# Manuscript starter kit

**Use with:** [paper-worthiness ranking](programme_closure_08_paperworthiness_ranking.md) · [machine register](../../registers/programme/programme_paperworthiness_register.json) · [current synthesis](../../syntheses/the_admissibility_frontier_current_synthesis.md)

## Admission gate

A manuscript cluster is ready to draft only when it has:

- one central claim that can be stated without the entire programme;
- a conventional mathematical or physical object recognized by the target field;
- a proof, reproducible computation or bounded dataset;
- a novelty boundary grounded in primary literature;
- a named counterexample, limitation or no-go scope;
- independent reproduction of the decisive step; and
- a useful conclusion even if the programme's larger interpretation is removed.

## Recommended structure

1. **Problem in the field's language.** Begin with the conventional question, not the corpus chronology.
2. **Objects and assumptions.** Fix carrier, field, product, domain, normalization and equivalence relation.
3. **Main theorem or empirical claim.** State scope and status in one paragraph.
4. **Proof or method spine.** Replace certificate-only steps with conventional arguments where practical; retain code as reproduction support.
5. **Ablations and counterexamples.** Show why weaker inputs do not yield the result.
6. **Relation to prior art.** Separate known theory, new application, new classification and speculative interpretation.
7. **Physical or mathematical boundary.** State what is not derived.
8. **Reproduction packet.** Provide deterministic commands, versions, inputs and expected outputs.
9. **Discussion.** Present the strongest warranted implication and the smallest next discriminant.

## Claim table

| Claim | Status | Controlling proof/data | Prior art | Boundary | Reproduction owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main claim |  |  |  |  |  |
| Supporting claim |  |  |  |  |  |
| No-go or ablation |  |  |  |  |  |

## Red-team questions

- Does the same symbol denote different carriers in two sections?
- Is a representation result being described as dynamics?
- Is a group embedding being described as a physical selection?
- Is a numerical pattern stable under convention, normalization and basis changes?
- Could a standard theorem make the programme-specific derivation unnecessary?
- Does the novelty claim survive a primary-source literature search?
- Would the central result remain publishable if every mention of Spin(2,3), E8 or admissibility were removed?

If the last answer is no, the manuscript is probably still a synthesis note rather than an expert-facing paper.