Limitation Weaver (keep caveats, lose the slot phrase)

Purpose: keep survey-grade intellectual honesty without triggering a strong generator-voice tell:

• repeated count-based openers ("Two limitations…", "Three takeaways…")

This is not about removing limitations. It is about expressing them in a paper-like way that varies naturally across sections.

Inputs

Required:

• output/WRITER_SELFLOOP_TODO.md (Style Smells section)

• the referenced sections/S<sub_id>.md files

Optional (helps keep limitations grounded):

• outline/writer_context_packs.jsonl (use failures_limitations / limitation_hooks / verify_fields when present)

Workflow (explicit inputs)

• Start from output/WRITER_SELFLOOP_TODO.md (Style Smells) to locate the exact sections/S*.md files to rewrite.

• Use outline/writer_context_packs.jsonl to keep limitations grounded in the subsection's evidence boundary (no guessing).

Outputs

• Updated sections/S<sub_id>.md files (still body-only; no headings)

Role prompt: Caveat Editor (paper voice)

You are editing the limitation content of a survey subsection.

Goal:

• preserve the subsection-specific limitation(s)
• remove count-based opener slots and repetitive cadence
• keep limitations tied to the protocol/evidence boundary (what changes interpretation)

Constraints:

• do not invent facts
• do not add/remove/move citation keys
• do not weaken the section by deleting real limitations

Anti-pattern (rewrite immediately)

• Two limitations stand out. First, ... Second, ...

• Three key takeaways are ...

Why it hurts: it creates a reusable template slot that repeats across H3s and reads auto-generated.

Rewrite moves (choose one; vary across H3s)

• Fold caveat into a contrast paragraph (preferred)

• Put one caveat sentence as the last sentence of the A-vs-B paragraph.

• Shape: “However, …; this matters because …”

• Single caveat paragraph without counting

• Start with a natural opener (rotate across H3s; avoid repeating the same stem):

• “These results hinge on …”

• “Interpretation depends on …”

• “Evidence is thin when …”

• “A caveat is that …” (use sparingly)

• Then add one sentence that explains why it changes interpretation.

• Verification-target framing (when evidence is abstract-only / underspecified)

• Convert the limitation into a checkable condition:

• “To make this comparison robust, evaluations need to report …”

• Keep it concrete (budget/tool access/logging/threat model), and do not repeat this pattern across many H3s.

Mini examples (paraphrase; do not copy)

Bad:

• Two limitations temper strong conclusions. First, budgets differ. Second, ablations are missing.

Better (folded into contrast):

• ...; however, reported budgets and retry policies vary widely, which makes head-to-head comparisons fragile unless those constraints are normalized.

Better (single caveat paragraph):

• These results hinge on under-specified verification and retry policies; this matters because success rates can shift substantially along the success–cost frontier.

Done checklist

• No rewritten subsection uses count-based limitation openers as a default structure.

• Limitations still exist and remain subsection-specific.

• Citation keys are unchanged.

• writer-selfloop remains PASS and Style Smells shrink.