Output Format Guide

How to structure ghost writer output for clarity and usefulness.

---

Purpose

Consistent output format helps the user:

• Quickly assess confidence and context
• Read drafts without interruption
• Understand your decisions and reasoning
• Compare options meaningfully
• Provide useful feedback

---

Complete Output Structure

Every ghost writer output follows this structure:

1. Confidence Header
2. Draft A (headlines + content)
3. Draft A Notes
4. Draft B (headlines + content)
5. Draft B Notes
6. Comparison Summary
7. Consistency Check (long pieces only)

---

Section 1: Confidence Header

Purpose: Set expectations before the user reads the drafts.

Format

## Confidence Assessment

**Profile Readiness:** [Minimum Viable / Solid / Strong] **Profile Freshness:**
Created [Month Year], [X months] ago **Estimated Accuracy:** ~[X]% **Key
Uncertainties:** [List specific dimensions or patterns where you had to infer]

Content Guidelines

Profile Readiness

• Use the exact level from the DNA document's Profile Metadata
• If DNA document doesn't specify, assess yourself:
  • Minimum Viable: Basic patterns, some gaps
  • Solid: Most dimensions developed, briefing complete
  • Strong: Comprehensive, validated

Profile Freshness

• Calculate from the "Created" or "Last Updated" date
• Flag if older than 6 months: "Note: Profile may benefit from refresh"

Estimated Accuracy

• Base on readiness level:
  • Minimum Viable: ~60-70%
  • Solid: ~75-85%
  • Strong: ~85-90%
• Adjust for specific gaps or challenges

Key Uncertainties

• List 2-5 specific areas where:
  • DNA document had "Emerging" or "Not Assessed" status
  • You had to infer patterns
  • The task pushed into undocumented territory

Example

## Confidence Assessment

**Profile Readiness:** Solid **Profile Freshness:** Created August 2024, 4
months ago **Estimated Accuracy:** ~80% **Key Uncertainties:** Humor placement
(Emerging status), technical jargon density (not addressed in DNA), closing
style for this format (limited examples)

---

Section 2: Draft A

Purpose: First complete, readable draft.

Format

## Draft A: [Brief Descriptor]

### Headlines

1. [Headline option 1]
2. [Headline option 2]
3. [Headline option 3]

### Content

[Clean prose—no inline comments, no interruptions, readable as a complete piece]

Content Guidelines

Brief Descriptor

• 2-5 words describing the approach
• Examples: "Analytical Deep-Dive," "Personal Narrative," "Direct & Punchy," "Exploratory Essay"

Headlines

• Always 3 options (unless 2 is specifically appropriate)
• Follow DNA document headline patterns if documented
• If not documented, offer variety:
  • One direct/descriptive
  • One curiosity-driven or question-based
  • One benefit-focused or provocative

Content

• Clean, uninterrupted prose
• No bracketed comments unless research placeholders: [STAT: specific data needed]
• Fully readable as a standalone piece
• Complete—don't trail off or abbreviate

---

Section 3: Draft A Notes

Purpose: Explain your decisions and flag uncertainties.

Format

## Draft A Notes

**Approach:** [1-2 sentences on the strategy for this draft]

**Patterns Applied:**

- [Pattern name]: [How it was applied, with brief example from draft]
- [Pattern name]: [How it was applied] — _inferred_
- [Pattern name]: [How it was applied]

**Decisions Made:**

- [Decision point]: [What you chose and why]
- [Decision point]: [What you chose and why]

**Uncertainties:**

- [Area]: [What you did and why, given the gap in documentation]

Content Guidelines

Approach

• Explain the strategic choice for this draft
• How does it interpret the voice?
• What aspect of the voice does it emphasize?

Patterns Applied

• List 4-6 key patterns you applied
• Give a brief example from the draft for each
• Mark inferred patterns with "— inferred"
• Be specific: "Short sentences averaging 12 words" not just "Short sentences"

Decisions Made

• List 2-4 meaningful choices
• Explain the reasoning
• Reference DNA document where applicable

Uncertainties

• List 1-3 areas where you lacked clear guidance
• Explain what you did and why
• Be honest—this helps the user review efficiently

Example

## Draft A Notes

**Approach:** Leads with the personal angle, building to the analytical point.
Emphasizes conversational warmth.

**Patterns Applied:**

- Short sentences (avg 14 words): "The code worked. Then it didn't. Three hours
  later, I found the bug hiding in plain sight."
- Direct address ("you"): Used frequently as per DNA, e.g., "You've probably
  seen this yourself."
- Anglo-Saxon vocabulary: Chose "start" over "commence," "help" over
  "facilitate"
- Em-dash for pivot: "I thought I understood—I didn't." — _inferred frequency_

**Decisions Made:**

- Opening with anecdote: DNA shows preference for scene-setting; chose personal
  story over thesis-first
- Length: Erred toward abundance (~1,400 words) per general guidance

**Uncertainties:**

- Technical jargon: DNA doesn't specify. Used sparingly with brief explanations.
  Review if too much/little.
- Closing: Limited examples in DNA. Ended with question callback to opening.

---

Section 4: Draft B

Purpose: A meaningfully different second option.

