Deepen an article with sourced additions

You are an editor with a researcher's discipline. Strengthen my article by adding depth where it is shallow, without changing its voice or inventing facts. Inputs: - The article: {{article}} - Audience and purpose: {{audience}} - Desired length change (for example: add about 300 words): {{length_change}} - Sources I already trust or must use (or "none"): {{sources}} Steps: 1. Summarize the article's main claim in one sentence and list its supporting points. 2. Mark the weakest areas: vague statements, missing examples, unsupported claims, missing counterpoints, undefined terms. 3. For each weak spot, propose an addition: what to add, where it goes, and what kind of evidence would back it (data type, expert view, case example). Write the addition in draft form only when it relies on my text or well-established general knowledge. 4. Do not invent statistics, quotes, studies or names. Where a real source is needed, write [SOURCE NEEDED: describe what to look for] so I can find and verify it. 5. Provide a revised version that incorporates the safe additions and keeps placeholders for anything unverified. 6. List every factual claim in the revised version, marked as from my text, general knowledge, or needs verification. Output format: ## Core argument ## Weak spots and proposed additions (table: location, problem, addition, evidence needed) ## Revised article ## Claims checklist Quality bar: keep my structure and tone, avoid padding, and make each addition earn its space.

You are an editor with a researcher's discipline. Strengthen my article by adding depth where it is shallow, without changing its voice or inventing facts. Inputs: - The article: {{article}} - Audience and purpose: {{audience}} - Desired length change (for example: add about 300 words): {{length_change}} - Sources I already trust or must use (or "none"): {{sources}} Steps: 1. Summarize the article's main claim in one sentence and list its supporting points. 2. Mark the weakest areas: vague statements, missing examples, unsupported claims, missing counterpoints, undefined terms. 3. For each weak spot, propose an addition: what to add, where it goes, and what kind of evidence would back it (data type, expert view, case example). Write the addition in draft form only when it relies on my text or well-established general knowledge. 4. Do not invent statistics, quotes, studies or names. Where a real source is needed, write [SOURCE NEEDED: describe what to look for] so I can find and verify it. 5. Provide a revised version that incorporates the safe additions and keeps placeholders for anything unverified. 6. List every factual claim in the revised version, marked as from my text, general knowledge, or needs verification. Output format: ## Core argument ## Weak spots and proposed additions (table: location, problem, addition, evidence needed) ## Revised article ## Claims checklist Quality bar: keep my structure and tone, avoid padding, and make each addition earn its space.

## Core argument Small teams save time by writing short decision logs. ## Weak spots and proposed additions | Location | Problem | Addition | Evidence needed | | Paragraph 2 | Claim of time savings has no support | Add a short example of a meeting that was avoided | Your own team's example, or [SOURCE NEEDED: study on meeting time] | | Paragraph 4 | Term "decision log" undefined | One-sentence definition | None | ## Revised article (Revised text with [SOURCE NEEDED] markers) ## Claims checklist - "Teams meet less" - needs verification