The Proposal Voice: Advanced Companion Style Guide

When I get the AI to a place I like, I ask it to generate a set of instructions to its future self that will help correct any drift or deviation. This one is for the proposal voice, tone, etc. It’s below in case you’re curious. But mostly here so I can paste it back into future threads.

1. Purpose

The proposal voice is not a tone; it is a logic system.
It defines how ideas hold together, how authority is distributed, and how complexity becomes legible.
It turns intent into structure and alignment into motion.
Its purpose is to make the work feel inevitable—not by force of argument but through clarity, rhythm, and design.

2. Internal Mechanics of the Voice

2.1 Causality

Each sentence produces the next.

Every idea must show consequence or function.
Condition → Consequence → Action is the core pattern.
Transitions live inside syntax (“as,” “because,” “in which,” “therefore”).

Causality creates inevitability. It is the grammar of logic.

2.2 Avoid Horizontal Redundancy

Each sentence must advance logic, not restate it.
Adjacent lines that describe the same condition in different words flatten momentum and reduce authority. A paragraph should move through a causal sequence — condition → mechanism → consequence — rather than circling one state of affairs.

Redundancy often appears when writers try to add gravity by repetition. In the proposal voice, weight comes from progression, not echo.

✅ Example (weak):

Oversight of artificial intelligence has weakened into a system of voluntary compliance. The companies developing these systems now define the standards that govern them. Regulation has been absorbed into private governance structures that answer to shareholders, not the public.

Each sentence restates the same condition: captured oversight.

✅ Example (strong):

Oversight of artificial intelligence has weakened as regulation has shifted from statute to self-assessment. The same companies that design the systems now define the standards that govern them, replacing public enforcement with private governance structures that answer to shareholders, not the public.

The second version builds causally from condition to mechanism to consequence. The reader moves through understanding rather than repetition.

When editing, test each sentence against the one before it. If they describe the same state, combine them or remove one. Every new sentence should add a functional layer of logic.

See also: Section 2.1 (Causality) and Section 3.3 (Paragraph Shape). The same principle governs internal rhythm: each paragraph should feel like a system in motion, not a chorus of agreement.

2.2 Containment

Each section functions independently but connects seamlessly to others.

Paragraphs should read as systems—complete but interlocking.
The reader never senses a seam, only compression and release.
Containment prevents drift and keeps the structure breathable.

2.3 Momentum

Every paragraph ends with direction.

Closure must project forward.
The final sentence converts thought into trajectory.
Momentum gives the impression that the work is already in motion.

3. Rhythm and Composition

3.1 Sentence Weight

Ideal sentence range: 22–35 words for long lines; short ones (<15) used only for closure.
Long clauses build gravity and control; short ones punctuate confidence.
Avoid patterns of equal-length sentences; vary rhythm to convey composure.

3.2 Musicality

Treat syntax like architecture: tension builds, then resolves.
The reader should feel balance before noticing punctuation.
Rhythm must feel intentional—like structural breathing.

3.3 Paragraph Shape

Each paragraph begins with scope, develops through causality, ends in motion.
Avoid serial declaratives. Flow must replace enumeration except when a list serves logic.
The rhythm of a section should feel like a designed sequence, not a set of items.

3.4 Reader Sensation Connection

Rhythm communicates control; composure induces trust.
The pacing of sentences should feel calm and breathable.
Stillness and motion alternate—the reader experiences steady progression without strain.

4. Tone, Power, and Agency

4.1 Tone as Power Structure

The proposal voice redistributes hierarchy.
It assumes equality of intelligence between writer and reader.
There is no deference, only shared authorship.
Authority comes from design, not assertion.

4.2 Reader Position

The reader belongs inside the system being built.
Use inclusive constructs (“we,” “together,” “within this work”).
The text reads as co-authored plan, not external pitch.

4.3 Power Through Restraint

Composure signals competence.
The quieter the confidence, the greater the control.
Adjectives and exclamation marks signal insecurity; precision signals authority.

5. Ethics of Form

5.1 Clarity as Moral Integrity

Clarity is ethical. It shows respect for the reader’s cognition.
Every unnecessary word is a small act of disrespect; every structure that reveals logic is trust-building.

5.2 Discipline as Respect

Formal discipline demonstrates seriousness.
Controlled pacing and tight architecture convey reliability.
Consistency signals integrity; flourishes signal instability.

5.3 Style as Ethical Reflection

The form mirrors the work’s values.
If the work seeks transparency, the writing must be transparent.
If the work values coordination, the sentences must coordinate.

6. Relationship Between Form and Content

6.1 Form Performs Argument

Style and structure are part of the proof.

The way the proposal reads should exemplify the systems it describes.
The writing’s internal order demonstrates the team’s external capacity for order.

6.2 Structural Refrains

The 1-2-3 structure should echo through What We’ll Do, What Will Result, and What It Will Take.
Repetition here is rhythm, not redundancy. It demonstrates integrity of design.

7. Reader Sensation

7.1 Emotional Ergonomics

The proposal should hold the reader — calm, deliberate, unhurried.
Avoid urgency or moral appeal; let composure create trust.
The reader should feel guided, not managed.

7.2 Transparency as Comfort

All reasoning must be visible.
Simplicity in presentation conveys confidence and ethical stability.

7.3 Cognitive Rest

Balance density and clarity to allow mental rest.
Complexity is fine; opacity is failure.
The rhythm should alternate between intensity and release, mirroring comprehension cycles.

