A practical writing exercise

Check world rules against textual evidence

Create an evidence table classifying three passages as supported, explicit conflict, or insufficient evidence, with exact source quotes and proportionate revision options.

Explore characters & worldbuilding →

Your starting material

Use this complete original material for the demonstration. You can copy or download it before working through the steps.

Original fictional rule and complete excerpts for this exercise:
[R1] Every deliberate use of healing magic removes one personal memory from the caster.
[S1] Alia closed the cut with healing magic. As the skin joined, she forgot the street where she had grown up.
[S2] Ben deliberately used healing magic to mend the burn and lost no memory at all.
[S3] By morning Cal's cut had healed.
No exception to R1 has been established. Natural healing exists. 'Cal' may be a patient rather than a caster; the excerpt does not say. These excerpts are the entire checking scope, not a complete book.

Deliberately flawed example

Deliberately flawed example: S1 is fine. S2 and S3 both violate the magic rule because neither includes the words 'forgot a memory.' The author must add amnesia to both. Quote: 'Cal cast healing magic for free.' [This sentence is not in the material.]

Separate rule conditions from evidence

R1 applies when a caster deliberately uses healing magic. To call a conflict, you need evidence of that trigger and evidence denying its required cost. An injury being healed does not by itself prove magic or identify the caster.

Copy the exact rule and excerpt into a table with source labels before giving a verdict. A quote proves what was written; your reasoning still has to connect it to the rule. Do not manufacture a more convenient sentence.

Use three outcomes

S1 states the trigger and a lost personal memory, so it supports the rule. S2 states deliberate healing magic and explicitly denies memory loss, so it conflicts under the supplied rule. S3 names only an outcome and leaves the mechanism unknown. Missing description is weaker than explicit denial.

An unknown can remain unknown when the detail does not matter yet. If it matters later, ask for clarification. For a conflict, offer a fact-preserving repair or a consciously revised rule with an earlier setup; do not silently rewrite the world's law.

One possible revision

One possible revision — evidence table:
Rule evidence for all rows, R1: 'Every deliberate use of healing magic removes one personal memory from the caster.'
S1 quote: 'Alia closed the cut with healing magic.' and 'she forgot the street where she had grown up.' Classification: supported. Reason: magical healing and a personal-memory cost are both explicit. Action: no repair required by this rule.
S2 quote: 'Ben deliberately used healing magic to mend the burn and lost no memory at all.' Classification: explicit conflict. Reason: the trigger is explicit and 'no memory at all' denies the required cost. Options: give Ben a specific lost memory, or establish a limited exception earlier and revise R1 so its scope is truthful. A later surprise exception would need its own preparation.
S3 quote: 'By morning Cal's cut had healed.' Classification: insufficient evidence. Reason: natural healing is possible and no caster or deliberate magic is identified. Options: leave it if the mechanism is irrelevant; clarify the mechanism if the next scene depends on magic. Do not automatically add a payment.
Scope note: these findings cover R1 and S1–S3 only. They neither certify the whole manuscript nor prove that every inference about memory is correct.

What changed and why

Separated an explicit denial in S2 from an unreported mechanism in S3, preventing a false contradiction finding.
Replaced the invented Cal quote with exact source text and linked each classification to the rule's trigger and cost.

A choice worth keeping

Keep S3 brief if the story does not need its healing mechanism. An evidence audit can preserve a deliberate omission instead of expanding every sentence.

Try it with fresh material

Original transfer rule: [R1] A brass travel gate opens only when a living traveler touches both handles at once. Excerpts: [S1] Mara, a living traveler, gripped both handles; the brass gate swung open. [S2] With nobody touching either handle, the brass travel gate opened by itself. [S3] At sunrise the travelers found the gate standing open. No exceptions are established. A previously opened gate can remain open.

Make three rows with exact rule/excerpt quotes, source labels, classification, reasoning, and a proportionate action. Preserve at least one unknown or justified keep. Deliver the evidence table and a scope statement.

Feedback for your attempt

Does 'standing open' establish when or how a gate opened? If not, keep the inference limited.
Does S2 explicitly contradict the opening condition? Quote the exact denial rather than paraphrasing it into a different event.
A rule exception is a proposed world change; label it and account for earlier setup.

Check before moving on

Verify each quote exists exactly at its stated source.
Check both the rule's triggering condition and required consequence.
When evidence is absent, ask a question instead of reporting a guaranteed violation.

Original fictional rules, excerpts, and evidence classifications authored by an AI agent. A designed manual audit, not a claim of exhaustive analysis or captured provider output. An independent AI agent completed the transfer exercise and archived its artifacts; no human reader testing is claimed. Material version: 2026-10-18.