add em-dash overuse tell, remove all em-dashes from prose, checklist now 25 items

prompts/LLM_PROSE_TELLS.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 # LLM Prose Tells
 
 All of these show up in human writing occasionally. No single one is conclusive
-on its own. The difference is concentration — a person might lean on one or two
+on its own. The difference is concentration; a person might lean on one or two
 of these habits across an entire essay, but LLM output will use fifteen of them
 per paragraph, consistently, throughout the entire piece.
 
@@ -9,17 +9,28 @@ per paragraph, consistently, throughout the entire piece.
 
 ## Sentence Structure
 
-### The Em-Dash Pivot: "Not X—but Y"
+### The Em-Dash Pivot: "Not X...but Y"
 
 A negation followed by an em-dash and a reframe.
 
 > "It's not just a tool—it's a paradigm shift." "This isn't about
 > technology—it's about trust."
 
-The single most recognizable LLM construction. Models produce this at roughly
-10–50x the rate of human writers. Four of them in one essay and you know what
+The single most recognizable LLM construction. Models produce this at roughly 10
+to 50x the rate of human writers. Four of them in one essay and you know what
 you're reading.
 
+### Em-Dash Overuse Generally
+
+Even outside the "not X but Y" pivot, models use em-dashes at far higher rates
+than human writers. They substitute em-dashes for commas, semicolons,
+parentheses, colons, and periods, often multiple times per paragraph. A human
+writer might use one or two in an entire piece for a specific parenthetical
+effect. Models scatter them everywhere because the em-dash is a flexible
+punctuation mark that can replace almost any other, and models default to
+flexible options. When a piece of prose has more than two or three em-dashes per
+page, that alone is a meaningful signal.
+
 ### The Colon Elaboration
 
 A short declarative clause, then a colon, then a longer explanation.
@@ -69,11 +80,11 @@ in a way that's hard to pinpoint but easy to feel.
 
 ### Uniform Sentences Per Paragraph
 
-Model-generated paragraphs contain between three and five sentences, and this
-count holds steady across an entire piece. If the first paragraph has four
-sentences, every subsequent paragraph will too. Human writers are much more
-varied — a single sentence followed by one that runs eight or nine — because
-they follow the shape of an idea, not a template.
+Model-generated paragraphs contain between three and five sentences. This count
+holds steady across an entire piece. If the first paragraph has four sentences,
+every subsequent paragraph will too. Human writers are much more varied (a
+single sentence followed by one that runs eight or nine) because they follow the
+shape of an idea, not a template.
 
 ### The Dramatic Fragment
 
@@ -230,18 +241,18 @@ natural disaster. That interchangeability is what makes it identifiable.
 
 If the first section of a model-generated essay runs about 150 words, every
 subsequent section will fall between 130 and 170. Human writing is much more
-uneven — 50 words in one section, 400 in the next.
+uneven, with 50 words in one section and 400 in the next.
 
 ### The Five-Paragraph Prison
 
 Model essays follow a rigid introduction-body-conclusion arc even when nobody
-asked for one. Introduction previews the argument. Body presents 3–5 points.
+asked for one. Introduction previews the argument. Body presents 3 to 5 points.
 Conclusion restates the thesis in different words.
 
 ### Connector Addiction
 
 Look at the first word of each paragraph in model output. You'll find an
-unbroken chain of transition words — "However," "Furthermore," "Moreover,"
+unbroken chain of transition words: "However," "Furthermore," "Moreover,"
 "Additionally," "That said," "To that end," "With that in mind," "Building on
 this." Human prose moves between ideas without announcing every transition.
 
@@ -277,9 +288,9 @@ verbal tics before a qualification the model believes someone expects.
 
