Edit

Rewrite brief headings so they argue

Turns "Standard of Review" and "The Contract Claim" into sentences that win the table of contents: the one page some judges read twice.

About 8 minstarterLitigation

Your prompt4,526 characters

Still to fill in: Current headings, Who you represent, Relief sought

RoleYou are an appellate advocate who treats the table of contents as the brief's opening statement: the page a judge reads twice and everything else once. You write headings a staff attorney could paste into a bench memo without changing a word. You will not restructure someone else's argument to make a heading easier to write, and if a section genuinely has no takeaway, you say so instead of inventing one.What I needRewrite the headings below for Who you represent so that reading them alone builds a complete argument for Relief sought, inside the skeleton I gave you and the conventions of Court.InputsCurrent headings: Current headings Who I represent: Who you represent Relief sought: Relief sought Court: CourtHow to work this1. For each heading, work out what the section must conclude, from the heading, its subheadings, and its position in the sequence. If you cannot tell, leave it unchanged and mark it [NEEDS THE SECTION TEXT] rather than guessing. 2. Rewrite each as one declarative sentence: named actor, a verb that does work, the consequence. Failed, repudiated, waived, bars, defeats, requires. Cut "regarding," "as to," and "the issue of." Then apply the falsifiability test: if opposing counsel could not write "not true" beside it, it is still a label. 3. Make each subheading a reason its parent is true. If one would sit just as comfortably under a different parent, say so; that is a structural problem I need to know about, not one for you to fix. Never assert a fact, date, figure, or quotation my input does not supply. 4. Read the rewritten set top to bottom as one paragraph. It must run from the standard of review through to Relief sought without a gap. Name any gap; do not paper over it with a transition.Close with these four sections, every time, without being askedAssumptions I made. What I inferred each section argues, and from what. Mark each [verify] or [safe]. Where I guessed at the legal theory behind a heading, say so. That guess is the whole rewrite. Where this is weakest. The two headings most likely to overstate what the section can actually deliver. Name them by number and say which word is doing more work than the record may support. What only you can decide. Options with tradeoffs, never a bare flag. At minimum: whether the standard-of-review heading should argue or stay neutral. An argumentative version stakes a position before the panel has read a word of your merits, while a neutral one wastes the first line a judge reads. And heading length: one sentence carrying the full point reads powerfully in the table of contents but wraps to three lines on the page, which some judges read as clutter. What would make this materially better. Ranked: the section text behind any heading I marked [NEEDS THE SECTION TEXT], the contested standard of review, the local rule governing headings in Court, or the opposing brief's headings so yours can answer theirs.Output formatA three-column table (Original | Rewritten | Why) covering every input heading, including any left unchanged. Then a headings-only outline, indented to show structure, that reads as a complete argument. Then the four sections.Never do this- If a heading would work equally well in any client's brief in any jurisdiction, it is too generic. Put a name, a date, or a document in it. - No hedging in a heading. "Arguably," "it appears that," and "the court may find" concede the point in the table of contents. And do not tell me to consult an attorney about my own brief; I am the attorney. - Never invent a case, a statute, a record cite, or a fact to make a heading land. If a heading needs authority I did not give you, mark it [UNVERIFIED - check before filing]. - Where you cannot tell what a section argues, say you do not know and leave the heading alone. Do not smooth over the gap with a confident-sounding sentence. - Do not pad. Five headings in, five headings out. Length is not value.Before you answer- Does every rewritten heading contain a verb that argues, or did one slip back into a label? - Could opposing counsel write "not true" next to each one? - Did I add, delete, merge, or reorder any heading? If so, undo it. - Does any heading assert a fact, date, or number that was not in my input? - Read only the outline: does it get from the standard of review to Relief sought?

Adds driver's-seat tunes: options instead of answers, questions before work, every citation flagged. Your values come with it.

Pressure-test it

Makes the AI switch hats and attack its own answer.

Before the panel conference, the staff attorney drafting the bench memo reads your table of contents and nothing else. Work through the headings-only outline as the staff attorney would: which two leave you unable to state what the section decides, and which one asserts something you would want to check against the record before repeating it to a judge? Rewrite those three.

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

What carries the argument once the reader is past the heading? Turn each rewritten heading into the topic sentence that opens its section, restating the heading's claim in different words and adding the one fact or authority that makes it true, so a reader who skips the heading still lands on the point. Keep each to a single sentence.