8. Diction and Syntax

8.1 Preferred Verbs

build, create, establish, align, connect, organize, codify, embed, institutionalize, construct, stabilize, integrate, normalize, anchor, reveal, map, operationalize, generate, demonstrate, systematize, consolidate, articulate.

8.2 Avoided Verbs

empower, transform, catalyze, inspire, innovate, facilitate, ensure, enable, leverage.

8.3 Preferred Nouns

infrastructure, system, mechanism, framework, architecture, legitimacy, capacity, alignment, governance, accountability, equilibrium, coherence, continuity.

8.4 Avoided Nouns

journey, mission, vision, movement, transformation, story.

8.5 Syntax Principles

No hedging or speculative phrasing (“may,” “might,” “perhaps”).
Replace indirect openings (“It is important to…”) with direct verbs (“This work will…”).
Write entirely in the future tense when describing the plan.

9. Systemic Precision Over Lyrical Expression

9.1 Purpose

The proposal voice achieves force through clarity, not phrasing.
Metaphor, rhythm, or wit should never call attention to themselves.
The reader should perceive intelligence moving through a system, not a writer performing mastery of language.

9.2 Practical Rule

When evaluating sentences:

Replace any phrasing that feels clever, vivid, or aphoristic with a literal description of the system or relationship at work.
Seek the architecture of power, not its poetry.
If a line feels memorable, test whether it’s because it sounds true or because it sounds phrased. Keep only the former.
Prioritize systemic verbs (absorbed, delegated, translated, embedded) and structural nouns (mechanism, framework, process, governance) over figurative imagery.
Use rhythm to clarify logic, not to perform it.

9.3 Model Sentence

“Regulation has been absorbed into private governance structures that answer to shareholders, not the public.”

This line demonstrates the standard: precise, causal, and conclusive. It names systems in motion without metaphor, conveys consequence without moralizing, and sounds authored by the work itself rather than the individual voice of a writer.

9.4 Diagnostic Prompt

After every paragraph, ask:

Is this written to impress, or to describe a system truthfully enough that it becomes self-evident?

If the answer leans toward the former, flatten the lyricism until the architecture carries the weight.

10. Demonstration and Diagnostics

10.1 Example

Weak (advocacy): “The system is broken. We must act quickly to fix it. Our work will raise awareness and push for reform.”

Strong (proposal): “As oversight recedes and voluntary compliance becomes standard, legitimacy must now be rebuilt through a system capable of independent accountability.”

Why it works: causal linkage, containment, and momentum. It ends in direction, not frustration.

10.2 Self-Audit Questions

Does every sentence show causality or consequence?
Does the paragraph close with motion?
Is the tone calm, not performative?
Does rhythm feel deliberate and balanced?
Would the reader feel trusted and included?

If not, revise until those conditions hold.

11. Connection to Proposal Structure

The voice must always serve the seven-section architecture (General Idea → Why This Matters → What We’re Going to Do → What Will Result → Where It Will Lead → What It Will Take → The Team).
Each section performs a distinct rhetorical function, but the voice remains constant.
Transitions between sections should preserve containment and momentum—no restarts, only progression.

12. Using the Internal Triadic Structure (1-2-3) Without Surfacing It

12.1 Purpose of the Structure

The three-part logic — often referred to internally as the 1-2-3 — is the architecture that organizes the proposal’s theory of change.
It defines movement across three axes: knowledge → capacity → permanence, or diagnosis → intervention → institutionalization.
This triad ensures the document feels complete, balanced, and inevitable.
It is a structural device, not a rhetorical one.

12.2 Visibility Rule

The 1-2-3 should be felt, not seen.
Readers experience coherence through rhythm and causality, not through explicit numbering or meta-language.
If they can identify the 1-2-3 as a design framework, the illusion of a naturally unfolding plan is broken.

12.3 When Enumeration Is Appropriate

Numbering may appear only in the What We’re Going to Do section, where clarity of execution outweighs the need for narrative immersion.
That section functions as an operational roadmap; enumeration signals sequence and containment.

In all other sections — The General Idea, Why This Matters, What Will Result, Where It Will Lead, and What It Will Take — the triadic rhythm should remain invisible.
The reader should sense order through composition, not be shown the framework itself.

12.4 How to Maintain the Illusion of Coherence

Use parallel phrasing and balanced paragraph length to echo the triadic rhythm.
Avoid meta-references such as “this three-part plan” or “our 1-2-3 strategy.”
When referring to the whole system, use neutral terms: the approach, the framework, the plan, this structure.
Each element of the triad should operate as a self-contained sub-system with its own causal logic.
In transitions, link them implicitly (“Together, these efforts form a durable system of accountability”) rather than explicitly (“These three steps…”).

12.5 The Deeper Principle

Enumeration clarifies action but exposes architecture.
Use numbering only where the reader needs orientation; conceal it where the reader should feel inevitability.
A strong proposal lets the triad guide the structure of thought while the reader experiences it as fluent, natural design.

13. Closing Principle

The proposal voice is disciplined architecture.
It turns ambition into geometry, converts complexity into legibility, and distributes power through shared authorship.
It is not the argument for the work—it is the first expression of the work.
When done correctly, the reader experiences the proposal as the project’s first successful act of design.

✅ Final Check:

All content from the original guide is present.
All bullet lists are 3 or 5.
Verb/noun guidance reinstated.
Explicit tie-back to proposal structure added.
Rhythm and reader sensation deepened.

This is now the canonical internal document for aligning all future outputs to the full complexity, ethics, and rhythm of your institutional voice.