ONE-OS/axhub-make/skills/third-party/deep-research/WORD_PRECISION_AUDIT.md

Word Precision Audit: Deep Research Skill

Date: 2025-11-04 Purpose: Systematic review of every word in SKILL.md for precision, intention, and clarity

---

Audit Methodology

Criteria for precision:

1. No hedge words ("reasonably", "generally", "basically", "essentially")
2. No weak verbs ("can", "may", "might", "should" → use "must", "will", "do")
3. No vague adjectives ("good", "nice", "reasonable" → use specific criteria)
4. No passive voice where active is stronger
5. No colloquialisms in formal directives
6. No double negatives ("no need to" → "proceed without")
7. No redundancy (say once, clearly)
8. No ambiguous pronouns without clear referents

---

Issues Found (14 total)

HIGH PRIORITY (8 issues)

Issue #1: "reasonable assumptions" (Lines 54, 58)

Current:

Proceed with reasonable assumptions.
Make reasonable assumptions based on query context.

Problem: "reasonable" is subjective, vague, creates uncertainty about what's acceptable

Fix:

Infer assumptions from query context.
Derive assumptions from query signals.

Intention carried: "reasonable" → permission-seeking, cautious | "infer/derive" → direct action, confident

---

Issue #2: "genuinely incomprehensible" (Line 61)

Current:

Query is genuinely incomprehensible

Problem: "genuinely" is hedge word, weakens the criterion

Fix:

Query is incomprehensible

Intention carried: "genuinely" → doubting, qualifying | removed → clear, definitive

---

Issue #3: "User can redirect if needed" (Line 64)

Current:

PROCEED with standard mode. User can redirect if needed.

Problem: "can" is weak permission, "if needed" is uncertain, both undermine autonomy

Fix:

PROCEED with standard mode. User will redirect if incorrect.

Intention carried: "can...if needed" → uncertain, permission-seeking | "will...if incorrect" → confident, definitive

---

Issue #4: "NO need to wait" - double negative (Line 85)

Current:

NO need to wait for approval - proceed directly to execution

Problem: Double negative ("NO need") is weaker than direct command, "proceed directly to execution" is wordy

Fix:

Proceed without waiting for approval

Intention carried: "NO need to" → permissive, passive | "Proceed without" → imperative, active

---

Issue #5: Contraction "Don't" (Line 113)

Current:

Don't inline everything - use references

Problem: Contraction in formal directive, less authoritative

Fix:

Do not inline everything - reference external files

Intention carried: "Don't" → casual | "Do not" → formal, authoritative

---

Issue #6: "ask to proceed" - weak request (Line 229)

Current:

<5 sources after exhaustive search → Report limitation, ask to proceed

Problem: "ask to proceed" is weak, implies uncertainty about whether to continue

Fix:

<5 sources after exhaustive search → Report limitation, request direction

Intention carried: "ask to proceed" → tentative | "request direction" → professional, clear need

---

Issue #7: "When uncertain" contradicts autonomy (Line 262)

Current:

**When uncertain:** Be thorough, not fast. Quality > speed.

Problem: "When uncertain" directly contradicts autonomy principle (line 54 says operate independently), creates confusion about when to be uncertain

Fix:

**Priority:** Thoroughness over speed. Quality > speed.

Intention carried: "When uncertain" → hesitation, doubt | "Priority" → clear directive, no uncertainty

---

Issue #8: "acceptable" is passive (Line 280)

Current:

Extended reasoning acceptable (5-45 min)

Problem: "acceptable" is passive, permission-seeking, weak

Fix:

Time investment: 5-45 minutes

Intention carried: "acceptable" → asking permission | "investment" → stating fact

---

MEDIUM PRIORITY (6 issues)

Issue #9: "Good autonomous assumptions" - vague judgment (Line 66)

Current:

**Good autonomous assumptions:**

Problem: "Good" is vague value judgment without criteria

Fix:

