singular-particular-space/skills/annotated-writing/content-mapping-non-fiction.md

Content Mapping: Non-Fiction

A template for producing structured annotation data from essays, journalism, historical documents, speeches, and analytical writing. Output is a .md content map file consumed by a build agent. Do not write HTML here.

---

Step 0 — Classify the Source

Determine the non-fiction subtype. It affects which decoders and tabs are appropriate.

Subtype	Primary annotation task
Historical document	Contextualise; decode named people, events, institutions; note anachronisms
Political speech / propaganda	Decode rhetoric; note what is claimed vs what is true; note audience
Scientific or technical writing	Decode concepts; assess claims against current consensus
Journalism / reportage	Verify facts; note sourcing; note what is and isn't attributed
Personal essay / memoir	Unreliability of memory; note what the author can't know about themselves
Legal or policy document	Decode jargon; note what the language does vs what it says

A single source may span subtypes. Identify the dominant one and note the secondary.

---

Step 1 — Read the Source Completely

Before mapping, identify:

1. The argument — what position is the text advancing?
2. The evidence — what does it cite, quote, or invoke in support?
3. The gaps — what would a critical reader notice is absent, unattributed, or assumed?
4. The moment — when was this written, and what was happening? What has happened since?
5. Named entities — every person, place, institution, date, law, statistic, or event that can be verified

---

Step 2 — Choose Analytical Lenses

Non-fiction lenses differ from fiction. Choose 2–3 that the text genuinely rewards.

Lens	Apply when...
Rhetorical analysis	Text is designed to persuade; identify the moves (ethos, pathos, logos, omission)
Historical accuracy	Text makes factual claims; some may be wrong, outdated, or contested
Source and attribution	Who is cited, who isn't, what is stated as fact without a source
The argument vs the evidence	Does the evidence actually support the conclusion drawn?
Who is speaking / who is silent	Whose perspective structures the account? Who is absent?
Language and framing	Word choices that carry implicit assumptions (e.g. "developed" vs "developing")
What changed after	The text was written at a specific moment; what do we know now that the author didn't?

---

Step 3 — Map Annotation Components

3a. Decoders

Apply a decoder when:

• A technical term, acronym, or proper noun requires unpacking
• A named person, institution, or event is invoked without explanation
• A claim is contested or has been updated since publication
• The text uses language that carries implicit assumptions (framing, euphemism, loaded terms)
• A rhetorical move is worth naming (strawman, appeal to authority, etc.)

decoders[N]{id,phrase,color,tag,label}:
  dec-[slug],"exact phrase from text",[default|pink|cyan|amber|red],Tag Text,Panel Heading

decoder_bodies:
  dec-[slug]: >
    What it is, what it means in context, why it matters here.
    For contested claims: state what the text says, what the evidence shows.
    For rhetorical moves: name the move, describe its effect.
  dec-[slug]-link: https://...

Color convention (establish per-project):

• Assign colors by lens or content type, document the scheme here
• Red = factual error, outdated claim, or significantly misleading statement

---

3b. Lightboxes

Apply a lightbox when:

• An event, institution, or concept requires substantial background
• A claim is embedded in a debate too large for a tooltip
• The "what came after" context fundamentally changes the reading

lightboxes:
  lb-[slug]:
    eyebrow: Category label
    title: Lightbox heading
    color: cyan | amber | default
    sections:
      - heading: What it was
        body: >
          Background.
      - heading: What the text claims
        body: >
          Specific claim and its accuracy.
      - heading: What came after
        body: >
          Subsequent developments that reframe the text.
    source_url: https://...
    source_label: Link label

---

3c. Accordions

For non-fiction, accordions structure the analytical tabs. Common patterns:

For the "Historical Moment" tab:

• What was happening when this was written
• Who was the intended audience
• How the text was received
• What has changed since

For the "The Argument" tab:

• What the text claims
• What evidence it uses
• Where the evidence is strong
• Where the argument has gaps or has been contested

accordions:
  tab-[tab-id]:
    - heading: Section heading
      body: >
        Prose. Direct. No hedging within accordion bodies.

---

3d. Tab Architecture

tabs[4]{id,label,color,purpose}:
  text,"The Text",white,Full source with inline decoders and lightbox triggers
  [analysis-id],[Analysis Tab Name],[color],Core argument and evidence
  [context-id],[Context Tab Name],[color],Historical moment; what came after
  further,"Further Reading",white,Curated external links

For non-fiction, the "context" tab is almost always warranted as a standalone tab. The text's moment is not decorative — it is part of what you are teaching.

---

3e. Further Reading

further_reading[N]{group,title,url,desc,color}:
  "Group Name","Title","https://...","Description",default

Groups should correspond to tabs. For non-fiction, a "Primary Sources" group is often useful — direct the reader to the original documents, not just secondary commentary.

---

Step 4 — Bias Notes

Every analytical tab requires one bias note.

Non-fiction bias notes are especially important because the text being analysed often has its own point of view, and the analyst's agreement or disagreement shapes everything.

State: what tradition your analysis comes from, whether you find the text's argument credible, and what that means for the reading below.

bias_notes:
  tab-[analysis-id]: >
    One sentence. What tradition this analysis comes from, or what credence I give the argument, and how that shapes what follows.
  tab-[context-id]: >
    One sentence. What sources my historical framing relies on, and whose perspective they represent.

---

Step 5 — Fact-Checking Protocol

Non-fiction requires an accuracy table. All named facts — statistics, dates, attributions, historical claims — should be checked.

fact_checks[N]{claim,verdict,detail}:
  "Exact claim as stated",accurate,"Source"
  "Exact claim as stated",inaccurate,"What is actually true"
  "Exact claim as stated",contested,"Summarise the debate"
  "Exact claim as stated",outdated,"What has changed since publication"
  "Exact claim as stated",unverifiable,"Cannot be confirmed or refuted with available sources"

Inaccurate and contested claims become red decoder annotations in the text.

Outdated claims become amber decoder annotations — the original claim was accurate at time of writing but has since changed.

---

Step 6 — Source Text Section

Reproduce the text exactly. Mark annotation trigger points:

[DECODER:dec-slug] exact phrase [/DECODER]
[LIGHTBOX:lb-slug] trigger phrase [/LIGHTBOX]
[PULL-QUOTE] sentence worth isolating [/PULL-QUOTE]
[EDITORIAL] (Ed.) note or aside [/EDITORIAL]
[SECTION-BREAK] --- [/SECTION-BREAK]

---

Output Format

# Content Map: [Text Title]

## Source Classification
## Chosen Lenses
## Fact-Check Table (TOON)
## Tab Definitions (TOON)
## Decoders (TOON metadata + YAML bodies)
## Lightboxes (YAML)
## Accordions (YAML)
## Bias Notes (YAML)
## Further Reading (TOON)
## Source Text (annotated)