Technical analogy, uncertainty, number, and source checklist

• The main question is stated in one sentence.
• The intended reader's prior knowledge is defined.
• The opening supplies the answer or mental model early.
• The system boundary and operating conditions are named.
• Secondary history does not delay the explanation.
• The reader can tell definition, evidence, interpretation, and advice apart.

• Every necessary technical term is defined before use.
• One concept is not renamed for stylistic variety.
• Nearby terms are distinguished with examples or nonexamples.
• Abbreviations are limited and expanded at first use.
• Personifying shorthand is unpacked into a physical or computational relation.
• The simplification does not reverse cause and effect.

Number and unit verification

• Quantity measured or estimated
• Unit and unit symbol
• Population or system boundary
• Time interval
• Baseline or denominator
• Mean, median, range, or rate
• Observed, modeled, forecast, or assumed
• Precision supported by source

• Compared quantities measure the same property.
• Units are converted on the same basis.
• Power and energy are not confused.
• Per-capita, per-area, and total values are labeled.
• Nominal and inflation-adjusted money are distinguished.
• The time basis is identical.
• Efficiency, capacity, and actual output are not substituted for one another.

• The uncertainty source is namedmeasurement, sampling, model, future conditions, natural variation, or incomplete knowledge.
• A range or interval includes its meaning.
• Probability and outcome frequency are not confused.
• Verbal labels do not replace a reported numeric probability.
• The uncertainty's effect on the conclusion is explained.
• Unknown does not become zero.
• Conflicting studies are not averaged without a reason.

Uncertainty communication checks

• Name uncertainty source
• Range includes its meaning
• Separate probability from frequency
• Keep numeric probability
• Explain effect on conclusion
• Unknown is not zero
• Do not average conflicting studies

• The source and target share the relation needed for the explanation.
• Surface resemblance is not doing the work.
• The mapping is stated explicitly.
• At least one important break is named.
• The analogy does not imply agency, scale, reversibility, or speed falsely.
• The direct explanation follows the analogy.
• Removing the analogy was considered.

• The original study, dataset, standard, or technical document was checked.
• A review supports synthesis across studies.
• A press release is not used for a method detail available in the paper.
• The linked page contains the evidence stated beside it.
• Corrections, updates, and versions were checked.
• Funding, sample, definitions, and limits are recorded.
• The source applies to the population and conditions in the sentence.

• The visual has a clear explanatory job.
• Axes, units, scale, direction, and boundaries are labeled.
• Color is not the only carrier of meaning.
• Alternative text conveys the relevant relation.
• Decorative images are not presented as evidence.
• The caption states source, conditions, and limits.
• A diagram's omitted parts are disclosed where material.

• A subject expert checked facts and simplifications.
• A target reader explained the model back.
• The reader can distinguish what is known from what is estimated.
• Predictable misconceptions were tested.
• Corrections from expert review reached every affected sentence and visual.
• The conclusion matches the evidence's scope.