Conclusion section (master method)

Follow conclusion-guide.md in this folder, the complete plain-English method. This file is the operating summary.

Process

1. Keep it a terse envoi. One to three dense paragraphs of prose, never a bulleted future-work list. It is a landing, not a second results section. Name the section for its function, or keep a terse "Conclusion" and earn the terseness. Decide the heading before drafting.
2. Re-name the system at the filled gap. Open with one past-tense thesis sentence re-naming the system and its one mechanism. Open at the now-filled gap and widen to significance, the introduction run backwards.
3. Reprise both halves of the evidence, zero new numbers. Make the intro's promise concrete by reprising the load-bearing numbers, both the easy half and the hard half. Introduce no new number, table, or figure; every number is a reprise from Experiments.
4. Recap the mechanism, do not re-report. Name what the system does once; never re-walk the pipeline the Method already assembled or re-list the results table.
5. Weld one flat scope clause, then flip the shortfall. Carry a single flat limitation clause inside the recap; the full ledger stays in the Limitations subsection. Flip the structural shortfall into the predicted frontier, feature-not-a-bug, the hard half the paper set out to measure, and treat future work as payload, the named direction the paper opens.
6. Land a refutable vista on the open problem. Close on one sentence that widens from the artifact to the field, a measured, refutable insight that names the open problem the paper opens, not a summary and not hype.

Core rules

• One to three paragraphs of prose; never a bulleted future-work list; a landing, not a second results section.
• Open past-tense, re-naming the system and its one mechanism; open at the filled gap and widen out, the intro run backwards.
• Recap the mechanism once; never re-report the experiments or re-list a table.
• Reprise the load-bearing numbers to make the promise concrete; introduce no new number, table, or figure.
• Each limitation is a named assumption welded to a remedy; the full ledger stays in the Limitations subsection; the close carries one flat scope clause.
• Flip a structural limit, feature-not-a-bug or an honest tradeoff ledger; treat future work as payload, the named frontier the paper opens.
• The last sentence is a vista, a measured, refutable insight, no hype, no em dashes.
• Credit neighbors, then contrast on exactly one axis; never bash.
• Prose axioms: sentences <= ~28 words, subject and verb early, zero "can"/"could", no bare This/These, no em dashes, numbers paired and attached to exact objects.

Reference file

• conclusion-guide.md: full guide: term translations, the two-move envoi skeleton, three conclusion recipes with fill-in templates (limitations-as- doorways, the terse envoi, the two-move close), mechanical checklists including the "never in a conclusion" list, the assembly order, and a worked example on a toy system.