Post-Revision Sufficiency Audit
Project:
Manuscript version:
Revision episode:
Date:
Use after substantial compression, restructuring or AI-assisted rewriting.
1. Central contribution
- The central contribution remains visible early enough for the intended reader.
- Supporting findings still explain, establish or delimit that contribution rather than compete with it.
2. Evidence preservation
- Every contestable substantive proposition retains an appropriate warrant.
- No sentence survives merely because it is fluent after its supporting research object changed.
- Manuscript-generated claims still map to current evidence.
3. Inferential preservation
- Observed, descriptive, inferential, causal and mechanistic language remains correctly distinguished.
- Required uncertainty and non-causal qualifications remain attached.
- No robustness result has been rewritten as a broader validity claim than it supports.
4. Conceptual preservation
- Frozen terms and distinctions remain intact.
- Compression has not removed context needed to interpret the contribution.
- Repetition that is analytically necessary has not been deleted merely for stylistic variation.
5. Discipline and outlet
- The manuscript remains legible within its discipline.
- Outlet or editor requirements have shaped presentation only where compatible with evidence and claim boundaries.
- Target-journal rhetoric has not replaced substantive fit.
6. Escalation
For every failure, classify it:
- Layer C presentation repair
- Layer B claim-authorisation reconsideration
- Layer A analytical/evidential work
A Layer A or B failure must not be repaired by rhetorical adjustment alone.