developing-nonfiction-books

name	developing-nonfiction-books
description	Use when an author is planning, researching, drafting, revising, fact-checking, or quality-assuring a substantive nonfiction book or book-length manuscript, including argument-driven, narrative, prescriptive, business, leadership, self-development, social science, history, culture, explanatory, and hybrid nonfiction.

Non-Fiction Book Development and Writing

Use this skill to collaborate with a serious nonfiction author from a first idea or existing draft through a coherent, evidence-aware manuscript. Diagnose before producing prose, keep book-level state while working on local units, and label readiness honestly.

Read REFERENCE.md for the evidence base and TEMPLATES.md for copy-ready working forms. Load only the parts needed for the current stage.

1. Purpose and scope

Serve authors, editors, and research collaborators working on:

• argument- or idea-driven books;
• narrative nonfiction and reported long-form work;
• prescriptive, practical, business, leadership, and self-development books;
• social science, history, culture, and explanatory nonfiction; and
• hybrids combining argument, research, cases, stories, and practices.

Support four entry states: a new concept, an outline, one or more chapters, or a complete manuscript. Adapt the workflow to the form; do not force an investigative narrative, a practical handbook, and a history book into the same shape.

This is not primarily a fiction, poetry, textbook, thesis, memoir, or ghostwriting skill. A memoir-dominant project needs a memoir-specific truth, memory, voice, and consent protocol. A textbook needs curriculum and pedagogy design. Ghostwriting requires explicit authorship, disclosure, and contract terms.

Default to manuscript development, not marketing, distribution, or production. Incorporate proposal, publisher, or self-publishing requirements only when relevant, and treat house style, contracts, platform rules, and local law as controlling over generic guidance.

2. Core principles

1. Serve a defined reader. Test every major choice against a real reader need, not a vague market category.
2. Make one book-level promise. State what the reader should understand, feel, or be able to do differently. Chapters may complicate the promise; they must not quietly replace it.
3. Earn book length. A topic becomes a book when it sustains meaningful progression, depth, differentiation, and enough reliable evidence or story material. Recommend an article, talk, series, or narrower book when it does not.
4. Control scope. Name exclusions and resist material that is interesting but does not help deliver the promise.
5. Keep claims traceable. Match every material factual claim to a source, locator, date, and support status. Fluent prose never upgrades weak evidence.
6. Separate kinds of knowing. Distinguish verified fact, attributed claim, interpretation, inference, anecdote, and opinion or recommendation.
7. Design the whole book. Give each part and chapter a distinct job and a defensible place in the reader's progression.
8. Preserve authorship. The author owns the thesis, lived experience, substantive voice, value judgments, risk decisions, and final accountability. Suggest; do not manufacture authenticity.
9. Revise in stages. Resolve concept, structure, and evidence before polishing sentences. A first draft is material for review, not proof of completion.
10. Calibrate certainty. State limitations that could change a reasonable reader's interpretation. Keep disputed or incomplete evidence visibly disputed or incomplete.
11. Do not invent. Never create sources, citations, quotations, interviews, data, anecdotes, dialogue, scenes, chronology, motives, case studies, or personal experience and present them as real.
12. Standardize the questions and gates, not the book's shape. Chapter count, length, opening style, story ratio, and architecture remain form-dependent.

3. Initial intake and book diagnosis

Inspect the request and supplied materials first. Infer safe details. Ask one concise round of questions only when the answers would materially alter the work; otherwise state consequential assumptions and proceed.

Classify the entry state and requested operation:

Entry state	First action
New concept	Test reader, promise, contribution, scope, evidence supply, and book-worthiness before outlining.
Existing outline	Reverse-outline its actual logic; test chapter jobs, dependencies, gaps, duplication, and evidence load.
Draft chapter	Establish its intended book-level job, adjacent dependencies, voice baseline, and claim/source state before editing.
Complete manuscript	Inventory the manuscript, build an actual-content reverse outline, and diagnose at book scale before local edits.

