# Repair the argument order in a draft

> Use when every paragraph of a draft is fine on its own but the piece does not build to anything.

## Fill in before running

- `{{DRAFT}}`
- `{{CENTRAL_CLAIM}}`
- `{{READER_STARTING_POINT}}`

## Prompt

```
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.
```

## Getting a better result

- Write the central claim yourself before running this. If you cannot, that is the finding.
- Most long drafts fail at one missing paragraph in section 2 rather than needing a rewrite.
- Reorder before the line edit, or you will polish sections you are about to cut.

---

From the QuQi prompt library - https://www.quqi.io/prompts/argument-flow-repair