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

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

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

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

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

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.