discussion-conventions-diagnosis

Diagnose academic-writing conventions in the Discussion of an English psychology research paper. Checks the Achievement/Contribution statement (placement, type among 4 — method / results / impact / application), limitations writing, future-work conventions, citation density and function, and the use

Theory basis

Science Research Writing Unit 4.1.1 (4 types of contribution) + 4.2.2 Q&A "Is there a difference between ACHIEVEMENT and CONTRIBUTION?" + 4.2.3 ("Identify potential applications") + 4.2.2 (How many citations / what function).

4 types of contribution (4.1.1)

Type	Definition	Signal phrase
Method	Modified or new method that improves on existing methods	"we developed a novel...", "the proposed method outperforms..."
Results	Better / more accurate results than prior studies	"we first demonstrated that...", "to our knowledge, this is the first..."
Impact	Game-changer / sets new direction / invalidates prior work	"our findings challenge the assumption that...", "we propose a paradigm shift..."
Application	New or extended real-world application	"could be used to...", "has implications for clinical practice..."

Achievement vs Contribution (4.2.2 Q&A)

• Achievement = what you actually did in the study (e.g., "we collected data from 500 participants")
• Contribution = what the field / world gains (e.g., "we provide the first evidence that...")
• Both should be present, with the contribution often positioned as the take-home message.

What this skill diagnoses

1. Achievement/contribution statement presence — is there an explicit statement?
2. Type classification — which of the 4 types is being claimed? Is it consistent with the actual study?
3. Placement — is it in the opening moves (not buried)?
4. "Happy words" usage — is the claim hedged firmly (e.g., "to our knowledge", "we first demonstrated", "compelling evidence") without over-claiming ("prove")?
5. Limitations conventions — are they stated explicitly, with appropriate scope, and not as throwaway?
6. Future work conventions — is the future-work section directional (specific next steps) rather than vague ("more research is needed")?
7. Citation density — count per Discussion; compared to corpus baseline.
8. Citation function — does each citation do confirm / contrast / extend work?

Diagnostic signals

Signal	Means
"Our study made a contribution to the field of..."	Generic — should name the specific contribution
"We proved that..."	Overclaim — "prove" is rarely appropriate in a single study
"More research is needed" (no specifics)	Weak future work — should be directional
Limitations are one vague sentence	Surface-level — should be specific (sample, design, measure)
Contribution in the last paragraph	Placement violation — should be in the opening
Multiple contribution types claimed without support	Type-mixing — pick the strongest one and own it
Citation density <5 or >40 in a Discussion of ~1500 words	Density outside typical range

Output format

markdown

## Conventions Diagnosis

### Achievement/Contribution
- [✓/✗] Achievement statement present
- [✓/✗] Contribution statement present
- Type claimed: [method / results / impact / application]
- Type appropriate for study? [yes / concern / no]
- Placement: [opening / mid / closing]
- Hedging level: [appropriate / over-claimed / under-claimed]

### Limitations
- [✓/✗/⚠] Present
- Quality: [specific / vague / throwaway]

### Future work
- [✓/✗/⚠] Present
- Quality: [directional / vague / missing]

### Citation audit
- Total count: N
- Density: N / 1000 words
- Function distribution: confirm=X / contrast=Y / extend=Z
- Coverage: [all three functions / only confirm / etc.]

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

Cross-reference

• Hedging word choice is owned by the Vocabulary skill. This skill owns the policy (when should you hedge, when should you commit?).
• Citation positioning in sentences is owned by the Cohesion skill (L1 — citation as glue). This skill owns the density and function.

Academic integrity

Does not generate or rewrite. Only diagnoses.

References (to be filled in Phase 2)

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