Writing Patterns¶
Reusable templates that structure each type of piece — so every article starts from a proven framework.
A writing pattern is not a rigid template. It is a tested framework for a specific type of piece: the stages of production, the structural sections, the voice requirements, the sourcing standards, and the quality checks. Patterns encode what we've learned about what makes a type of piece work, so we don't have to re-discover it each time.
Currently Built Patterns¶
PATTERN-PRACTITIONER-ARTICLE-v1¶
For: Blog posts and LinkedIn long-form articles targeting practitioners (HR leaders, OH&S professionals, executives)
Format: 800–1,500 words. Evidence-informed but accessible. ProActive voice.
Structure (5 stages): 1. Opening hook — one paragraph that earns the read. Concrete scenario or counterintuitive claim. 2. The problem — what's happening that shouldn't be, and why conventional responses fall short. 3. The framework element — one idea from ProActive's theoretical framework, made concrete and applicable. 4. The ProActive approach — what ProActive does differently, with evidence. 5. Closing call-to-action — one clear next step for the reader.
Voice calibration: Accessible but not simplistic. Evidence-backed but not academic. The reader is a senior professional, not a novice.
Current status: Built and tested
PATTERN-TRADE-ARTICLE-v1¶
For: Trade publication submissions (Canadian HR Reporter, OHS Canada, The Lawyer's Daily, HR Professional)
Format: 1,500–3,000 words. Light sourcing (3–6 footnotes). Professional, evidence-based.
Structure (7 stages): 1. Opening — practical scenario grounded in Canadian context. 2. The problem — specific regulatory or operational gap. 3. Evidence — empirical grounding (studies, statistics, case law). 4. The framework — ProActive's analytical lens applied to the problem. 5. The approach — what ProActive does and why it works. 6. Implications — what practitioners should do with this. 7. Closing — summary and positioning.
Voice calibration: More formal than practitioner articles. Regulatory and legal references used where relevant. Audience is already expert — no need to explain basics.
Current status: Built
Patterns in Development¶
| Pattern | For | Target Phase |
|---|---|---|
| PATTERN-OPINIONCOMMENTARY-v1 | LinkedIn long-form and newspaper op-eds | Q2 2026 |
| PATTERN-BOOK-CHAPTER-v1 | Academic book chapters — reference implementation from institutional listening project | