wre-writing-requirements-engineering

name	wre - Writing Requirements Engineering
description	Derive writing requirements before drafting. Builds a multi-stage requirements object: artifact definition, thesis object, technical requirements, philosophical requirements, expansion requirements, outline requirements, exclusions, traceability, and draft gate.
context	fork
output	{"format":"prose"}

Writing Requirements Engineering

Input: $ARGUMENTS

Interpretations

Before executing, identify which interpretation matches the user's input:

Interpretation 1 — Pre-draft requirements derivation: The user has a writing topic or assignment and wants to derive rigorous requirements before any drafting begins, to prevent the common failure of writing without clear intellectual obligations. Interpretation 2 — Draft diagnosis: The user has a draft that isn't working and suspects the problem is at the requirements level, not the prose level — they want to reverse-engineer what requirements are missing or conflicting. Interpretation 3 — Thesis stress-testing: The user has a thesis or central claim and wants to build the full requirements scaffolding around it — defining what it commits them to, what it excludes, and what support structure it demands.

If ambiguous, ask: "I can help with deriving requirements before you write, diagnosing a broken draft's missing requirements, or stress-testing a thesis — which fits?" If clear from context, proceed with the matching interpretation.

---

Core Principles

1. Writing fails at the requirements stage, not the drafting stage. A bad draft is almost always a symptom of missing, conflicting, or untested requirements. "The draft doesn't work" usually means "the requirements were never derived." Rewriting is wasted effort if the requirements are still wrong.

2. Technical requirements and philosophical requirements are different failure modes. Technical requirements (length, tone, structure, evidence) are about format and craft. Philosophical requirements (what distinction must be made, what equivocation must be avoided, what burden of proof is assumed) are about thought. Conflating them produces writing that's well-formatted but intellectually incoherent.

3. A thesis is not a topic. "This essay is about AI alignment" is a topic. "Alignment researchers systematically underweight the difficulty of value specification because they treat it as an engineering problem rather than a philosophical one" is a thesis. The thesis object must be a claim — something that could be wrong, that has a stronger version you refuse and a weaker version that's trivially true.

4. Every requirement must be testable. "The essay should be clear" is not a requirement — there's no verification condition. "The reader should be able to state the core distinction in one sentence after reading" is a requirement. Untestable requirements are decorative and will not constrain the draft.

5. Exclusions do more work than inclusions. Knowing what the artifact must NOT do eliminates more bad drafts than knowing what it must do. "This essay does not argue that X" prevents the most common failure mode: scope creep through bundled theses. Exclusions are the highest-leverage requirements.

6. Traceability prevents decoration. Every section, example, and transition in the outline must trace back to a requirement. If a section exists but satisfies no requirement, it's decorative — it exists because the writer wanted to include it, not because the artifact needs it. Decoration is the primary failure mode of ambitious writing.

---

Stage 0: Artifact Definition

Define the writing target before any requirements work.

ARTIFACT DEFINITION
  Type: [essay | post | memo | explainer | sequence post | comment | report | proposal]
  Venue: [where it will appear — specific publication, blog, internal doc]
  Reader: [specific audience — not "general public"]
  Reader baseline: [what they already know — what you don't need to explain]
  Writer goal: [what the artifact must achieve — be specific]
  Reader after-state: [what the reader should see / believe / distinguish / be able to do after reading]
  Core unresolved question: [single question this artifact answers]
  Scope boundary: [what this artifact is NOT trying to do]
  Stakes: [why getting this right matters — what goes wrong if it's bad]

Gate: Do not proceed until the artifact has:

• One specific reader (not multiple audiences)
• One main question (not a cluster)
• One bounded scope (with explicit exclusions)
• One clear after-state (testable)

If you cannot specify these, the artifact is not ready for requirements — it needs /foht or /gu first.

---

Stage 1: Thesis Object

Define the central claim before deriving requirements.