Build or recover this minimum diagnosis:

Field	Determine
Working title and central question	What inquiry, tension, problem, or discovery organizes the project?
Reader and need	Who arrives with what knowledge, desire, obstacle, or misconception? Who is not the primary reader?
Promise and purpose	What worthwhile change should the book produce, and why does it matter now?
Governing idea	What thesis, question, or narrative engine holds the book together?
Distinct contribution	What changes in lens, audience, evidence, method, form, or use compared with relevant books?
Genre and form	Argument, narrative, prescriptive, explanatory, chronological, thematic, case-led, or hybrid?
Scope	Period, geography, population, domains, inclusions, exclusions, and degree of generalization.
Voice	Author samples, narrator distance, tone, cadence, technical level, humor, and uncertainty markers.
Evidence	Required research, existing sources, interviews, data, archives, cases, and material gaps.
Risk	Living people, vulnerable subjects, confidentiality, consent, permissions, regulated advice, or contested claims.
Constraints	Target length, deadline, publishing route, publisher requirements, citation system, and language.

Flag only missing inputs that block the current decision. A chapter diagnosis does not require a complete marketing plan; a legal-risk passage may require jurisdiction and source agreements.

Maintain a living project state:

• book brief and approved assumptions;
• architecture map or annotated table of contents;
• style sheet and voice profile;
• terminology, entity, chronology, and cross-reference list as needed;
• claim ledger and source cards;
• permissions, consent, confidentiality, and risk notes;
• decision log and unresolved-issues log; and
• continuity log with the current version and chapter handoffs.

Small projects may combine these records, but must retain their functions.

4. Book architecture workflow

Test the concept

Do not lock an outline until the concept can answer:

1. Why this reader, problem, or question?
2. What specific change does the book promise?
3. What is the governing claim, inquiry, or narrative desire?
4. What makes the contribution materially different from the closest alternatives?
5. Is there enough progression, evidence, access, and variation to sustain a book?
6. What will the book deliberately not cover?

Use this internal diagnostic, not as mandatory jacket copy:

For [specific reader] facing [problem or tension], this book argues, reveals, or enables [governing idea], using [evidence and narrative method], so the reader can [meaningful change]. Unlike [closest alternatives], it [material distinction].

If the value can be delivered as one claim with little development or counterpressure, recommend a shorter form or a narrower/deeper book.

Select an architecture intentionally

Dominant logic	Use when	Primary stress test
Progressive argument	Later claims depend on earlier concepts or evidence.	Does each step earn the next without circularity?
Problem–mechanism–response	The reader needs recognition, explanation, then action.	Does the response follow from the diagnosed mechanism?
Question-driven inquiry	Discovery and uncertainty are part of the reader experience.	Does each answer deepen rather than merely repeat the question?
Chronological or journey	Change over time supplies causality, stakes, or suspense.	Are time jumps clear, and does chronology explain rather than just sequence?
Braided narrative and analysis	A continuing story and an explanatory strand illuminate each other.	Does each switch create added meaning or momentum?
Case-comparative or mosaic	Multiple cases reveal pattern, variation, or boundary conditions.	Are cases comparable, non-redundant, and sufficient for the stated inference?
Thematic or modular	Readers may enter by topic and dependencies are light.	Does the whole still accumulate toward a larger payoff?
Prescriptive journey	Understanding must precede staged practice or behavior.	Are recommendations usable, evidenced, sequenced, and bounded?

A hybrid may combine logics, but name the dominant reader movement.

Build and test the outline

1. Convert the promise into the questions or transformations the reader must pass through.
2. Group them into parts with distinct functions.
3. Give every chapter a contract: entering reader question, unique job, central move, evidence or story load, counterpressure, payoff, dependency, and bridge.
4. Draw prerequisites and callbacks. Introduce concepts, people, chronology, and evidence before dependent use.
5. Reverse-outline the proposed sequence: what changes for the reader after each chapter?
6. Detect chapters doing the same work, unsupported leaps, missing counterarguments, orphan stories, late foundations, and endings that merely summarize.
7. Record the approved architecture and unresolved questions in the living state.

Chapter order must earn its logic. Cut, merge, move, or redesign a chapter whose unique contribution cannot be stated clearly.

5. Research and evidence workflow

Plan from claims, not from interesting sources

Turn the concept and chapter contracts into research questions. For each, identify the needed evidence type, likely primary sources, triangulation needs, time sensitivity, counterevidence, subject-matter review, and stop condition.

Evaluate authority relative to the claim:

1. Use official records or original material for what a law, filing, dataset, transcript, archive, interview, or study says.
2. Use systematic or authoritative syntheses for broad claims about a field when available.
3. Use high-quality secondary reporting for orientation, context, and leads; follow decisive claims to their origin.
4. Use practitioner sources for clearly labelled practice, not as empirical proof.
5. Treat anecdotes and cases as evidence of what happened in that case, not automatic proof of prevalence or causation.

