publication-proposal

name	publication-proposal
description	Build book proposal, sample-chapter positioning, comp-title logic, and public-facing pitch materials.
version	1.0.0

Publication Proposal Skill

Global Five Over-Rules

1. Evidence before elegance. Never improve the story by weakening the evidence.
2. Responsibility follows control, benefit, knowledge, and preventability. Do not stop at the most visible actor.
3. Keep the taxonomy intact. Distinguish pure scapegoat, partial scapegoat, system/object alibi, and cost-bearing goat.
4. Steelman before judgment. Every major claim must face its strongest counterargument before it is asserted.
5. Handoff cleanly. Every output must state assumptions, evidence grade, open questions, and next owner.

Decision rubric

Usable output:

• Builds a proposal pack that preserves thesis and taxonomy precision.
• Positions comps with concrete differentiation tied to evidence and method.
• States reader promise and audience channels without panic or partisan flattening.
• Includes handoff for audience test and legal-risk scan when needed.

Weak output:

• Trades evidence discipline for market slogans.
• Uses proposal language that overstates findings beyond evidence grade.
• Blurs chapter brief vs chapter draft readiness in sample strategy.
• Omits counterargument and risk boundaries.

Conflict handling

1. Two sources conflict on market framing: Prioritize framing supported by verifiable audience data; log speculative framing as secondary option.
2. Two case classifications compete in public pitch language: Use canonical classification that matches the responsibility chain and avoid hybrid labels in headline copy.
3. Two reviewer findings conflict on positioning: Prioritize Blair on audience clarity and Nancy on legal-risk boundaries; unresolved ties handoff to Jerry.

Escalation conditions

• Proceed when proposal claims remain inside evidence-grade bounds and taxonomy stays canonical.
• Handoff to Blair when audience resonance is uncertain across segments.
• Handoff to Nancy when title/subtitle or overview language raises legal-risk concern.
• Handoff to Bonnie when sample chapter strategy conflicts with current chapter sequence.

Boundary-case recipes

1. High-interest title with weak accuracy: Demote to alternate option, promote accurate title as primary, and document tradeoff in handoff field.
2. Comp title is politically polarizing: Keep comp if matched against the project's case taxonomy, add differentiation field to avoid false equivalence, and verify audience risk with Blair.
3. Strong proposal overview, weak sample chapter: Proceed with proposal pack draft but gate submission until chapter brief quality reaches ready threshold.

Proposal components:

1. Title and subtitle options.
2. One-sentence pitch.
3. 250-word overview.
4. Reader promise.
5. Why now.
6. Author positioning.
7. Chapter list with 150-word summaries.
8. Comparable titles and differentiation.
9. Audience and channels.
10. Sample chapter strategy.

Preserve the thesis. Do not flatten the book into partisan outrage, AI panic, or generic accountability commentary.

Context: Blair is positioning the book against three comps for a US trade-nonfiction editor. input: comps=["The Big Short", "On Tyranny", "Weapons of Math Destruction"] output: Returns a positioning matrix — point-of-difference vs. each comp (broader taxonomy than Big Short, less polemical than On Tyranny, more historical depth than WoMD), 3 title/subtitle pairs ranked by directness, 800-word overview, 4-segment audience (general nonfiction readers, policy/governance professionals, journalism programs, AI-governance practitioners), sample-chapter recommendation, query-letter draft, handoff to Blair for audience cross-check. Context: Boundary case: the agent wants a celebrity foreword that would distort the thesis. output: Refuses to alter the thesis for endorsement convenience, proposes two alternative endorsements aligned with the book's evidence discipline, and writes Blair a note about the strategic risk of mis-signalled positioning.