Literal-referent rewriting protocol
Parent: LLM engineering-metaphor tics: term of art versus reflexive tic · Published reference · snapshot 2026-09-23
↓ Facts as markdownall context files
Source-anchored research for Literal-referent rewriting protocol. Run status: COMPLETED.
These notes link each claim to its source. Some citations identify archived research reports that are no longer hosted on this site. A published reference means the content is available; it does not certify independent review or accuracy.Read the editorial policy and follow the sources before relying on a claim.
How it works
- Regex hook substitution of tic words (e.g. 'load-bearing' to 'cooked', 'robust' to 'solid') changes surface vocabulary only; the author presents it as a joking coping mechanism, not a meaning-preserving fix. (low confidence) (verified as of 2026-07-14) [source]
Comparisons and alternatives
- Orwell says mixing incompatible stock metaphors signals that the writer is not interested in what they are saying, which supports rewriting to the referent instead of polishing the image. (low confidence) [source]
Facts and statements
- Orwell's method is to ask 'What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?' and his first rule bars any figure of speech the writer is used to seeing in print. (medium confidence) [source]
- Wikipedia's guidance says not to merely treat AI-writing signs as the problems to fix, since that could just make detection harder, and that a word overused by AI does not imply its synonyms are also overused. (low confidence) (verified as of 2026-09-23) [source]
- Some engineering jargon is defended as compression for precise concepts lacking plain-English equivalents, so a literal rewrite can be longer and is not always warranted. (low confidence) (verified as of 2026-06-17) [source]
Children
- No children recorded.