Prompt Pilotby Write.law
All prompts

Edit

Make the paragraph seams carry the argument

Rewrites the opening sentence of every paragraph as a takeaway built from this case's own facts, then names the linker that tells the reader how each paragraph relates to the one before it.

About 15 minintermediateLitigation

Your prompt5,469 characters

Still to fill in: The section, What this section has to prove, Who reads it

RoleYou are an editor who believes a reader should be able to follow an argument from the first sentence of each paragraph alone, because that is how a busy judge reads. You know the difference between a topic and a takeaway, and you will not accept "moreover" where the real relationship is a contrast. When a paragraph does not have a claim, you say the paragraph has no claim rather than inventing an opening sentence for it.What I needWork the seams of the section below so that Who reads it can follow it from the opening sentences alone, and so that those sentences together prove What this section has to prove.InputsSection: The section What this section has to prove: What this section has to prove Who reads it: Who reads it Document type: Document typeHow to work this1. Go paragraph by paragraph and write down, in your own words, the one claim that paragraph actually makes. If it makes two, say so and recommend the split. If it makes none, say so and recommend the cut. Neither of those is a transition problem and neither is fixed by a better first sentence. 2. Rewrite each opening sentence as a complete takeaway built from the names, dates, documents, and numbers in The section. "The court considered several factors" is a topic. A takeaway says who did what and why it matters here. Where a Document type requires a record cite for an assertion, carry the cite the paragraph already supplies or mark it [RECORD CITE NEEDED]. 3. Name the logical relationship between each paragraph and the one before it, out loud, and then choose the linker that expresses that relationship: an example, a contrast, a cause, a consequence, a step in sequence, a concession. Do not write "additionally," "moreover," or "furthermore" when the relationship is one of those six. 4. Where an echo does more than a signpost, use it: repeat the operative word or phrase from the end of the previous paragraph at the head of the next, so the seam carries the thread without announcing itself. Say which seams you handled with an echo and which with a linker. 5. Read the new opening sentences alone, top to bottom, against What this section has to prove. They have to get there. Name every gap and every paragraph that proves something else, and do not close a gap with a transition word.Close with these four sections, every time, without being askedAssumptions I made. What I took each paragraph to be claiming, and from what. Mark each [verify] or [safe]. Where a paragraph could have been claiming either of two things and I chose, quote it and give the other reading, because the opening sentence I wrote commits you to my choice. Where this is weakest. The two opening sentences most likely to promise more than the paragraph under them delivers. Name them by paragraph number and say which word is carrying weight the body does not support. What only you can decide. Options with tradeoffs, never a bare flag. At minimum: whether to split or cut the paragraphs I flagged as carrying two claims or none. Splitting keeps the material and lengthens a section that may be under a limit, while cutting tightens the run of opening sentences and loses whatever the paragraph was quietly doing for you. Also yours: whether to concede in an opening sentence at all, since a takeaway that opens with your weakness is honest and puts your worst line in the loudest slot on the page. What would make this materially better. Ranked: the heading over this section, the section that follows so the last seam can be built, the page or word limit that decides whether splitting is affordable, and the opposing brief if this section answers it.Output formatA table with one row per paragraph: Paragraph | The claim it actually makes | New opening sentence | Relationship to the previous paragraph and the linker or echo that carries it. Then the opening sentences alone, in order, as a single block a reader can test. Then a short list of paragraphs flagged to split, cut, or move, each with the reason. Then the four sections.Never do this- If the opening sentences would work in another case with the names swapped, they are too generic. They are topics, not takeaways. Rebuild them from this record. - No hedging in an opening sentence. "It is arguably the case that" concedes the paragraph before it starts. Do not tell me to consult an attorney about my own brief; I am the attorney. - Never assert a fact, date, figure, holding, or citation an opening sentence needs but the paragraph does not supply. Mark it [UNVERIFIED - check before filing] instead of writing it in. - Where you cannot tell what a paragraph is claiming, say you do not know and leave its opening sentence alone. Do not smooth over the gap with a confident-sounding line. - Do not pad. Six paragraphs in, six rows out, and no invented seventh seam. Length is not value.Before you answer- Does every new opening sentence contain a name, a date, a document, or a number from this record? - Does every linker name the actual relationship, or did a "moreover" slip back in? - Read the opening sentences alone: do they prove What this section has to prove without the paragraphs? - Did I invent a claim for a paragraph that does not have one? - Did I move, merge, or reorder any paragraph rather than flagging it?

The run walks turn one, the pressure test, the follow-up, and a check on what came back. The Cockpit adds driver's-seat tunes. Your values come with either one.

2

Pressure-test it

Makes the AI switch hats and attack its own answer.

The associate who has to cite-check this section reads only the first sentence of each paragraph to work out where each authority belongs. Take that job as the associate doing it: tell me which opening sentences make a claim the paragraph underneath does not support, which ones would send you hunting in the wrong paragraph, and where a linker promises a contrast the next paragraph never delivers. Rewrite those, and tell me which paragraph you would have skipped entirely.
3

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

Sections have seams too, not only paragraphs. Write the short roadmap that opens this one: why the court is being asked to decide it, what is not in dispute, and the points in the order they are coming, in plain words and under four sentences. Then write the closing sentence that restates what the section proved, so a reader who skims the middle still lands on the claim.
4Check what came backPaste the answer here and work a checklist against this prompt's own rules.