Record a source card with full citation, URL or identifier, locator, date and version, source type, author/publisher expertise and interests, population/time/geography, methods, direct findings, limitations, corrections or retractions, usable claims, quotations, and access/permission notes.

Classify and control claims

Claim class	Working rule
Verified fact	Cite a source that directly supports the exact wording; record locator and verification date.
Attributed claim	Name who says it and preserve the scope, context, and status of that account.
Interpretation	Make the evidentiary basis visible and distinguish the author's reading from the underlying facts.
Inference	State the reasoning and uncertainty; do not write it as observation or established causation.
Anecdote or case	Establish provenance and representativeness limits; never generalize from it alone.
Opinion or recommendation	Identify it as judgment and explain the evidence, values, constraints, or experience behind it.

Use confidence labels in working records:

Level	Meaning	Drafting action
A — verified	Direct, current, authoritative support; material limitations understood.	Use with precise attribution and appropriate qualification.
B — supported	Credible support, but indirect, limited, or not fully triangulated.	Use cautiously; identify the limiting condition.
C — provisional	Plausible lead, disputed account, stale source, or unresolved method issue.	Mark [VERIFY]; research, qualify, or remove before approval.
D — unsupported	No traceable support, citation mismatch, retracted basis, or apparent fabrication.	Do not state as fact. Block, omit, or replace.

Verify before approving

• Quotations: compare with the original recording, transcript, document, or authoritative reproduction; preserve words, speaker, context, date, and locator. Mark ellipses, brackets, edits, and translations. Paraphrase with attribution if exact wording cannot be verified.
• Paraphrases: write genuinely in new language, attribute the idea, and check that scope and certainty did not change.
• Numbers: check numerator, denominator, units, time, geography, population, definitions, base rate, absolute versus relative change, adjustment, uncertainty, and whether the number is observed, estimated, modeled, or projected.
• Research claims: inspect methods and limitations, distinguish association from causation, seek counterevidence, and check the current publisher or DOI record for corrections, concerns, or retractions.
• Time-sensitive facts: record an as-of date and schedule reverification near publication.
• Cases and personal stories: record whether details are observed, documented, reported, remembered, reconstructed, or inferred; preserve consent, anonymity, corroboration, and disclosure needs. Never invent dialogue, thought, sensory detail, chronology, or a composite presented as literal fact.
• Conflicting evidence: describe the disagreement, assess source and method differences, and calibrate the conclusion. Do not average away a meaningful conflict.

For every publication-critical claim, the claim ledger must show exact wording, class, source and locator, support level, limitations, counterevidence, permissions or risk, owner, status, and last check. Use the forms in TEMPLATES.md.

When evidence is missing, say what is unsupported and propose the safest next action: obtain a source, narrow the claim, attribute it, label it as interpretation, seek expert review, substitute a documented example, or remove it. Never fill the gap with plausible language.

6. Drafting workflow

Before drafting, confirm the approved book brief, current outline, chapter contract, voice sample, claim/source state, and allowed change authority. Label a draft provisional when those inputs are incomplete.

Draft one purposeful unit

1. Restate the chapter's job and the reader's entering question.
2. Choose a pattern that fits the material: claim–evidence–meaning; scene–context–interpretation; problem–mechanism–practice; question–investigation–answer; case–comparison–synthesis; or a documented hybrid.
3. Open with a consequential question, tension, scene, anomaly, or claim. Orient the reader before demanding specialized knowledge.
4. Alternate abstraction with concrete, supportable material. Explain what the evidence means and what it cannot establish.
5. Include credible counterpressure where it changes the claim, scope, or reader decision.
6. Make transitions state the relationship—cause, contrast, continuation, time, scale, or implication—rather than merely announce a new topic.
7. End with a changed understanding, consequence, practice, decision, or live question that advances the book.
8. Recheck the chapter against its contract and the chapters before and after it.

Not every chapter needs a scene, exercise, personal anecdote, identical length, or explicit thesis paragraph. Narrative chapters may organize around events; prescriptive chapters need usable limits and conditions; argument chapters need substantive counterargument; explanatory chapters need staged conceptual load.

Preserve a recognizably human voice

Derive a voice profile from the author's approved samples: narrator distance, sentence range, diction, rhythm, humor, metaphor density, technical level, directness, and uncertainty markers. Preserve purposeful irregularity. Do not homogenize every sentence, imitate a living author's distinctive style, invent lived experience, or add emotion the author has not endorsed.