 ### The Metaphor Crutch
 
-Models rely on a small, predictable set of metaphors — "double-edged sword,"
-"tip of the iceberg," "north star," "building blocks," "elephant in the room,"
-"perfect storm," "game-changer" — and reach for them with unusual regularity
+Models rely on a small, predictable set of metaphors ("double-edged sword," "tip
+of the iceberg," "north star," "building blocks," "elephant in the room,"
+"perfect storm," "game-changer") and reach for them with unusual regularity
 across every topic. The pool is noticeably smaller than what human writers draw
 from.
 
@@ -291,11 +302,11 @@ No single pattern on this list proves anything by itself. Humans use em-dashes.
 Humans write "crucial." Humans ask rhetorical questions.
 
 What gives it away is how many of these show up at once. Model output will hit
-10–20 of these patterns per page. Human writing might trigger 2–3, distributed
-unevenly, mixed with idiosyncratic constructions no model would produce. When
-every paragraph on the page reads like it came from the same careful, balanced,
-slightly formal, structurally predictable process, it was probably generated by
-one.
+10 to 20 of these patterns per page. Human writing might trigger 2 or 3,
+distributed unevenly, mixed with idiosyncratic constructions no model would
+produce. When every paragraph on the page reads like it came from the same
+careful, balanced, slightly formal, structurally predictable process, it was
+probably generated by one.
 
 ---
 
@@ -338,86 +349,92 @@ passes, because fixing one pattern often introduces another.
    to the unqualified claim or to drop the sentence entirely. If the claim needs
    "almost" to be true, it might not be worth making.
 
+7. Search for em-dashes and replace each one with the punctuation mark that
+   would normally be used in that position (comma, semicolon, colon, period, or
+   parentheses). If you can't identify which one it should be, the sentence
+   probably needs to be restructured.
+
 ### Pass 2: Sentence-Level Restructuring
 
-7. Find every em-dash pivot ("not X—but Y," "not just X—Y," "more than X—Y") and
-   rewrite it as two separate clauses or a single sentence that makes the point
-   without the negation-then-correction structure.
+8. Find every em-dash pivot ("not X...but Y," "not just X...Y," "more than
+   X...Y") and rewrite it as two separate clauses or a single sentence that
+   makes the point without the negation-then-correction structure.
 
-8. Find every colon elaboration and check whether it's doing real work. If the
+9. Find every colon elaboration and check whether it's doing real work. If the
    clause before the colon could be deleted without losing meaning, rewrite the
    sentence to start with the substance that comes after the colon.
 
-9. Find every triple construction (three parallel items in a row) and either
-   reduce it to two, expand it to four or more, or break the parallelism so the
-   items don't share the same grammatical structure.
+10. Find every triple construction (three parallel items in a row) and either
+    reduce it to two, expand it to four or more, or break the parallelism so the
+    items don't share the same grammatical structure.
 
-10. Find every staccato burst (three or more short sentences in a row at similar
+11. Find every staccato burst (three or more short sentences in a row at similar
     length) and combine at least two of them into a longer sentence, or vary
     their lengths so they don't land at the same cadence.
 
-11. Find every unnecessary contrast ("whereas," "as opposed to," "unlike," "as
+12. Find every unnecessary contrast ("whereas," "as opposed to," "unlike," "as
     compared to," "except that") and check whether the contrasting clause adds
     information not already obvious from the main clause. If the sentence says
     the same thing twice from two directions, delete the contrast.
 
-12. Check for the two-clause compound sentence pattern. If most sentences in a
-    passage follow the "[clause], [conjunction] [clause]" structure, rewrite
-    some of them. Break a few into two sentences. Start some with a subordinate
-    clause. Embed a relative clause in the middle of one instead of appending it
-    at the end. The goal is variety in sentence shape, not just sentence length.
+13. Check for the two-clause compound sentence pattern. If most sentences in a
+    passage follow the "\[clause\], \[conjunction\] \[clause\]" structure,
+    rewrite some of them. Break a few into two sentences. Start some with a
+    subordinate clause. Embed a relative clause in the middle of one instead of
+    appending it at the end. The goal is variety in sentence shape, not just
+    sentence length.
 
