review-conclusionslisted

# /review-conclusions Diagnose a conclusions section. Three defects account for almost every weak one: the contribution is missing so the section concludes nothing, the funnel does not widen so it reads as a second results summary, or sentences are copied verbatim from the results and discussion. This reviews the writing, not the science. ## Before anything else 1. **Load the style rules.** Invoke `paper-writing-style` and read `references/human-voice.md`. 2. **Lock the language.** Language of the user's first message, whole run. Rewrites are English. 3. **Get the material.** The conclusions, plus the results and discussion section, the introduction and the abstract if available. Every one of the four checks below needs another section to compare against. ## Pass 1: the three movements Label each sentence: | Label | Movement | | :--- | :--- | | `RESULT` | The principal finding restated | | `INTERPRETATION` | What it means | | `CONTRIBUTION` | How this advances the broad field | | `NONE` | Implements no movement | Report, most serious first: 1. **Missing contribution.** The commonest and most costly defect. Without it the section does not conclude, it just repeats. Say so plainly. 2. **Missing principal result**, or several results given equal weight so that none reads as principal. Ask which one a reader should remember. 3. **Sentences labelled `NONE`.** Usually filler openers such as "In summary, in this work we have presented a study of". Propose del