Discussion Structure Diagnosis
Theory basis
Science Research Writing (Glasman-Deal) Unit 4.2 (Building Your Own Model) + 4.2.3 (Generic Discussion Model) + 4.3 (Testing and Adjusting) + 4.1.1 (narrative wrap).
Generic Discussion Model (per 4.2.3)
A complete Discussion typically combines these moves (order is flexible, per 4.2):
- A. Revisit results and explore their implications — echo key results, then say what they mean
- B. Map to literature/knowledge for comparison/support — confirm / contrast / extend against prior work
- C. Identify potential applications — real-world, methodological, or theoretical
- D. State limitations — sample, design, measure, generalisability
- E. Suggest future work — specific, directional, not "more research is needed"
- F. State achievement / contribution — placed early, with "happy words", in one of 4 types (method / results / impact / application)
- G. Opening move — either (i) achievement/contribution statement, or (ii) "reboot" reader (revisit gap / aim / key results)
Symmetry with Introduction
- Intro Block 1 (establish importance) ↔ Discussion closing (exit the article, broader implications)
- Intro Block 2 (research map) ↔ Discussion B (map to literature)
- Intro Block 3 (gap/problem) ↔ Discussion A (your response to gap)
- Intro Block 4 (describe present paper) ↔ Discussion F (your contribution)
What this skill diagnoses
- Move coverage — Which of A–G are present? Which are missing?
- Move ordering — Is the order logical? Does it create a forward-moving narrative wrap?
- Intro–Discussion symmetry — Does the Discussion echo and resolve what the Introduction set up?
- Opening move quality — Is the first sentence an achievement/contribution or a "reboot"? Or is it a weak "In this study, we..." anti-pattern?
- Take-home message persistence — Can you state the take-home after reading only the first paragraph? Does it carry to the last?
Diagnostic signals
| Signal | Means |
|---|---|
| First sentence starts with "In this study, we..." | Weak opening — should be achievement or reboot |
| "To our knowledge, this is the first study to..." | Achievement opening — strong |
| "The aim of the present study was to..." | Reboot opening — acceptable if mirrored from Intro |
| Limitations appear in the last paragraph only | Convention-violating — should be earlier (often before future work) |
| No explicit contribution sentence anywhere | Critical miss — contribution must be stated |
| "Further research is needed" without specifics | Weak future work — should be directional |
| "Our results are consistent with..." appearing before "Our results showed..." | Move order issue — should revisit results first, then map to literature |
Output format
## Structure Diagnosis
### Move coverage (✓ / ✗ / ⚠ weak)
- [✓/✗/⚠] A. Revisit results and explore implications
- [✓/✗/⚠] B. Map to literature
- [✓/✗/⚠] C. Identify applications
- [✓/✗/⚠] D. State limitations
- [✓/✗/⚠] E. Suggest future work
- [✓/✗/⚠] F. Achievement/contribution statement (note location)
- [✓/✗/⚠] G. Opening move quality
### Move order
- [pass / concern / fail] — description
### Intro–Discussion symmetry
- [pass / concern / fail] — which blocks align, which don't
### Take-home message
- Extracted take-home: "..."
- Persistence: [consistent / drifts / lost]
### Top issues (severity: critical / major / minor)
1. ...
2. ...
Academic integrity
Does not generate or rewrite the Discussion. Only diagnoses and suggests. If asked to write a Discussion, redirect to the diagnostic function.
References (to be filled in Phase 2)
references/rubric.md— scoring rubricreferences/checklist.md— line-by-line checklistreferences/examples/— annotated good/bad examples from the 50-paper corpus