review-results-discussionlisted

# /review-results-discussion Diagnose the section the course calls the heart of the paper. The most common failures here are structural rather than stylistic: results described but never interpreted, results interpreted but never compared to prior work, and paragraphs that run on because nobody decided where they should end. This reviews the writing, not the science. You do not judge whether the results are good, only whether the text delivers them. ## 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 section, the figures and captions, the `.bib`, and the introduction if available, since the two must connect. ## Pass 1: information classes, per result block Split the section into result blocks, one per figure, table or distinct finding. For each, mark which of the four classes is present: | Class | Present? | | :--- | :--- | | Background, why this analysis matters | | | Description, what the result shows, with values | | | Interpretation, the explanation offered | | | Comparison, how it relates to prior work, with citations | | Present this as a matrix: result blocks down the side, the four classes across the top. The gaps are immediately visible, and the pattern of gaps is the finding. Then report, most serious first: 1. **Missing description with values.** A block that sa