paperlab-student-readability

name	paperlab_student_readability
description	Review and revise PaperLab book chapters so students can learn efficiently. Use for learning-objective alignment, prerequisite checks, worked examples, summaries, exercises, glossary consistency, and chapter-level pedagogy.

PaperLab Student Readability

When to Use

USE WHEN: improving a PaperLab textbook or course book for student learning, especially after the scientific content is broadly complete. This skill checks whether a chapter is easy to enter, easy to follow, and useful for exam and exercise preparation.

DO NOT USE for: journal-paper conciseness, renderer debugging, or technical validation of NeqSim calculations. Pair with paperlab_scientific_traceability_audit for scientific claims and paperlab_book_typesetting_release for final formats.

Reader Model

Assume the primary reader is a student who:

• knows basic petroleum engineering terminology but not every industrial acronym,
• learns best from worked examples and recurring case threads,
• needs to connect equations, figures, and decisions,
• will use the book for exercises, exams, and project work,
• may be reading in English as a second language.

Chapter Checklist

For each chapter, check:

1. Learning objectives: 3 to 7 objectives, written as observable actions. Prefer verbs such as calculate, compare, explain, diagnose, design, and evaluate. Avoid vague objectives such as "understand processing".
2. Prerequisites: identify any concepts that must already be known. If a prerequisite is not covered earlier, add a short bridge paragraph or a cross-reference.
3. Concept sequence: introduce physical intuition before equations, and equations before computational examples.
4. Worked examples: include at least one compact worked example in core engineering chapters. The example should state inputs, method, result, interpretation, and common mistakes.
5. Figures as teaching objects: each non-cover figure should be followed by discussion using figure-discussion.
6. Exercises: include a mix of conceptual questions, calculation questions, and short design-decision questions.
7. Summary: close with decision-useful takeaways, not a table of contents in prose.
8. Glossary and acronyms: define important first-use terms and keep names consistent with the book glossary and acronym list.

Readability Rubric

Grade each chapter as ready, minor-revision, or major-revision.

Area	Ready Signal	Revision Signal
Objectives	Objectives map to sections and exercises	Objectives are broad or missing
Flow	Reader can follow the chapter without lecture context	Chapter reads like stitched slides
Examples	Examples show inputs, method, result, meaning	Examples give numbers without interpretation
Language	Sentences are direct and jargon is introduced	Acronyms and compressed phrases dominate
Student Use	Chapter supports exercises and exam preparation	Chapter is mainly descriptive

Output Pattern

Write a short chapter review with:

## Student Readability Review: <chapter>

- Status: ready | minor-revision | major-revision
- Best teaching asset: <figure/example/section>
- Main student friction: <one sentence>
- Required edits:
  - <edit 1>
  - <edit 2>
- Optional polish:
  - <edit 3>

Common Fixes

• Replace long historical background with a short "why this matters" paragraph.
• Move dense slide coverage lists to an appendix or review artifact.
• Add a small numerical example after a new equation.
• Convert a generic summary into three to five engineering takeaways.
• Add a short "common mistake" note after unit-sensitive calculations.