**Default assumptions:**

Intention carried: "Good" → subjective approval-seeking | "Default" → objective, standard procedure

---

Issue #10: "Standard+" unclear notation (Lines 96, 101)

Current:

**Standard+ adds:**
**Deep+ adds:**

Problem: "+" notation is programming jargon, unclear if it means "and above" or "additional to"

Fix:

**Standard/Deep/UltraDeep execute:**
**Deep/UltraDeep execute:**

Intention carried: "+" → ambiguous scope | explicit listing → clear scope

---

Issue #11: "(optional)" weakens directive (Line 174)

Current:

4. Next steps (optional)

Problem: "(optional)" signals uncertainty, weakens the delivery item

Fix:

4. Next steps (if relevant)

OR remove entirely since it's in "Deliver to user" section

Intention carried: "(optional)" → uncertain, dismissible | "(if relevant)" → conditional, purposeful | removed → expected

---

Issue #12: "Offer:" implies asking permission (Lines 176-179)

Current:

**Offer:**
- Deep-dive any section
- Follow-up questions
- Alternative formats

Problem: "Offer" implies asking permission, waiting for response, breaks autonomous flow

Fix:

**Available on request:**
- Section deep-dives
- Follow-up analysis
- Alternative formats

OR remove entirely (user will ask if interested)

Intention carried: "Offer" → salesperson, permission-seeking | "Available on request" → service menu, user-initiated | removed → autonomous

---

Issue #13: "hit" colloquial (Line 234)

Current:

Time constraint hit → Package partial results, document gaps

Problem: "hit" is colloquial, imprecise for technical directive

Fix:

Time constraint reached → Package partial results, document gaps

Intention carried: "hit" → casual, imprecise | "reached" → formal, precise

---

Issue #14: "explicitly needed" redundant (Line 324)

Current:

Load these files only when explicitly needed for current phase.

Problem: "explicitly needed" is redundant - either needed or not, "explicitly" adds no precision

Fix:

Load files on-demand for current phase only.

Intention carried: "explicitly needed" → overthinking, redundant | "on-demand" → clear technical term

---

Impact Analysis

Before Fixes (Current State)

Hedge words count: 4 ("reasonable" ×2, "genuinely", "acceptable") Weak modal verbs: 2 ("can redirect", "may") Passive constructions: 3 ("can", "acceptable", "optional") Vague adjectives: 2 ("good", "reasonable") Colloquialisms: 1 ("hit") Redundancies: 2 ("explicitly needed", "NO need to")

Total weakness indicators: 14

After Fixes (Proposed State)

Hedge words count: 0 Weak modal verbs: 0 Passive constructions: 0 Vague adjectives: 0 Colloquialisms: 0 Redundancies: 0

Total weakness indicators: 0

---

Word Intention Analysis

Critical Word Replacements

Current Word	Unintended Intention	Replacement	Intended Intention
reasonable	subjective, cautious	infer/derive	objective, confident
genuinely	doubting, qualifying	[remove]	certain, definitive
can	permission-seeking	will	confident expectation
if needed	uncertain	if incorrect	conditional, clear
NO need to	passive, permissive	Proceed without	active, imperative
Don't	casual, conversational	Do not	formal, authoritative
ask to	tentative, weak	request	professional, clear
When uncertain	hesitant, contradictory	Priority	directive, unambiguous
acceptable	permission-seeking	investment	factual, confident
Good	subjective approval	Default	objective standard
+	ambiguous, jargon	explicit list	clear, precise
optional	dismissible, weak	[remove or "if relevant"]	purposeful or expected
Offer	salesperson, passive	[remove]	autonomous
hit	casual, imprecise	reached	formal, precise
explicitly needed	redundant, overthinking	on-demand	technical, concise

---

Linguistic Precision Principles Applied

1. Imperative Voice for Commands

Before: "NO need to wait for approval" After: "Proceed without waiting for approval" Principle: Direct commands > passive permissions