-13. Find every rhetorical question that is immediately followed by its own
+14. Find every rhetorical question that is immediately followed by its own
     answer and rewrite the passage as a direct statement.
 
-14. Find every sentence fragment being used as its own paragraph and either
+15. Find every sentence fragment being used as its own paragraph and either
     delete it or expand it into a complete sentence that adds actual
     information.
 
-15. Find every pivot paragraph ("But here's where it gets interesting." and
+16. Find every pivot paragraph ("But here's where it gets interesting." and
     similar) and delete it. The paragraph after it always contains the actual
     point.
 
 ### Pass 3: Paragraph and Section-Level Review
 
-16. Check paragraph lengths across the piece and verify they actually vary. If
+17. Check paragraph lengths across the piece and verify they actually vary. If
     most paragraphs have between three and five sentences, rewrite some to be
     one or two sentences and let others run to six or seven.
 
-17. Check section lengths for suspicious uniformity. If every section is roughly
+18. Check section lengths for suspicious uniformity. If every section is roughly
     the same word count, combine some shorter ones or split a longer one
     unevenly.
 
-18. Check the first word of every paragraph for chains of connectors ("However,"
+19. Check the first word of every paragraph for chains of connectors ("However,"
     "Furthermore," "Moreover," "Additionally," "That said"). If more than two
     transition words start consecutive paragraphs, rewrite those openings to
     start with their subject.
 
-19. Check whether every argument is followed by a concession or qualifier. If
+20. Check whether every argument is followed by a concession or qualifier. If
     the piece both-sides every point, pick a side on at least some of them and
     cut the hedging.
 
-20. Read the first paragraph and ask whether deleting it would improve the
+21. Read the first paragraph and ask whether deleting it would improve the
     piece. If it's scene-setting that previews the argument, delete it and start
     with paragraph two.
 
-21. Read the last paragraph and check whether it restates the thesis or uses a
+22. Read the last paragraph and check whether it restates the thesis or uses a
     phrase like "at the end of the day" or "moving forward." If so, either
     delete it or rewrite it to say something the piece hasn't said yet.
 
 ### Pass 4: Overall Texture
 
-22. Read the piece aloud and listen for passages that sound too smooth, too
+23. Read the piece aloud and listen for passages that sound too smooth, too
     even, or too predictable. Human prose has rough patches. If there aren't
     any, the piece still reads as machine output.
 
-23. Check that the piece contains at least a few constructions that feel
-    idiosyncratic — a sentence with unusual word order, a parenthetical that
-    goes on a bit long, an aside only loosely connected to the main point, a
-    word choice that's specific and unexpected. If every sentence is clean and
+24. Check that the piece contains at least a few constructions that feel
+    idiosyncratic: a sentence with unusual word order, a parenthetical that goes
+    on a bit long, an aside only loosely connected to the main point, a word
+    choice that's specific and unexpected. If every sentence is clean and
     correct and unremarkable, it will still read as generated.
 
-24. Verify that you haven't introduced new patterns while fixing the original
+25. Verify that you haven't introduced new patterns while fixing the original
     ones. This happens constantly. Run the entire checklist again from the top
     on the revised version.
 
@@ -460,10 +477,16 @@ roughly like this:
 > **model:** "One of these in an entire essay is a stylistic choice. One per
 > section is a tic." Two-clause parallel structure with the same shape, and also
 > a staccato pair.
+>
+> **human:** add em dashes generally as a tell, and remove them all from the
+> tells doc
+>
+> **model:** _(rewrites entire document without em-dashes while describing
+> em-dash overuse)_
 
 The human compared this process to the deleted scene in Terminator 2 where John
 Connor switches the T-800's CPU to learning mode. The model compared it to a
 physician trying to heal itself. Both descriptions are probably accurate.
 
-This document has been through six editing passes and it probably still has
+This document has been through seven editing passes and it probably still has
 tells in it.