source-triagelisted

# Source Triage A summary tells you what a piece says. Triage tells you what work it can do in your paper. The difference matters because a literature section built from summaries lists; one built from triage argues. The schema below exists to extract the four things summaries lose: what the author is arguing *against*, what kind of evidence the claim rests on, what the author concedes, and whether the argument transfers to Indian law. ## The schema Work through all nine. Where a piece genuinely lacks one — some doctrinal notes have no identifiable opponent — say so rather than inventing it. **1. The claim.** One sentence. The author's actual thesis, phrased so it could be contradicted. The test: state its negation. If the negation is incoherent or trivially false, the claim has been captured too vaguely and the real thesis is still buried. "The article examines veil piercing in India" is a topic, not a claim. "Indian courts have collapsed the concealment and evasion principles, and this collapse explains the doctrinal drift since 2013" is a claim, because someone could deny it. **2. What it argues against.** Every scholarly piece is a move in a dispute. Identify the target: a named scholar, a line of cases, a legislative position, or an unstated orthodoxy the author treats as the default. Where the opponent is implied rather than cited, say that it is implied. This is the most useful section for your own writing, because your paper enters the same dispute and needs t