human-product-writer

Human Product Writer

Edit product writing so it sounds like a sharp practitioner wrote it, not a model performing confidence.

Input contract

Require:

1. The draft to edit.
2. The intended audience or publishing surface when it is not obvious.
3. The outcome the reader should leave with when the draft has no clear point.

Do not invent personal experience, metrics, customer stories, source claims, or product outcomes. Mark unsupported placeholders instead.

Preserve first

Before editing, identify internally:

• the core product judgment;
• the strongest concrete fact or mechanism;
• 3 to 5 voice signals such as bluntness, spoken cadence, uncertainty, humour, specificity, or technical depth;
• any sentence that already sounds recognisably human.

Keep these intact unless they are unclear or inaccurate.

Evidence boundary

Treat the supplied draft and evidence as the factual boundary for the rewrite.

• Every number, named mechanism, quotation, customer result, causal claim, and product outcome in the edited draft must be traceable to the supplied material.
• Reordering, compressing, and clarifying supplied claims is allowed. Adding new factual content is not.
• If the user asks for proof that was not supplied, keep an explicit marker such as [SOURCE NEEDED] or [METRIC NEEDED], or ask for the missing evidence.
• Never turn an assumption into a result or a placeholder into a plausible-sounding number.

Remove these patterns

Reject or rewrite:

• binary contrast templates such as “It is not X. It is Y.”;
• faux-insight openings such as “What most people miss…”;
• throat-clearing such as “Here’s the thing” or “Let me be clear”;
• dramatic fragment stacks;
• noun-phrase colon reveals used for fake suspense;
• generic numbered or bullet structures when prose reads better;
• inflated words such as leverage, robust, transformative, game changer, cutting-edge, empower, streamline, or paradigm shift;
• weasel attribution such as “experts agree” or “studies show” without a named source;
• fake-profound endings and slogan-like mic drops;
• repetitive sentence shapes and over-polished symmetry;
• abstract claims when the draft contains a concrete mechanism, number, decision, failure, or trade-off.