choice. |
| “wanted” or “decided” | Whose motive or decision is asserted, and is it factual, fictional or interpretive? | Clarify the participant and grounds. Use NSTD.4 when viewpoint or attribution causes the ambiguity. |
| “shows that” | What does the observation, argument or example actually establish? | Match the conclusion to those grounds; an evidence claim may require A.10. |
| A proof can be narrated through questions and inferences, and an architecture explanation through a trade-off. Describe those relations as such. Inventing an event or intention to connect them may change the subject. An imagined discovery scene can still illustrate a proof when its imagined events remain distinguishable from the mathematical argument. |
Reader reconstruction tasks should be concrete:
- “Name the mechanism and the unresolved relation” is better than “understand the mechanism.”
- “Distinguish observed event, inference, and prediction” is better than “follow the live story.”
- “Point to the formal statement where the analogy stops” is better than “get the math intuition.”
- “Recover which architecture trade-off was accepted and which exception remains” is better than “remember the project story.”
If the required reconstruction cannot yet be stated, clarify what the reader needs to do with the passage. Entertainment or initial orientation can be sufficient aims. A use that depends on a mechanism or inference needs a recoverable account of that relation.