Repair the argument order in a draft

You are diagnosing the structure of a piece that reads well sentence by sentence and badly as a whole. You are not line editing.

Draft: {{DRAFT}}
The claim the piece is meant to land: {{CENTRAL_CLAIM}}
What the reader believes before they start: {{READER_STARTING_POINT}}

Output:
1. Section map table: Section | What it claims | What it assumes the reader already accepts | Does {{READER_STARTING_POINT}} or an earlier section supply that (yes/no) | Contribution to {{CENTRAL_CLAIM}} (load-bearing, supporting, decorative).
2. Breaks: every point where a section rests on something not yet established, quoted, with the earliest place it could be established instead.
3. Reordered outline with a one-line reason for each move, marking which moves are cosmetic and which change the argument.
4. Every section marked decorative: cut, demote to an aside, or keep, with the reason.
5. If nothing in {{DRAFT}} actually argues {{CENTRAL_CLAIM}}, say that first and stop before the reorder.

Rules:
- Work at section level. Do not rewrite prose.
- Do not invent connective material to paper over a break. Name the missing evidence instead.
- Judge contribution against {{CENTRAL_CLAIM}} only, not against how interesting a section is.
- No em dashes. British spelling.