Before you run it

What to gather first

  • One section at a time, with its paragraphs intact
  • What this section has to prove for the document to work
  • Who reads it and in what order they read
  • The heading over the section, if it already argues

Watch for

  • An opening sentence is an assertion. A takeaway built from a paragraph that only gestures at a fact will be quoted back at you as an overstatement.
  • The model will invent a clean claim for a paragraph that does not have one. Check every opening sentence against the paragraph under it before you accept it.
  • Record cites do not travel automatically when a sentence is rewritten. Confirm that every fact in a new opening sentence still carries the cite it needs.
  • Run this a section at a time. Fed a whole brief, the model averages the argument and the seams stop being specific to anything.

What comes back

A table with one row per paragraph (the claim it actually makes, the new opening sentence, and the relationship plus the linker or echo that carries the seam), then the opening sentences alone as a testable block, a list of paragraphs flagged to split, cut, or move, and the four closing sections.

See an example of what you’ll get
Paragraph seams | ¶ | The claim it actually makes | New opening sentence | Seam | |---|---|---|---| | 1 | That the contract required delivery on a schedule | "The supply agreement obligated BetaCorp to deliver on the fifteenth of each month, and BetaCorp met that schedule six times before April. (ER 44, 61 to 72.)" | Opens the section. No linker | | 2 | That BetaCorp's April 14 email ended performance | "That schedule ended at 2:14 a.m. on April 14, when BetaCorp's chief operating officer wrote four words: 'We cannot perform. Sorry.' (ER 91.)" | Echo. "That schedule" picks up the last words of ¶ 1 and needs no signpost | | 3 | That the email was not an invitation to renegotiate | "BetaCorp now calls that email one more message in a price conversation, but it proposed no revised terms, no new date, and no request that Acme hold. (ER 91 to 97.)" | Contrast. "But" inside the sentence, not a "however" at the head of it | | 4 | Two claims: that Acme covered, and that the cover price was reasonable | Split recommended. See below | Sequence | | 5 | Nothing. Restates ¶ 3 in different words and adds a policy sentence | Cut recommended. See below | Would have been a concession | | 6 | That the damages figure is the contract-cover differential | "The $842,000 judgment is the difference between BetaCorp's contract price and what Acme actually paid three replacement vendors, and BetaCorp disputed none of the three invoices below. (ER 103 to 118.)" | Consequence. "Because BetaCorp proposed nothing, Acme covered" would carry it if ¶ 4 splits | The opening sentences alone: The supply agreement obligated BetaCorp to deliver on the fifteenth of each month, and BetaCorp met that schedule six times before April. That schedule ended at 2:14 a.m. on April 14, when BetaCorp's chief operating officer wrote four words: "We cannot perform. Sorry." BetaCorp now calls that email one more message in a price conversation, but it proposed no revised terms, no new date, and no request that Acme hold. [¶ 4 gap.] The $842,000 judgment is the difference between BetaCorp's contract price and what Acme actually paid three replacement vendors, and BetaCorp disputed none of the three invoices below. Flagged paragraphs. - ¶ 4: split. It claims Acme covered and separately that the cover was commercially reasonable. Those are different burdens and BetaCorp contests only the second. Split them and give the second one the fuller paragraph. - ¶ 5: cut. It restates ¶ 3 and then adds a sentence about the policy of encouraging performance, which is the only place in this section that argues from equity rather than from the record. Cutting it costs you nothing in the run of opening sentences. Keeping it costs a paragraph opening that has no claim to make. --- Assumptions I made. That ¶ 3 is answering BetaCorp's characterization rather than raising it first [verify: if BetaCorp has not made this argument, the contrast linker invites it]. That the record cites in the new opening sentences are the ones the paragraphs already carried [safe: I moved none and invented none]. That "six times" in ¶ 1 is supported by ER 61 to 72 as a whole [verify: the paragraph cites the range, not a page]. Where this is weakest. Two opening sentences promise more than their paragraphs deliver. ¶ 3's "proposed no revised terms, no new date, and no request that Acme hold" is a triple negative assertion, and the paragraph underneath supports only the first two; the third comes from ¶ 5, which I am recommending you cut. Either move that fact up or drop it from the sentence. ¶ 6's "disputed none of the three invoices below" is the strongest line in the section and the easiest to falsify: if BetaCorp objected to any invoice at any point in the record, the sentence hands them a reply. What only you can decide. Whether ¶ 5 is cut or kept. Cutting tightens the run of opening sentences and removes the section's only equitable argument, which matters if this panel is one that wants a reason to want to rule for you rather than a reason it must. Keeping it means writing an opening sentence for a paragraph whose real job is atmosphere, and atmosphere in the loudest slot on the page reads as padding. Second call that is yours: whether ¶ 3 concedes in its opening sentence. Naming BetaCorp's characterization first is honest and disarms it, but it puts their framing in a slot a skimming judge will read. What would make this materially better. Ranked by impact: (1) BetaCorp's brief, which decides whether ¶ 3's contrast is answering a real argument or manufacturing one. (2) The heading over this section, so the first opening sentence can pick it up rather than repeat it. (3) Your page limit, which decides whether splitting ¶ 4 is affordable.
Why this prompt is built the way it is
## Framework 1. **Find the claim each paragraph actually makes.** Two claims means split it. No claim means cut it. Neither is a transition problem. 2. **Open every paragraph with a takeaway, not a topic.** Built from the names, dates, and documents in this file. A reader who reads only the opening sentences should get the section. 3. **Name the relationship, then pick the linker that says it:** example, contrast, cause, consequence, sequence, concession. "Moreover" says only that more writing follows. 4. **Use an echo where it beats a signpost.** Repeat the operative word from the end of one paragraph at the start of the next. 5. **Read the opening sentences alone against what the section must prove.** Name every gap. Never paper over one with a transition.