Write Clearly Enough to Persuade

Proof required

Submit your writing audit: 5 real pieces of your own writing (or representative excerpts of at least 200 words each) with three-criterion ratings (clarity / concision / structure, each 1–5) and a one-sentence specific observation per criterion per piece. Append a 200-word diagnosis naming your single most consistent weakness with evidence from at least 3 of the 5 pieces.

What gets checked

• 5 real pieces of your own writing — not examples by others, not hypothetical drafts, not polished work that doesn't reflect your natural output
• Ratings are differentiated across pieces — all 5 pieces rated identically on all 3 criteria suggests the rubric was applied mechanically
• Diagnosis names one specific weakness (e.g. 'burying the main point in the third paragraph', 'using passive voice to hedge claims') rather than a category ('I write unclearly')

Common mistakes

• Selecting only your best writing to audit — the diagnosis must come from representative output, including pieces you know were weak
• Diagnosing 'I write too much' or 'my emails are long' without naming the structural habit that causes it
• Rating all three criteria identically (e.g. all 3/5 across all 5 pieces) rather than distinguishing where each piece specifically failed

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to read one sentence from one of the 5 pieces aloud and explain what it is doing — this tests whether their diagnosis reflects genuine understanding or surface-level labelling
• Check that ratings vary across pieces and across criteria — a uniform 3/5 across everything suggests the rubric was not applied with real attention
• Confirm the diagnosis is specific enough to act on — 'my writing is unclear' is not a diagnosis; 'I always delay the main point until the third paragraph' is
• If all 5 pieces were rated highly on clarity, ask the submitter to show you the clearest and least clear pieces side by side — the contrast should be visible without explanation

Proof required

Submit your M1 audit (if not already submitted), one rewritten piece with before/after comparison and a specific annotation of what changed and why, plus an 8-week writing log: at least 16 new pieces (2/week) each with a one-sentence note on whether the weakness appeared and how you responded.

What gets checked

• Before/after comparison for the rewritten piece shows a specific targeted change — not a general tidy-up but a change that directly addresses the M1 weakness
• Log contains at least 16 entries spread across the 8 weeks with dated entries — a log backdated in the final week does not qualify
• At least 8 of the 16 log entries note a specific instance of the weakness appearing and what the writer did about it

Common mistakes

• Rewriting a piece that was already strong rather than a piece that clearly exhibited the weakness — the before/after comparison must show a real transformation
• Log entries that say 'applied feedback' without specifying what the feedback was or what change was made
• Only 2 pieces per week being logged but all in the same format (e.g. only short emails) — the deliberate practice must span different types of writing

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Read the before and after versions of the rewritten piece without reading the submitter's annotation first — the improvement should be apparent before being explained
• Spot-check 3 log entries from different weeks — ask the submitter to show you the actual piece that generated that log entry to confirm it is real
• Check that the 16 log entries are genuinely diverse in format — if all 16 are short emails, the practice has not transferred
• Ask the submitter what the hardest application of the improvement was — this reveals genuine engagement rather than mechanical logging

Proof required

Submit the 3 portfolio pieces (complete, not excerpts) plus the reviewer's written critique: specific observations on each piece's clarity, concision, and structure; the 3 sentences selected for live redrafting and your live redraft of each; and the reviewer's written sign-off confirming their role, their writing/editing background, and that the live redrafting was done in real time during the session.

What gets checked

• 3 complete pieces submitted — excerpts are not sufficient; the reviewer must see complete writing artifacts, not cherry-picked paragraphs
• Live redrafts documented — all 3 redrafts written in real time during the session, not polished versions produced after
• Reviewer sign-off confirms: their name, their professional writing or editing role (current or recent), and that live redrafting happened in the session

Common mistakes

• Submitting excerpts rather than complete pieces — a reviewer cannot assess structure without seeing the whole piece
• Live redrafts that are clearly polished post-session rather than rough in-the-moment attempts — rough live redrafts are more valuable than polished after-the-fact revisions
• Reviewer who praises without challenging any specific sentence — genuine expert critique identifies specific weaknesses, not general encouragement

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter why they chose these 3 pieces for the portfolio — the answer reveals their own understanding of what 'good' looks like after the 8-week practice
• Read the live redrafts before the polished pieces — a live redraft that is cleaner than the original piece suggests post-session polishing, not real-time drafting
• Confirm the reviewer's professional writing or editing background is current or recent (within 5 years) — a reviewer who wrote professionally 15 years ago may not reflect current standards
• Ask the submitter what the hardest live redraft was and why — this tests metacognitive understanding of their own writing weakness