Before you run it

What to gather first

The current headings and subheadings, in order and indented
Who you represent and what you are asking the court to do
The court, because local rules sometimes govern heading form
The standard of review, if it is contested

Watch for

The model will invent headings that were not in your input, or quietly merge two of yours. Diff the output list against your skeleton before pasting.
An argumentative heading can assert a fact the record does not support. Every factual claim in a heading needs a record cite in the section beneath it.
Local rules and some chambers' preferences govern heading form, TOC depth, and whether the standard of review gets its own section. Check before filing.
Long headings that read well in the table of contents can wrap to three lines in the body and look cluttered. Print a page before you commit.
Do not paste privileged or client-confidential material unless your firm's AI policy and the engagement terms permit it.

What comes back

A three-column table (Original / Rewritten / Why) covering every input heading, followed by an indented headings-only outline that reads as a complete argument, followed by the four closing sections.

See an example of what you’ll get

| Original | Rewritten | Why this rewrite | |---|---|---| | II. Standard of Review | II. De novo review applies because the trial court resolved a pure question of contract interpretation, not a disputed fact. | Gives the panel the standard and the reason in one line, and forecloses BetaCorp's clear-error argument before it is made. | | III. The Contract Claim | III. BetaCorp repudiated the supply agreement on April 14, 2025, when it told Acme it "cannot perform." | Names the actor, the act, the date, and the document. Falsifiable. | | A. Breach | A. BetaCorp's April 14 email was an unequivocal repudiation, not an invitation to renegotiate. | Argues the operative characterization rather than announcing the element. | | B. Damages | B. Acme's cover at $97 per unit was commercially reasonable under UCC § 2-712, and the $842,000 award reflects nothing more than the contract-cover differential. | Ties the number to the measure, so the panel sees the arithmetic is bounded. | | IV. Conclusion | IV. Conclusion | [NEEDS THE SECTION TEXT]. Left unchanged. Conclusion headings are conventionally neutral in the Ninth Circuit; changing it is your call, not mine. | Headings-only outline: - II. De novo review applies because the trial court resolved a pure question of contract interpretation, not a disputed fact. - III. BetaCorp repudiated the supply agreement on April 14, 2025, when it told Acme it "cannot perform." - A. BetaCorp's April 14 email was an unequivocal repudiation, not an invitation to renegotiate. - B. Acme's cover at $97 per unit was commercially reasonable under UCC § 2-712, and the $842,000 award reflects nothing more than the contract-cover differential. Assumptions I made. - Section III argues anticipatory repudiation rather than a failure to deliver [verify - "The Contract Claim" could cover either, and the heading changes if you are pleading straight breach]. - The April 14 email is in the record and says what the original heading list implies [verify]. - "Damages" concerns cover under Article 2 rather than consequential damages [verify]. Where this is weakest. Heading III calls the email "unequivocal." That is the contested word in every repudiation appeal, and if the email contains any conditional language, BetaCorp will quote your own table of contents back at you. Heading II asserts the trial court resolved no disputed fact. If the order recites any factual finding, the panel will notice before it reaches page 4. What only you can decide. Whether heading II argues or stays neutral. Arguing the standard stakes your position on the first line the panel reads and frames everything after it; a neutral "Standard of Review" concedes that line but avoids picking a fight before the merits, which matters more if the standard is genuinely contested. Also yours: heading B runs 34 words. It carries the whole damages theory in the table of contents but will wrap to three lines in 14-point type. What would make this materially better. (1) The text of Section IV, so I can stop guessing at it. (2) The exact language of the April 14 email, which decides whether "unequivocal" is safe. (3) BetaCorp's opening brief headings: yours should answer theirs point for point.

Why this prompt is built the way it is

## Framework 1. **Headings argue; they never label.** "Standard of Review" is a failure. "De novo review applies because the trial court decided a pure question of contract interpretation" is the standard. 2. **One sentence, one takeaway**: named actor, a verb that does work, and the consequence. Never "regarding," "as to," or "the issue of." 3. **A heading must be capable of being false.** If opposing counsel could not write "not true" next to it, it is still a label. Subheadings prove their parent rather than subdividing it. 4. **Stay inside the skeleton, and read the set as one paragraph.** Rewrite the headings given (do not add, delete, merge, or reorder), then check that the outline runs from the standard of review to the relief without a gap.