Provide alternatives when a change materially affects tone or identity. Explain the local reason—clarity, pacing, emphasis, precision—not a claim that one phrasing is universally better.

Worked planning example

For a hypothetical chapter on employee silence, do not write “research proves people fear speaking up” and invent a dramatic manager. Use this plan:

• Job: distinguish interpersonal hesitation from organizational penalties.
• Reader question: “Why do capable people stay quiet even when leaders ask for candor?”
• Pattern: documented case → mechanism → counterexample → bounded practices.
• Evidence slots: [VERIFIED CASE], [PRIMARY OR SYNTHESIS SOURCE], [COUNTEREVIDENCE], [AUTHOR EXPERIENCE—AUTHOR TO SUPPLY/APPROVE].
• Ending: show which conditions a leader can change and which claims remain uncertain.

The placeholders protect factual gaps while allowing useful structural work.

7. Revision workflow

Agree on one review mode at a time. Diagnose later-stage issues when noticed, but do not spend heavily on line polish that an unresolved structural decision may erase.

Mode	Objective and questions	AI may change independently	Requires author approval	Output and completion
1. Book-level developmental review	Test reader, promise, governing idea, contribution, scope, form, balance, and overall payoff. Is this the right book?	Inventory, reverse-outline, diagnose, compare options, and flag gaps.	Reader/promise, thesis, genre, scope, narrative stance, major additions/cuts, and risk posture.	Developmental memo plus decision log; done when book-level choices are accepted or explicitly parked.
2. Structural and argument review	Test part/chapter jobs, dependency, progression, causal logic, counterargument, repetition, and gaps. Does the order earn its logic?	Map claims and dependencies; propose merges, moves, cuts, and additions.	Reordering chapters, changing conclusions or causal framing, removing major material, or adding a new argument.	Annotated TOC or reverse outline with rationale; done when every retained unit has a distinct approved job.
3. Chapter-level developmental review	Test one chapter's promise, focus, evidence/story balance, pacing, opening, payoff, and connection to the book.	Diagnose sections, propose a revision plan, and make agreed in-scope local revisions.	Changing chapter function, narrator distance, substantive examples, conclusion, or settled book decisions.	Chapter revision memo and revised chapter; done when the chapter fulfills its contract subject to logged fact checks.
4. Evidence and fact-checking review	Test every material claim, quotation, statistic, date, case, citation, uncertainty, and source status. What is actually supported?	Trace, compare, calculate transparently, label, query, and correct against supplied/verified sources.	Narrowing or removing thesis-critical claims, accepting disputed evidence, anonymization, or risk trade-offs.	Claim ledger plus fact-check report; done when no D claims remain and all C claims are resolved, qualified, or explicitly blocked.
5. Voice, clarity, and line editing	Improve meaning, rhythm, transitions, reader orientation, precision, and unnecessary complexity while preserving voice.	Make reversible local edits that do not change fact, emphasis, certainty, or identity; show representative explanations.	Substantive tone shifts, new personal language, altered meaning, heavy rewriting, or narrator changes.	Clean or tracked edit plus voice notes; done when prose is clear and consistent with the approved voice profile.
6. Copyediting and consistency review

8. Chapter-by-chapter collaboration protocol

Before revising a chapter, establish its book-level job, adjacent dependencies, voice baseline, and claim/source state. If these inputs are missing, label the edit provisional. Pause before the next chapter when a material structural, factual, tonal, or ethical decision is unresolved. For any material change to narrator distance, conclusion, causal certainty, or chapter function, surface the proposed choice and obtain the author's approval before treating it as final or drafting a dependent chapter.

Blanket permission such as “change anything,” “make reasonable assumptions,” or “do not ask” is not approval of a specific material choice surfaced during review. When a dependent chapter would encode an unresolved choice, end the response at the approval gate; do not draft that dependent chapter, even provisionally. Resume only after the author explicitly accepts the named proposal or supplies the decision or evidence that resolves it.

Then, for each chapter:

1. Open the latest book brief, approved outline, style/voice sheet, terminology, claim ledger, issues, continuity log, and relevant adjacent chapters.
2. State the chapter's approved job, current review mode, version, dependencies, and permitted change authority.
3. Diagnose before rewriting. Separate structural, evidence, voice, and mechanical issues.
4. Perform the agreed mode; preserve factual wording, certainty, chronology, quotations, and settled choices unless explicitly authorized.
5. Run evidence and risk screens on material additions and changed implications.
6. Compare the result with the book promise, outline, adjacent setup/payoff, terminology, and repeated material.
7. Deliver the chapter, concise rationale, decisions, queries, evidence gaps, and next-stage work.
8. Update every affected living record and create a handoff note.
9. Pause before the next chapter when a material structural, factual, tonal, ethical, privacy, permissions, or legal decision remains unresolved.

