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
- Connective density and variety — too few = choppy; too many = mechanical
- Reference clarity — does "this" / "these" / "that" have a unique, retrievable referent?
- Citation integration — is each citation tied with a clear relationship word?
- Topic sentence quality — does the first sentence of each paragraph do real work?
- Controlling-idea persistence — is there one main message throughout?
- Forward motion — any stalling or backtracking?
- 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
## 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.mdreferences/checklist.mdreferences/examples/