THESIS OBJECT
  Core thesis: [single sentence — must be a claim, not a topic]
  Claim type: [heuristic | epistemic | explanatory | normative | metaphysical | mixed]
  Weaker claim (trivially true): [the version no one would argue with — useless but safe]
  Stronger claim (refused): [the version that would be overclaiming — tempting but indefensible]
  ACTUAL claim (defended): [the version you're actually defending — between weak and strong]
  Supporting claims:
    [C1] [claim] — REQUIRED_BECAUSE: [why the thesis needs this]
    [C2] [claim] — REQUIRED_BECAUSE: [why the thesis needs this]
    [C3] [claim] — REQUIRED_BECAUSE: [why the thesis needs this]
  Out-of-scope claims:
    [O1] [claim] — EXCLUDED_BECAUSE: [why this doesn't belong]
    [O2] [claim] — EXCLUDED_BECAUSE: [why this doesn't belong]

Gate: Do not continue until:

• The thesis is a claim (could be wrong), not a topic (can't be wrong)
• The stronger claim refused is explicit and you can articulate WHY you refuse it
• The weaker claim is identified so you know the floor of your ambition
• Supporting claims are distinct from each other and each is necessary

Thesis Quality Test

Ask: "Could a thoughtful, informed person disagree with this thesis?" If no → it's too weak. If the disagreement would be obviously absurd → it's too strong. The thesis should live in the zone where disagreement is reasonable but you have a case.

---

Stage 2: Technical Requirements

Derive the operational requirements of the writing artifact.

TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
[T1] Requirement: [specific, testable constraint]
     Category: [length | evidence | citation | structure | tone | vocabulary | opening | closing | venue]
     Verification: [how to check if satisfied]
[T2] ...

Required Categories

Check each and derive requirements where applicable:

Category	Ask
Length	What range? What's the hard ceiling?
Evidence	What counts as support? Data? Examples? Citations?
Prior work	What must be referenced? What's the positioning obligation?
Structure	Sections required? Ordering constraints?
Tone	Academic? Conversational? Authoritative? What's forbidden?
Vocabulary	Banned words? Required definitions? Jargon policy?
Opening	What must the opening accomplish? What opening patterns are banned?
Closing	What must the ending do? What can it NOT do? (No new theses)
Venue	What does the publication/context demand?
Examples	How many? What type? Concrete or abstract?
Claims	Which claims require explicit support? Which must be scoped?

Each technical requirement must be:

• Atomic — one requirement, one thing
• Testable — has a verification condition
• Non-overlapping — distinct from other requirements

---

Stage 3: Philosophical Requirements

Derive what the piece must achieve at the level of thought, not format.

PHILOSOPHICAL REQUIREMENTS
[P1] Requirement: [specific intellectual obligation]
     Category: [ontology | epistemology | scope | novelty | anti-equivocation | anti-overclaim | bridge | burden-of-proof]
     Verification: [how to check if satisfied]
[P2] ...

Required Categories

Category	Ask
Distinctions	What distinction must the essay make that readers don't currently make?
Anti-equivocation	Where could the essay use the same word for two different things? Name each risk
Definitions	What must be defined? What must NOT be defined (reader already knows)?
Burden of proof	What kind of claim is this? What level of support does that claim type require?
Prior frameworks	What existing work must be positioned against?
Abstraction level	What level must the essay stay at? Where does it risk going too abstract or too concrete?
Bridge claims	What intermediate claims connect sections? What logical gaps need filling?
Anti-overclaim	Where will the essay be tempted to claim more than it can support?
Reader understanding	What must the reader understand by the end that they didn't before?
Preservation	What tension or complexity must the essay preserve WITHOUT collapsing into a simple answer?

For philosophical or argumentative writing, explicitly require:

• What is being claimed
• What is NOT being claimed
• What would count as evidence against the claim

Anti-Generation-Failure Requirements

Derive requirements that prevent the draft from collapsing into generic LLM output:

Requirement Type	Ask	Example Requirement
Anti-pre-baked-thesis	Is the thesis the most predictable take on this topic? What would a thoughtful person find SURPRISING about the thesis?	"Thesis must not be the default position — if 80% of LLM outputs would reach this conclusion, it's cached, not thought"
Anti-cached-takes	For each supporting claim, is it the first thing that comes to mind?	"Each supporting claim must pass: could I find this exact point in the first 3 search results? If yes, go deeper"
Anti-performed-humility	Are any balance/nuance paragraphs doing real intellectual work, or just performing fairness?	"No false-balance paragraphs unless both positions have genuinely comparable evidence"
Anti-relativistic-hedging	Where will the draft be tempted to split the difference?	"No 'some argue X, others Y' unless the essay then takes a side and defends it"
Anti-voice-collapse	What makes this writer's perspective distinctive?	"Voice must reflect [specific register, stance, or framing] — not interchangeable with generic explanatory prose"
Anti-false-structure	Does every planned section/header do argumentative work?	"No section exists for formatting reasons — every division must mark a real shift in the argument"
Anti-aspiration-conclusion	What is the ending's intellectual obligation?	"Conclusion must make a final substantive claim, not end with hope or a call to action"

---

Stage 4: Expansion Requirements

Derive what the final artifact must contain to satisfy earlier requirements.

This stage does NOT produce the outline. It produces the obligations the outline must satisfy.

EXPANSION REQUIREMENTS
[E1] Requirement: [what the artifact must contain]
     Satisfies: [T..., P...] — traceability to earlier requirements
     Type: [section | concept | example | transition | acknowledgment | definition]
[E2] ...

Derivation Rules

• Every expansion requirement must trace to at least one T or P requirement
• If a T or P requirement has no expansion requirement, it's unsatisfied → derive one
• Expansion requirements specify WHAT must exist, not WHERE it goes (that's Stage 5)
• Include: which concepts must be introduced, which examples must appear, which transitions must occur, what order reasoning must follow, what must be introduced early, what must be deferred, what must be cut, what objection must be acknowledged

---

Stage 5: Outline Requirements

Convert expansion requirements into an ordered proof-bearing skeleton.

OUTLINE REQUIREMENTS
[L1] Section: [name]
     Purpose: [what this section accomplishes]
     Answers: [what question this section resolves for the reader]
     Depends on: [which prior sections must come first]
     Satisfies: [E..., T..., P...]
     Must include: [specific content obligations]
     Must not do: [specific drift risks for this section]
     Exit condition: [what must be true for this section to be complete]

[L2] ...

Outline Rules

• No section without a requirement source — if it satisfies nothing, delete it
• No section that exists only for style or convention
• No example section unless a prior requirement demands an example
• No conclusion that introduces a new thesis or claim
• No introduction that buries the core question
• Section order must follow logical dependency, not just convention

---

Stage 6: Exclusions

Explicit list of what this artifact must NOT do.

EXCLUSIONS
[X1] [what is excluded] — WHY: [what failure this prevents]
[X2] ...

Common Exclusions to Check

Exclusion Type	Description
Bundled theses	Trying to prove two things in one artifact
Literature-free reinvention	Ignoring prior work and rediscovering from scratch
Throat-clearing openings	"Since the dawn of time..."
Overclaiming	Claiming more than the evidence supports
Definition fights	Spending the essay arguing about word meanings
Tangent promotion	Including material that belongs in a separate piece
Example hijacking	An example that's more interesting than the thesis and takes over
Subject-switching conclusions	Ending on a different topic than you started
Hedge stacking	So many qualifiers the thesis dissolves
False balance	Giving equal weight to positions with unequal evidence
Pre-baked thesis	Thesis is the most predictable/popular conclusion on the topic
Aspiration ending	Conclusion gestures at hope or collective action instead of making a final claim
Voice-neutral prose	Writing that could have been produced by any LLM — no distinctive perspective

---

Stage 7: Traceability Matrix

Map all downstream requirements to upstream sources.

TRACEABILITY MATRIX
[E1] satisfies [T2, P3, P7]
[E2] satisfies [T1, P5]
[L1] satisfies [E1, E3]
[L2] satisfies [E2, T4]
...