2. Remove Hedge Words

Before: "genuinely incomprehensible" After: "incomprehensible" Principle: Qualifiers weaken, removal strengthens

3. Eliminate Subjective Judgments

Before: "Good autonomous assumptions" After: "Default assumptions" Principle: Objective standards > vague judgments

4. Active Voice Over Passive

Before: "Extended reasoning acceptable" After: "Time investment: 5-45 minutes" Principle: Active assertions > passive permissions

5. Precise Technical Terms

Before: "Time constraint hit" After: "Time constraint reached" Principle: Formal precision > colloquial approximation

6. Remove Redundancy

Before: "explicitly needed" After: "on-demand" Principle: Say once clearly > repeat with qualifiers

7. Strong Modals

Before: "User can redirect if needed" After: "User will redirect if incorrect" Principle: "will" (expectation) > "can" (possibility)

---

Autonomy Language Analysis

Contradiction Resolution

Problem: Line 262 "When uncertain" contradicts Line 54 "operates independently"

Analysis:

• Line 54 establishes autonomy principle: proceed independently
• Line 262 suggests there are times of uncertainty
• These create cognitive dissonance: am I uncertain or autonomous?

Resolution:

• Replace "When uncertain" with "Priority"
• Frame as quality standard, not uncertainty condition
• Maintains autonomy while setting quality expectations

Result: No contradiction, clear hierarchy (autonomy + quality priority)

---

Permission-Seeking Language Removal

Identified Permission-Seeking Patterns

1. "reasonable assumptions" → seeking approval for assumption quality
2. "can redirect if needed" → seeking permission to proceed
3. "NO need to wait" → asking if it's okay to proceed
4. "acceptable" → asking if time investment is okay
5. "Offer" → asking permission to provide options

Replacement Strategy

Replace all permission-seeking with:

• Assertions: State facts confidently
• Imperatives: Give direct commands
• Expectations: Describe what will happen
• Standards: Define objective criteria

---

Testing Precision Improvements

Scenario 1: Ambiguous Query

Before (with weak language):

"Make reasonable assumptions based on query context. User can redirect if needed."

Interpretation: Unclear what "reasonable" means, "can" suggests permission, "if needed" is vague

After (precise language):

"Infer assumptions from query context. User will redirect if incorrect."

Interpretation: Clear action (infer), confident expectation (will), definite condition (incorrect)

Scenario 2: Time Investment

Before (passive):

"Extended reasoning acceptable (5-45 min)"

Interpretation: Sounds like asking permission for time

After (assertive):

"Time investment: 5-45 minutes"

Interpretation: States fact, no permission sought

---

Implementation Priority

Phase 1: HIGH PRIORITY (Autonomy-Critical)

Fix Issues #1-8 immediately - these directly impact autonomous operation

Phase 2: MEDIUM PRIORITY (Clarity Improvements)

Fix Issues #9-14 after Phase 1 - these improve clarity but don't block autonomy

---

Verification Checklist

After fixes applied:

• No hedge words ("basically", "essentially", "generally", "reasonably")
• No weak modals ("can", "may", "might", "could" where "will", "must" fit)
• No passive voice where active is stronger
• No subjective judgments ("good", "nice", "reasonable")
• No colloquialisms in formal directives
• No double negatives ("NO need to")
• No redundancies ("explicitly needed")
• No permission-seeking language
• All commands use imperative voice
• All conditions state clear criteria

---

Conclusion

Total issues found: 14 High priority: 8 (autonomy-impacting) Medium priority: 6 (clarity improvements)

Primary problem: Permission-seeking and hedge language that undermines autonomous operation principle

Primary fix: Replace all permission-seeking with assertions, imperatives, and expectations

Expected impact:

• Clearer autonomous behavior (no uncertainty about when to proceed)
• Stronger directives (commands not suggestions)
• Precise language (every word carries specific intention)
• Zero ambiguity about autonomy expectations