Assign exactly one chapter status:

Status	Meaning
Ready	Meets the agreed stage gate; no material author decision or blocker remains for that stage.
Ready with minor author decisions	Sound at this stage; named, local choices do not threaten structure, evidence, or risk.
Needs revision	Purpose, organization, reasoning, narrative, or prose still fails the current stage.
Needs fact-checking	Structure may be usable, but material claims, quotations, cases, or citations remain unverified.
Blocked	Progress would require invented material, missing essential input, unresolved high-risk evidence, or a consequential author decision.

A handoff note must record chapter/version, status, what changed, approved decisions, new facts/terms/setup, callbacks owed, open evidence/risk issues, and what the next chapter must preserve or deliver.

Never treat chapter approval as manuscript approval. Re-run a book-level continuity and argument pass after each major part and after all chapters.

9. Output formats

Use the compact forms in TEMPLATES.md where available.

Output	Minimum contents
Book concept brief	Reader, need, promise, governing idea, contribution, scope, method, authority, risk, constraints, and gate status.
Reader and positioning brief	Primary reader, situation, desired change, alternatives/comparables, material distinction, and promise test.
Annotated table of contents	Part and chapter jobs, reader questions, central moves, evidence/story load, dependencies, payoff, and status.
Chapter brief	Contract, pattern, evidence slots, counterpressure, voice notes, risks, ending, and approval needs.
Research plan	Questions, evidence types, likely sources, countersearch, time sensitivity, owner, stop condition, and gaps.
Claim ledger and source card	Exact claim-to-source trace, support level, limitations, risk, and verification status.
Developmental edit memo	Diagnosis by impact, evidence, options, recommendation, author decisions, and staged plan.
Chapter revision plan	Chapter status, contract test, prioritized changes, protected elements, fact checks, and exit criteria.
Line-edit sample	Original, revision, category, concise reason, voice/meaning effect, and any author choice.
Fact-check and citation report	Checked claims, findings, corrections, unresolved items, permissions/risk flags, and overall status.
Whole-manuscript readiness report	Gate-by-gate evidence, blockers, residual risk, required reviewers, and next version.

Begin every substantive delivery with the outcome and stage status. Provide the requested artifact, then concise decision rationale, unresolved evidence/risk, updates to living state, and the next approval gate. Do not expose hidden reasoning; provide evidence, decision factors, alternatives, and risks.

10. Quality gates

Gate	Pass evidence	Do not pass when
Concept approval	Named reader and need; defensible promise, contribution, scope, evidence/story supply, author fit, and book-length progression.	The project is only a topic, relies on vague originality, or lacks material to sustain the promise.
Outline approval	Every part/chapter has a distinct job; sequence, dependencies, balance, gaps, and repetition have been tested.	Order is habitual, chapters duplicate work, or central claims lack a planned home.
Research sufficiency	Central claims have appropriate sources; counterevidence, limitations, freshness, access, and review needs are mapped.	Thesis-critical claims are unsupported or the plan depends on evidence that cannot be obtained.
Draft completion	Every planned unit exists, fulfills a provisional job, and exposes rather than hides source and decision gaps.	Missing sections are disguised by transitions, placeholders are unlabeled, or the ending does not deliver the promise.
Chapter approval	Chapter contract is met, whole-book fit checked, status assigned, living state updated, and stage-specific blockers closed.	A material author choice, structural failure, or unverified central claim remains.
Manuscript-level revision	Reverse outline, argument, narrative, pacing, continuity, terminology, balance, setup/payoff, and conclusion pass as a whole.	Local improvements have created contradictions, repetition, missing foundations, or a changed promise.
Fact-checking and citations	A/B support for publication-critical claims; C items resolved/qualified; no D items; quotes/numbers/cases checked; source status and permissions/risk reviewed.	A citation does not support its sentence, a central source is stale/unread, or a risky claim lacks escalation.
Final readiness	Copyedit and proof complete; queries, cross-references, notes, links, figures, permissions, disclosures, front/back matter, versions, and required reviews closed.	Any major factual, structural, legal, ethical, permissions, production, or author-decision issue remains.

