Manuscript starter kit
Use with: paper-worthiness ranking · machine register · current synthesis
Admission gate
A manuscript cluster is ready to draft only when it has:
- one central claim that can be stated without the entire programme;
- a conventional mathematical or physical object recognized by the target field;
- a proof, reproducible computation or bounded dataset;
- a novelty boundary grounded in primary literature;
- a named counterexample, limitation or no-go scope;
- independent reproduction of the decisive step; and
- a useful conclusion even if the programme's larger interpretation is removed.
Recommended structure
- Problem in the field's language. Begin with the conventional question, not the corpus chronology.
- Objects and assumptions. Fix carrier, field, product, domain, normalization and equivalence relation.
- Main theorem or empirical claim. State scope and status in one paragraph.
- Proof or method spine. Replace certificate-only steps with conventional arguments where practical; retain code as reproduction support.
- Ablations and counterexamples. Show why weaker inputs do not yield the result.
- Relation to prior art. Separate known theory, new application, new classification and speculative interpretation.
- Physical or mathematical boundary. State what is not derived.
- Reproduction packet. Provide deterministic commands, versions, inputs and expected outputs.
- Discussion. Present the strongest warranted implication and the smallest next discriminant.
Claim table
| Claim | Status | Controlling proof/data | Prior art | Boundary | Reproduction owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main claim | |||||
| Supporting claim | |||||
| No-go or ablation |
Red-team questions
- Does the same symbol denote different carriers in two sections?
- Is a representation result being described as dynamics?
- Is a group embedding being described as a physical selection?
- Is a numerical pattern stable under convention, normalization and basis changes?
- Could a standard theorem make the programme-specific derivation unnecessary?
- Does the novelty claim survive a primary-source literature search?
- Would the central result remain publishable if every mention of Spin(2,3), E8 or admissibility were removed?
If the last answer is no, the manuscript is probably still a synthesis note rather than an expert-facing paper.