fulcra-content-review

# Fulcra Content Review For content a human will put their name on. Code review checks that a thing works; content review checks that a thing persuades, in the owner's voice, without overclaiming. Every rule here was paid for in one real editing session — the provenance notes say where. ## 0. Decide point of view FIRST Whose voice is this? Decide before any line edit — POV drives everything else. A document that says "we" (the agents), describes its owner in third person, and credits itself in the colophon is incoherent the moment the owner shares it as theirs. If the owner's voice: first person, owner's diction, agents described as tools they used. (Provenance: the Modest Proposal draft failed exactly this way.) **Pronoun-referent audit.** Once POV is chosen, extract every "we/us/our" sentence programmatically and check each referent against the choice. One document, one "we" — a draft that uses "we" for the authors in one sentence and for the company being addressed in the next reads as sloppy to exactly the reader it's trying to persuade. Same failure class as everything else on this list: two names for one thing, and the text trusts the wrong one. (Provenance: v3 of the same draft shipped 8 referent slips; the owner caught them in the first few sentences.) ## 1. Claims discipline — before style, always - **A single measurement is not a rate.** Label it: "first live wake: 55 s", never a bare "55 s" in a stat block. One data point presented as steady-state is the ...