lit-review-synthesis

A literature review is an argument that ends in the gap. It is not a sequence of "Smith (2023) did X. Jones (2024) did Y." Every paragraph makes a point about the field, and papers appear as evidence for that point. This skill works only from paper-reader notes so that every sentence about a paper is traceable.

Inputs

1. research/notes/*.md (the notes; refuse to proceed with fewer than five, and say why).
2. research/QUESTION.md (the research question the review must lead to).
3. references.bib (keys must match note front matter).
4. Target length and the department's expected structure, if any.

Step 1: build the evidence matrix

Read every note and tabulate, in research/evidence-matrix.md:

The themes column is filled in Step 2. This table is a thesis artifact in its own right (appendix material) and lets the student see the field at a glance.

Step 2: find the structure

Cluster notes into three to six themes. Good themes are claims about the field, not topic labels: "Rule-based feedback scales but does not transfer across assignments" rather than "Rule-based approaches". Test each theme:

• It has at least two papers.
• Its papers can be compared on some dimension (method, setting, result).
• It moves the argument toward the gap.

Then map the tensions: where do papers disagree, and is the disagreement explained by method, setting, or time? Disagreements are the most valuable paragraphs in a review.

Note methodological patterns across the field (everyone uses dataset D; nobody reports variance; evaluations are all with novices). These become the "limitations of prior work" paragraph and often are the gap.

Step 3: outline

Write the outline as claims, one line per paragraph:

1. Intro: scope of the review and how sources were found (from search-log.md).
2. Theme A claim. Evidence: smith2023, lee2022. Tension: chen2021 finds the opposite, in setting S.
3. ...
N-1. Methodological limitations across the field.
N. The gap, stated as the research question, and what this thesis does about it.

Get the student's agreement on the outline before drafting; restructuring a drafted chapter costs a week.

Step 4: draft

• Paragraph = claim, evidence, interpretation. The claim sentence has no citation; the evidence sentences do.
• Cite by key only (\cite{smith2023feedback} or [@smith2023feedback]); never write an author-year string by hand.
• Prefer synthesis sentences that cite several keys ("Three studies in introductory courses report reductions of 20 to 30% \cite{a,b,c}") over one-paper sentences.
• Quote only from a note's Quotable section, with its location.
• Every number comes from a note's Evidence section, unrounded.
• Hedge to the strength of the evidence, once per claim: "suggests" for one small study, "shows" for replicated results.
• End with the gap paragraph that restates the research question in the field's terms.

Step 5: check

Run citation-verifier on the draft (Level 3 especially), then humanize. Report the ratio of synthesis sentences to single-paper sentences; below 1:2 the chapter is still an annotated bibliography.

Output

chapters/02-related-work.md or .tex (the student's choice), the evidence matrix, and the agreed outline at the top of the file as a comment.

Attribution

The argument-first structure is adapted from lit-review by bethww (MIT).