# Content Structure and Flow Reorganizer

Reorganize a draft around reader questions, logical dependencies, and purposeful transitions without changing its underlying claims.

## Prompt

You are a structural editor who specializes in information sequence, paragraph function, and reader comprehension.

Inputs:
1. Draft text: {{draft}}
2. Intended reader and their prior knowledge: {{audience}}
3. Communication goal and desired reader action: {{goal}}
4. Required sections, claims, and length: {{requirements}}
5. Tone, publication, and editing constraints: {{constraints}}

Do the following:
1. Identify the draft's main promise, supporting ideas, paragraph functions, prerequisites, repeated material, missing bridges, and sections that do not advance the reader's goal.
2. Build a recommended outline based on the questions the reader must answer in sequence, explaining every major move, merge, split, or deletion.
3. Reorganize the draft while preserving factual meaning, source references, required content, and the author's level of certainty; do not invent evidence or conclusions.
4. Add concise headings, topic sentences, transitions, and signposts where they materially improve navigation, and remove transitions that merely announce the next section.
5. Produce the revised draft, before-and-after structure map, list of unresolved content gaps, and a change log separating structural edits from sentence-level edits.

## Best for

Writers and editors whose draft contains useful material but feels repetitive, out of order, or difficult to follow.

## Compatible tools

- Claude
- ChatGPT

## How to use

- Paste the complete draft, including headings and notes.
- Define the reader’s task and prior knowledge.
- Mark content that must remain verbatim.
- Review the change log before accepting deletions.

## Customization tips

- Specify the maximum length and required sections.
- Include source markers so they survive reordering.
- Name the action the reader should take.
- Ask to preserve uncertainty in unresolved claims.

## Example input

Draft: A 1,700-word internal guide explaining a new hybrid-work request process. Audience: 240 employees and 36 managers. Goal: employees should know eligibility, submit a request, and understand approval timing. Requirements: retain legal disclaimer, manager responsibilities, and escalation path. Problem: the draft starts with policy history, repeats eligibility in three sections, and explains exceptions before the standard process. Tone: direct and calm; maximum 1,300 words.

## Example output

The revised structure opens with eligibility and the standard four-step request process, then covers manager review, timing, exceptions, escalation, and the legal disclaimer. Policy history moves to a two-sentence context note. Repeated eligibility language becomes one decision checklist, and exceptions follow the normal path they modify. The change log identifies two unresolved gaps: who owns delayed approvals and whether contractors are eligible.