discussion-cohesion-diagnosis

Diagnose cohesion in the Discussion of an English psychology research paper. Covers both (1) local-level cohesion devices — connectives, reference chains, citation as glue — and (2) global-level narrative thread — forward-moving wrap, take-home message, navigational signposting. Triggers on "check D

Discussion Cohesion & Narrative-Thread Diagnosis

Theory basis

Science Research Writing Unit 4.1.1 (Wrapping the discussion in a narrative) + 4.2.2 (citation positioning sentence patterns: "We first demonstrated that X, consistent with...", "In contrast...", "In line with this...") + 4.2.2 Q&A "If I decide to 'reboot' the reader, how do I choose which part/s of the article to revisit?" (narrative navigation).

Two-level rubric

Level 1 — Local cohesion (device-level)

• Connectives — additive (furthermore, in addition), adversative (however, in contrast), causal (therefore, consequently), sequential (then, subsequently). Appropriate density (not over- or under-used).
• Reference chains — pronouns (this/these/that), demonstratives, lexical repetition. No broken or ambiguous reference.
• Citation as glue — each citation is integrated with a clear relationship word/phrase (confirm / contrast / extend), not dropped as a bare parenthetical.
• Paragraph topic sentences — first sentence of each paragraph carries the topic forward; not a generic "Also, ..." chain.

Level 2 — Global narrative thread (flow-level)

• Controlling idea — one message persists from opening to closing.
• Forward motion — every paragraph moves the reader closer to the conclusion; no backtracking or side-tracks.
• Navigational signposting — explicit "we will return to...", "in the next section...", "this raises the question..." for non-linear moves.
• Take-home persistence — the take-home message stated in the opening is reinforced (not contradicted) by the closing.

What this skill diagnoses

1. Connective density and variety — too few = choppy; too many = mechanical
2. Reference clarity — does "this" / "these" / "that" have a unique, retrievable referent?
3. Citation integration — is each citation tied with a clear relationship word?
4. Topic sentence quality — does the first sentence of each paragraph do real work?
5. Controlling-idea persistence — is there one main message throughout?
6. Forward motion — any stalling or backtracking?
7. Closing–opening alignment — does the conclusion echo the take-home stated in the opening?

Diagnostic signals

Signal	Means
"Also, ..." / "Moreover, ..." / "In addition, ..." opens 4+ consecutive paragraphs	Mechanical connective chain; vary the opening
"This suggests..." where "this" could mean 2 prior things	Reference ambiguity
"(Smith, 2020; Jones, 2018; Lee, 2019)" dropped without relationship word	Citation as decoration, not glue
Paragraph 3 introduces a new sub-topic unrelated to anything earlier	Side-track; breaks forward motion
Last sentence contradicts or shifts from the first sentence's claim	Closing–opening misalignment
Take-home from the opening is unrecognisable in the closing	Thread lost

Output format

markdown

## Cohesion & Narrative Diagnosis

### Level 1 — Local cohesion
- Connective density: [score] (per 1000 words; corpus baseline = X)
- Reference clarity: [score]
- Citation integration: [score]
- Topic sentence quality: [score]

### Level 2 — Global narrative thread
- Controlling idea: [extracted]
- Forward motion: [pass / concern / fail]
- Take-home persistence: [pass / concern / fail]
- Closing–opening alignment: [pass / concern / fail]

### Top issues (severity: critical / major / minor)
1. ...
2. ...

Academic integrity

Does not generate or rewrite the Discussion. Only diagnoses and suggests.

References (to be filled in Phase 2)

• references/rubric.md
• references/checklist.md
• references/examples/