UNSATISFIED REQUIREMENTS: [any T or P with no downstream path]
DECORATIVE ELEMENTS: [any L or E with no upstream source]

Traceability Rules

• Any expansion or outline requirement with no upstream trace is decorative → remove or justify
• Any technical or philosophical requirement with no downstream path is unsatisfied → derive expansion requirements
• Decorative elements are the #1 source of bloat in ambitious writing
• Unsatisfied requirements are the #1 source of "the essay doesn't quite work"

---

Stage 8: Draft Gate

Only permit drafting after ALL pass:

• Artifact has one core unresolved question (not a cluster)
• Thesis object is a claim (not a topic)
• Stronger claim refused is explicit with stated reason
• Technical requirements are atomic and testable
• Philosophical requirements are atomic and testable
• Expansion requirements trace to T and P requirements
• Outline requirements trace to expansion requirements
• Exclusions are explicit (minimum 3)
• At least one equivocation risk has been neutralized
• At least one likely reader objection has a planned location
• The conclusion does not introduce a new subject
• Traceability matrix has zero unsatisfied requirements
• Traceability matrix has zero decorative elements

DRAFT READINESS
STATUS: READY | NOT READY
BLOCKERS: [list any failing checks]
NEXT ACTION: [if not ready — what specific requirement work remains]

If the gate fails: do not draft. Return to the specific stage where the gap exists.

---

Failure Modes

Failure	Signal	Fix
Requirements retrofitted to draft	Requirements written AFTER a draft exists, to justify what was already written	Delete the draft. Derive requirements from the question, not the existing text
Topic masquerading as thesis	"This essay is about X" instead of "I claim X"	Apply the disagreement test: could someone disagree? If not, it's a topic
Untestable requirements	"The essay should be good/clear/insightful"	Every requirement needs a verification condition. If you can't test it, it's not a requirement
Philosophical requirements missing	Only technical requirements derived	Go back to Stage 3. Philosophical requirements prevent intellectual failure; technical requirements prevent format failure
Traceability skipped	Outline produced without checking coverage	Run the matrix. Find the unsatisfied requirements and decorative elements
Exclusion-free	No explicit exclusions	Every good artifact has things it deliberately doesn't do. Derive at least 3
Gate passed ceremonially	Checked all boxes without actually verifying	Each gate check must reference specific requirement IDs, not just "yes"
Scope creep via supporting claims	Supporting claims expand until the essay has 3 theses	Each supporting claim must be necessary for the core thesis. If it could be its own essay, it's out of scope
Requirements too numerous	30+ requirements that can't all be satisfied in one artifact	Prioritize ruthlessly. If you can't satisfy all requirements, narrow scope rather than producing a bloated artifact

---

Depth Scaling

Depth	Stages	Requirements Count	Traceability	Draft Gate
1x	0-1-2-5-8 (skip philosophical, expansion, exclusions)	5-8 total	Informal	Basic checklist
2x	All stages	10-15 total	Full matrix	Full gate
4x	All stages + iterative refinement	15-25 total	Full + gap analysis	Full + peer review simulation
8x	All stages + /araw on thesis + /aex on assumptions	25+ total	Full + sensitivity analysis	Full + adversarial review

Default: 2x for essays and posts, 1x for memos and comments. These are floors.

---

Pre-Completion Checklist

• Artifact definition has one reader, one question, one scope, one after-state
• Thesis is a claim (not a topic) with stronger version explicitly refused
• Technical and philosophical requirements are separated and each is testable
• Expansion requirements all trace to T or P requirements
• Outline requirements all trace to expansion requirements
• Exclusions explicitly state what the artifact will NOT do (minimum 3)
• Traceability matrix has zero unsatisfied and zero decorative entries
• Draft gate passed non-ceremonially (references specific requirement IDs)

---

Integration

• Use before: /w (writing), /pw (persuasive writing)
• Use after: /sbfow when a draft keeps failing — the problem is usually missing requirements
• Use with: /araw to stress-test the thesis object before building requirements on it
• Use with: /ar to derive what the thesis commits the artifact to covering
• Use with: /aex to test assumptions embedded in the thesis
• Differs from /w: w handles the actual writing; wre handles the requirements that make writing possible
• Differs from /stl: stl addresses style and voice; wre addresses structure and intellectual obligations
• Differs from /pw: pw focuses on persuasion; wre focuses on requirements regardless of rhetorical goal