research-document

Explanatory-progression coding rubric v1.0

Research Area: General Research
Status: draft
Version: 0.1
Priority: medium
Updated: 2026-07-22
Source: research/analyses/comparative-writing/EXPLANATORY-PROGRESSION-RUBRIC-v1.0.md

Explanatory-progression coding rubric v1.0

Frozen: 2026-08-02 after one pilot revision.
Mission: MS-COMM-2026-0004

Coding protocol

Segment the bounded text where the dominant rhetorical function changes.
Assign one primary move and any secondary move from the codebook.
Record the explicit textual cue, dependency on prior material, warrant source, assumed prerequisite, omission, and plausible alternative reading.
Separate O observations from I interpretations and H untested outcome hypotheses.
Code once in source order, wait until the other works are coded, then recode a matched opening/middle/closing sample without consulting the first pass.
Resolve disagreements by narrowing claims; do not manufacture agreement.

Codebook

Code	Move	Observable test	Common confusion
OR	Orient	States situation, problem, purpose, or target	Background that has no local directional function
DF	Define	Fixes meaning, role, scope, or boundary	Mere synonym or example
PR	Prerequisite	Supplies or invokes a dependency needed later	Unmarked assumed knowledge
DC	Decompose	Splits a task, system, or claim into parts	A list with no dependency function
SQ	Sequence	Makes an order or dependency explicit	Chronology that does not guide inference/action
CL	Claim	Advances the target proposition	Summary of an already established proposition
WR	Warrant	Connects support to claim: proof, precedent, evidence, or norm	Support listed without an inferential bridge
EX	Example/analogy	Instantiates or maps an abstract relation	Evidence intended as direct warrant
OB	Objection/limit	Raises countercase, uncertainty, boundary, or exception	Generic qualification
RS	Resolution	Answers an objection or reconciles tension	Repetition of the initial claim
SY	Synthesize	Compresses prior moves into an integrated result	Local transition
NX	Navigate	Cross-reference, heading, numbering, or preview supports retrieval	Decorative formatting
AC	Action/closure	Specifies what follows, what is constructed, or what must be done	Descriptive consequence only

Required contextual fields

intended audience and plausible resistance;
audience starting state and target state;
medium, length, and stakes;
authority and proof obligation;
unit and dependency boundaries;
explicit versus implicit transitions;
treatment of uncertainty and alternatives;
accessibility and translation dependence;
local strength, systemic cost, and transfer condition.

Pilot revision and reliability check

The pilot initially combined WR and EX. Darwin's analogies, Brown's legal precedent, Euclid's deductions, and RFC definitions showed that an example can make a relation imaginable without warranting it under the domain's proof rules. Version 1.0 therefore separates them and adds NX for specifications.

A repeated blind-to-first-pass recode covered each work's opening, one middle unit, and closing (15 units). Primary-code agreement was 12/15 (80%). Three disagreements were resolved as dual-coded moves: Darwin analogy (EX+WR), Descartes rules (DC+SQ), and RFC terminology (DF+NX). This is an internal stability check, not independent inter-rater reliability. A second analyst and predeclared adjudication procedure remain required before using the rubric for comparative measurement.

What the rubric cannot establish

Move counts do not measure quality, comprehension, truth, or ethicality. The rubric can expose architecture and generate outcome hypotheses; reader studies are needed to determine effects.