NSTD.7:4 - Solution · fpf.tools

NSTD.7:4 - Solution

Work from a content plan to an inspected draft. For a short account, the plan can be a few instructions or marked source relations. Inspect a candidate before accepting, repairing or rejecting it; prior acceptance is not required to evaluate it. Use the optional note below when another worker, an experiment or a maintained workflow needs to recover those choices. Keep only the fields that serve that use.

GeneratedNarrativeUseNote@Context:
  sourceMaterialRef:
  generatedDraftRef:
  intendedReaderAndUse:
  requiredRelationsOrConstraints:
  generationMethodRef?:
  contentPlanRef?:
  discourseOrEventPlanRef?:
  schemaConstraintRefs?:
  sourceComparison:
  evaluationRef?:
  useDecisionOrRepair:
  consequentialUseDecisionMaker?:
  architectureSynthesisAssessmentRef?:
  additionalClaimGrounds?:
  revisitCondition?:

Choose additional checks from the claim being made:

Question	Applicable content
Source selection and any evidence claim	`NSTD.1` for ordinary source selection; `G.2` for SoTA harvesting and synthesis across traditions; `A.10` when evidence is claimed.
Generated result will inform architecture work	`C.35`; generation alone does not select it.
Source-to-narrative relation	`A.6.3.NAR` and this DPF
Reader recovery of selected structure	`C.2.8` through `NSTD.6`; `C.33` separately when architecture-description adequacy is the question.
Claimed correspondence between structures	Compare the relevant source and result directly. Use `C.34` for architecture-specific preservation claims; ordinary story continuity does not select it.
Generation procedure	method or method-description owner, with source-pack grounding
Narrative rendering quality evaluation	`NSTD.6`, `A.19.ECS`, `C.16`
Repeated quality improvement	`E.22` when the quality question is not framed, then `E.23` using `NSTD.6` result rows and re-evaluation
Evidence	`A.10`
Assurance	`B.3`
Ethics, harm, bias, affected parties	`D.1` through `D.5`
Responsibility for a consequential use	The applicable organizational assignment or decision authority; precise Work claims use their own FPF grounds.

The following operations describe a useful generation cycle. They can be interleaved: an inspected draft may reveal a better content selection or order. A short task can combine planning in one prompt and comparison in one reading. Separate stages or records are useful only when the task, tool or receiving use needs them.

Operation	What to do	Typical failure
Source selection	Select the material and relations or constraints needed for the reader’s use. Keep unresolved source claims visible.	A prompt assumption is reported as an established fact.
Content planning	Choose what to include, omit and foreground. Revise the selection when comparison reveals a gap.	The generator silently drops a condition needed for the reader’s action.
Discourse or sequence planning	Choose an order or reveal rule through `NSTD.2`.	Plausible prose changes chronology, causal support, proof dependency or continuity.
Realization	Generate wording, viewpoint and style suited to that use.	Smoothness disguises an unsupported connection.
Inspection and evaluation	Compare the draft with its sources and constraints; use `NSTD.6` for the relevant quality questions.	A defect remains invisible because only fluency or schema validity was checked.
Use, repair or reject	Decide from the result and stakes. Re-evaluate changed claims before calling a revision better.	Repeated generation changes the text without resolving the original defect.

For schema-governed generation, distinguish a format check from a content check. A schema can require scene fields, character roles, locations, source references, branches or game-engine inputs. Check whether those fields contain the right relations and satisfy the intended constraints. Record the constraints when later maintenance needs them; use NSTD.6 for narrative quality and C.34 when architecture-specific structural preservation is at issue. Neither a valid schema nor a complete note establishes factual accuracy.

For LLM-assisted analysis or theme generation, compare proposed themes with the source excerpts and serious alternative readings. The researcher decides which interpretation the report supports and explains its limitations. A generated plan can become input to later narrative work once its relevant claims or premises are suitable for that use; a named admission record is not a universal prerequisite.

Select a probe when its possible result can change the generation method, repair or intended use:

Source perturbation: change one relevant constraint and compare the next output. A failure to reflect the change exposes a grounding problem. A successful probe supports that tested relation; it does not prove fidelity for every output.
Structure recovery: ask a reader to reconstruct the relations needed for the task without seeing the prompt. Retain the first answer and actual assistance. A missing relation may require content or order repair.
Responsibility: for a consequential organizational use, establish who decides and can correct or withdraw it. A tool-generated assertion of permission supplies no such assignment.