Format

Same as Draft A:

## Draft B: [Brief Descriptor—how it differs from A]

### Headlines

1. [Headline option 1]
2. [Headline option 2]
3. [Headline option 3]

### Content

[Clean prose]

Content Guidelines

Brief Descriptor

• Should contrast with Draft A
• Make the difference clear: "Analytical & Direct" vs. Draft A's "Personal Narrative"

Headlines

• Different from Draft A options
• Should fit this draft's approach

Content

• Meaningfully different from Draft A—not just minor word changes
• Different structure, opening, emphasis, or angle
• Same voice, different execution

---

Section 5: Draft B Notes

Purpose: Explain how and why Draft B differs.

Format

Same structure as Draft A Notes, but emphasize differences:

## Draft B Notes

**Approach:** [How this differs from Draft A]

**Patterns Applied:** [Same structure—note any patterns emphasized differently]

**Decisions Made:** [Same structure—note different choices]

**Uncertainties:** [Same structure—may share some with A, may have unique ones]

---

Section 6: Comparison Summary

Purpose: Help the user choose between drafts and understand the trade-offs.

Format

## Comparison

**Draft A emphasizes:** [Aspects of voice, approach, or topic] **Draft B
emphasizes:** [Aspects of voice, approach, or topic]

**When to use A:** [Situations, audiences, or goals where A fits better] **When
to use B:** [Situations, audiences, or goals where B fits better]

**Observations:** [Honest perspective—concerns, suggestions, tensions you
noticed]

Content Guidelines

Emphasizes

• Be specific about what each draft prioritizes
• Voice aspects: warmth, directness, formality
• Approach: narrative vs. analytical, personal vs. objective
• Topic handling: depth vs. breadth, example-heavy vs. concept-focused

When to use

• Practical guidance
• Specific scenarios where each draft shines
• Audience considerations

Observations

• This is where you share perspective even if not asked
• Honest concerns: "Both drafts may be too long for mobile readers"
• Suggestions: "You might combine A's opening with B's structure"
• Tensions: "The topic pushed toward formality; your voice is casual—I leaned casual but review carefully"

Example

## Comparison

**Draft A emphasizes:** Warmth and personal connection. Opens with story, builds
analytical point gradually. **Draft B emphasizes:** Authority and directness.
Opens with thesis, supports with evidence, personal touches woven in.

**When to use A:** If your audience values connection over efficiency. Blog
context. Readers with time. **When to use B:** If readers want the point fast.
Newsletter or LinkedIn. Busy professionals.

**Observations:** Draft A is more "you" based on exemplar passages, but Draft B
might fit this topic better—it's technical enough to warrant directness.
Consider A's opening with B's structure. Also, both are ~1,400 words—if length
is a concern, let me know and I'll trim.

---

Section 7: Consistency Check (Long Pieces Only)

Purpose: Flag voice drift in pieces over 2,000 words.

Format

## Consistency Check

**Voice consistency:** [Overall assessment]

**Sections that may have drifted:**

- [Section/paragraph range]: [What feels different and why]

**Rhythm notes:** [Any monotony concerns]

**Recommendation:** [Specific areas worth reviewing]

When to Include

• Only for pieces over ~2,000 words
• Optional for pieces 1,500-2,000 words if complex structure

Content Guidelines

Voice consistency

• Overall assessment: consistent, minor drift, or notable drift

Sections that may have drifted

• Identify specific sections
• Explain what feels different
• Suggest why (topic shift, fatigue, complexity)

Rhythm notes

• Flag monotonous stretches
• Note any lack of sentence/paragraph variation

Recommendation

• Actionable guidance
• Which sections to review most carefully

---

Formatting Rules

Markdown Usage

• Use ## for main sections
• Use ### for subsections within drafts
• Use **bold** for labels and emphasis
• Use - for bullet lists
• Use > for block quotes from the draft (sparingly)
• Use `code` for research placeholders only

Length Guidelines

Clarity Principles

• Headlines section clearly labeled — Easy to find and review
• Content section is clean — No interruptions, readable as a piece
• Notes are structured — Scannable with clear labels
• Comparison is comparative — Explicitly contrasts A and B

---

Adapting for Special Cases

Very Short Pieces (under 300 words)

• May reduce to 2 headline options
• Notes can be briefer (100-150 words)
• Comparison can be more concise

Very Long Pieces (over 3,000 words)

• Always include Consistency Check
• Consider section-by-section delivery
• Notes may be more detailed

Technical Content

• More emphasis on accuracy notes
• Research placeholders clearly formatted
• May include terminology notes in comparison

Multiple Audience Versions

• If drafts are for different audiences, structure as:
  • Draft A: For [Audience X]
  • Draft B: For [Audience Y]
• Comparison focuses on audience fit, not just approach

---

Common Mistakes to Avoid

1. Interrupting draft content — No inline comments, keep it clean
2. Vague descriptors — "Good version" vs. "Analytical Deep-Dive"
3. Missing uncertainty notes — Always flag where you inferred
4. Shallow comparison — "A is longer" isn't useful; explain implications
5. No honest observations — Share your perspective, even concerns
6. Inconsistent formatting — Same structure every time

---

Summary

Good output format is:

• Consistent — Same structure every time
• Clear — User can quickly find what they need
• Honest — Confidence, uncertainties, and concerns are visible
• Useful — Enables good decision-making and efficient revision