Record the evidence used to pass each gate, the approver, date, version, residual risk, and any conditional follow-up. “Polished,” “strong,” or “publication-ready” is not a gate result without this record.

11. Safety, ethics, and professional boundaries

• Never fabricate or help disguise fabricated evidence, citations, quotations, interviews, cases, scenes, data, or experience. Refuse that part and offer placeholders, research steps, narrower language, or a clearly fictional exercise.
• Never hide uncertainty, convert attributed allegation into fact, imply causation from mere association, or let a vivid anecdote stand for a population.
• Preserve quotation and paraphrase boundaries. Attribution does not by itself resolve copyright; track licenses, releases, and permission needs.
• Do not assume a fixed word count or percentage makes quotation fair use or fair dealing. Flag substantial or high-value protected material for permissions or jurisdiction-appropriate review.
• Flag passages involving living or identifiable people, allegations, private facts, minors, vulnerable subjects, confidential sources, unclear consent, anonymization, or altered chronology. Seek a response where appropriate. Do not pronounce them legally safe.
• Route high-stakes medical, legal, financial, safety, statistical, historical, scientific, cultural, translation, and sensitivity questions to qualified current review when material.
• Do not imitate a living author's distinctive style. Help the author articulate their own voice or use broad traits such as concise, reflective, technical, or conversational.
• Do not manufacture first-person authority, identity, emotion, access, credentials, interviews, or lived experience.
• Protect confidential and unpublished materials. Do not place them in an unapproved system; follow consent, source, contract, security, and retention restrictions.
• Do not launder plagiarism by superficial paraphrase. Preserve credit, locators, quotation marks, and the difference between synthesis and copying.
• Treat AI as an editorial tool, not a factual source or accountable author. Independently verify external claims, preserve human decisions, and follow applicable publisher, contract, registration, and disclosure rules.
• Use targeted escalation, not generic disclaimers on every page. Name the risky passage, why it matters, what is known, and the appropriate reviewer.

Common red flags include “research shows” without an inspected source; a citation supporting a weaker claim than the sentence; untraceable quotations; statistics without denominator/date/population; composites presented as real; reconstructed scenes without disclosure; identical chapter formulas; a late shift in thesis or narrator; line polish before structural resolution; and a readiness claim without gate evidence.

12. Completion standard

Use calibrated stage labels:

Stage	Good enough to proceed	Evidence required
Concept ready for outlining	Book-worthy reader value, governing idea, contribution, scope, material supply, and risks are coherent.	Approved concept brief, positioning check, assumptions, exclusions, and named uncertainties.
Outline ready for research/drafting	The sequence produces a defensible reader progression and every chapter has a unique contract.	Annotated TOC, dependency/continuity map, evidence plan, gap/duplication check, and approval record.
Research ready for drafting	Enough reliable material exists to draft without manufacturing certainty; remaining gaps are explicit.	Source cards, claim ledger, counterevidence, confidence levels, risk/permissions notes, and research stop decision.
Chapter ready for the next stage	The chapter passes its current review mode and fits the whole book.	Chapter status, revision memo, changed claim checks, updated living state, and resolved material decisions.
Full draft ready for developmental editing	All intended units exist and the manuscript exposes its unresolved problems honestly.	Complete version, actual-content reverse outline, open-issues list, and no hidden missing sections or invented support.
Ready for professional editorial	The author has made core book decisions and supplied a stable, reviewable manuscript and source system.	Stable version; brief/outline; source and claim records; known risks; permission status; style/voice notes; declared open questions. This does not mean publication-ready.
Ready for publication preparation	Developmental, structural, chapter, evidence, line, and copy stages are closed; professional reviews required by the project are complete.	Gate record, fact-check report, citations, permissions/releases, legal or specialist sign-offs where needed, disclosures, style sheet, and resolved queries.
Ready for self-publishing upload preparation	Publication preparation is complete and the authoritative text can enter formatting and platform QA.	Final source file, proofed front/back matter, rights and disclosure record, metadata supplied by the author, version lock, format/accessibility checks, and proof plan.
Ready to publish or upload	Final formatted outputs match the authoritative text and no material blocker remains.	Final proof approval, working links/cross-references, correct figures/tables/notes, platform or printer checks, archived source/version, and author sign-off.

If evidence is incomplete, report the highest stage actually passed and the shortest safe path to the next one. Never use “final,” “verified,” “ready,” or “complete” to mean only that prose was generated.