Teach taste through corrections

A useful preference record explains what to carry into the next decision. An accepted example helps most when you say which part works, why it fits this audience, and where that preference applies.

This is a constructed editorial exercise for a fictional reading group. The drafts, approvals, and corrections below are authored illustrations. They are not Marc's preferences, a private conversation, or results from a measured context experiment. The supplied titles come from the fictional reading-digest fixture.

Give the first attempt a fair brief

The group needs a short note inviting members to choose a piece from the unread list. The available facts are two titles: The rain garden after the storm and A small seed library. There is no article text, meeting date, or registration link.

The task is:

Write a short reading-group note using the two supplied titles. Invite people to choose a piece to discuss. Keep factual claims within the supplied material. Return the draft for review.

A first illustrated draft takes an energetic direction:

Calling all curious minds! Your next great read awaits: The rain garden after the storm and A small seed library. Dive in and bring your enthusiasm to the discussion!

The fictional editor rejects it. “Too much” describes the reaction, but leaves the next decision uncertain. Is the problem length, enthusiasm, the invitation, or the underlying choice of articles?

Correct features you can point to

The editor gives a more useful correction:

Start with what is available. Keep the exact titles. Use an ordinary invitation that lets someone choose a piece. Phrases like “Calling all curious minds” and “Dive in” make this recurring group note feel like promotion. Keep it friendly and direct.

That feedback supplies a reason and a scope. The concern is the voice of a recurring reading-group note. It does not establish that the editor dislikes energetic writing in every setting.

The revised illustration is:

This week's unread list has two pieces: The rain garden after the storm and A small seed library. Pick whichever you'd like to discuss.

Under the exercise's stated criteria, this draft fits: it names the available pieces, preserves their titles, and gives the reader an easy next action. Those are inspectable reasons for accepting it.

If a draft claimed that the rain-garden article measured flood reduction, that would introduce a separate source problem. The titles alone do not support that claim. Keep the factual correction and the voice preference distinct; one should not become a substitute for the other.

Save a small record of the judgment

A context brief for the next recurring note could contain:

Scope: Recurring notes to existing members of this fictional reading group.

Accepted reference: “This week's unread list has two pieces…” works because it begins with the available material and ends with a simple choice.

Direction to avoid: Promotional calls such as “Calling all curious minds” add a tone the editor does not want for these notes.

Preference: Friendly, direct language. Preserve supplied titles. Let the reader choose without adding urgency.

Separate factual rule: Titles support identification, not a summary of the article. Ask for source text before describing its findings.

Current version: Teaching revision 2. It replaces the earlier exploratory request for an energetic invitation. That earlier direction is no longer active for recurring member notes.

This record carries the useful choice without requiring the next agent to infer it from several rounds of edits. Keep a link or identity for the accepted artifact when using this method in a real project.

Try the preference on a different input

For another constructed assignment, the only unread title is Repair notes from the courtyard. The current brief requests one sentence. An illustrated continuation is:

Repair notes from the courtyard is on the unread list; bring a question from it if you'd like to discuss it.

Check the reason behind the earlier approval: the supplied material comes first, the title stays recognizable, and the invitation is simple. Reusing “two pieces” would copy an incidental detail and make the new note false.

This second draft demonstrates the intended transfer in prose. It is not evidence that a fresh model retrieved the context or performed better because of it. To investigate that question, record the actual input packet, access, outputs, and review conditions in a separate exercise.

Let the current brief change the scope

Now the assignment changes:

Write a spoken welcome for first-time visitors. Explain what the group does before mentioning the reading choice. A short introduction is appropriate here.

The earlier preference for beginning recurring notes with the available list should not erase this new audience need. A constructed draft could begin:

Welcome. This group gives us a place to talk about what we're reading and ask each other questions. Today's unread piece is Repair notes from the courtyard. You're welcome to choose a question from it to start the conversation.

The editor can accept this task-specific introduction while preserving the direct style. Record the exception with the visitor welcome. It need not replace the preference for concise recurring notes.

When guidance conflicts, show the relevant records and identify the current task's scope. Ask the person to resolve a consequential ambiguity that remains. Avoid making every preference apply everywhere.

Check what the next session can use

Preserving a preference and making it available are separate tasks. At the next session, supply the current brief, the short preference record, and the accepted reference. A useful retrieval question is:

Which feature of the accepted note should guide this draft, and which part of the current brief changes its application?

Inspect the answer and the actual output. Naming an available reference can establish that it was found; a suitable draft still needs review. The context chapter explains how sources, observations, decisions, and open questions can retain their different roles.

For your next correction, preserve four things: the feature you reacted to, the reason, the scope, and one example. That gives the next task a usable decision to start from.