Turn AI manuscript feedback into a focused revision plan

Example

ORIGINAL EDITORIAL EXAMPLE, invented for this guide.

Chapter 8: The Transfer Slip Approved facts and outcome constraints: by the end of this scene, Zhou Lan and workshop keeper Yu Heng must both know that the last two digits on a retired machine's exterior plate differ from its transfer slip. She must register the discrepancy before 17:00. She may inspect the exterior only; the machine stays sealed. Both the chapter plan and the already-written chapter 9 depend on that seal remaining intact. The person who changed the record is not identified until chapter 12. Current weakness: Yu notices the mismatch, explains everything and offers to register it; Zhou merely agrees.

Four comments and an author's decision sheet: 1. “Zhou has no consequential action.” ACCEPT THE DIAGNOSIS. Approved repair: she compares the two visible numbers, asks to register the mismatch and insists when Yu proposes waiting. Yu still sees the same evidence. Keep the discrepancy, deadline and sealed machine. 2. “Cut the transfer-slip exchange; it slows the scene.” REJECT THE DELETION, ACCEPT COMPRESSION. Its evidence supports the later investigation. Remove repeated explanation; keep the comparison and registration decision. 3. “Have Zhou break the seal and find the culprit's signature for a stronger ending.” REJECT THIS SOLUTION. It changes the permitted action, chapter 9's premise and chapter 12's reveal. If the author wants that different plot, plan its consequences separately. 4. “Every line should be shorter and sharper.” ASK FOR A SPECIFIC PROBLEM; DEFER THE BLANKET REWRITE. This book uses an unhurried voice. Identify an actual redundant exchange; the overall voice stays.

Put the accepted repair on the page: a bounded trial The passage below is another original editorial example. It supplies wording and small comparison actions for decisions 1 and 2, keeping the facts above. It ends when they agree what to register, before any submission channel, receipt or completion time enters the scene.

Zhou Lan held the transfer slip beside the machine’s exterior plate, read the last two digits on the plate, then traced the corresponding line on the slip to its last two digits. “The last two digits don’t match. Look.” Yu Heng compared the places she indicated. “They don't. Let's wait until we've cleared it up before registering anything.” “The reason still needs checking, but the discrepancy has to be registered before five.” Zhou kept the slip raised. “I'm raising it now. Write down what's on the plate and what's on the slip separately. Leave the seal alone; we're not making a claim about what's inside.” “Just the number mismatch?” “Yes. We can't put down a cause as though we already know it.” “Then let's record the two numbers first.” Zhou turned the slip toward him. “Both of them. Don't choose one as correct yet.”

What the repair changes: - The actions move to Zhou. She compares the evidence, brings it to his attention, asks to register it now and resists waiting for a cause. Yu still sees the same mismatch; she has no new secret expertise or authority. - The deadline now drives a decision in the scene, so the reader no longer hears it explained twice. Keeping the two visible sources separate makes the request precise; the mismatch is recorded as a mismatch, and who changed the record, which number is correct and what is inside the machine all stay open. - Yu's wait proposal creates resistance without turning him into an accomplice. Zhou's move is to narrow what she is asking for; she neither threatens him nor opens the seal. Her longer sentence carries the deadline, request and limit; agency comes from actions that move things forward, and the dialogue can stay calm.

Compress repetition, keep the negotiated distinction: A second speech explaining again that the last two digits differ could go. “Just the number mismatch?” does different work here: it tests the scope of what they will record, and Zhou's answer excludes an unproven cause. Removing that exchange works only if the remaining passage still makes the agreed scope clear. Even after the mismatch has been mentioned, judge each later question by the work it does.

Where the trial stops: Yu has agreed to record the numbers; the excerpt does not show a completed registration. The chapter still owes the before-17:00 requirement. Read the surrounding unchanged passage for its actual completion, or identify the missing beat and choose an additional revision scope. Tick the deadline off only when the registration is actually completed on the page; someone saying “now” leaves it open. This bounded repair addresses the accepted agency problem; check the rest of chapter 8 separately.

One concrete later-chapter check, without inventing later prose: A hypothetical factual narration saying “Yu was the first to notice the mismatch” could conflict with this change of initiator. Flag it and read its context; a character's deliberate lie is a separate case, so judge that line in its own scene, by hand. A later statement that both characters saw the mismatching numbers and the seal stayed intact still fits the approved facts. These check sentences are invented for the example. Keep chapter 12's identity reveal where it belongs. A tracking transaction reflects saved revisions; an untouched later sentence needs its own repair.

If you want to try the wording before a file revision, use an explicitly separate chat request: Using the pasted facts and accepted decisions, draft only the transfer-slip exchange and its comparison actions in this reply. Keep the unhurried voice and both characters' shared evidence. Stop at the agreement about what to register; explain the unresolved deadline obligation. No seal opening, identified culprit, new submission process or claim of completed registration. Do not edit manuscript, outline, tracking or other project files, and do not save this trial as an author preference. [Paste the actual passage, facts and accepted decisions; replace this exercise's names and circumstances with your own.] This trial stays in the chat reply. To apply selected wording to a chapter, set the explicit scope and backup handoff, then use the file-revision command below.

Suggested first request for an installed Claude Code workflow: /story-review solo Review only chapter 8. Read the named chapter plan and relevant passages from chapters 7 and 9 as supporting context, not additional review batches. Identify evidence-backed problems and distinguish a diagnosis from one possible fix. Show missing evidence and disagreements. Deliver the report in this reply; do not edit manuscript, settings, outline, tracking or other project files. Do not infer persistent author preferences from this one request. [Supply the real paths, approved facts and original feedback.]

After choosing the repair: /story-long-write 修改第8章 Only revise the transfer-slip conversation and its local number-comparison actions. Apply decisions 1 and 2 above; do not apply 3 or the blanket rewrite in 4. Preserve the deadline, sealed machine, reveal timing and everything outside this scene. Confirm that scope, back up the original and follow the bundled revision workflow. If a plan conflict prevents the local repair, report it before writing. Report the actual changes and any consequences for chapters 9 onward; do not edit those chapters or start a new one this turn.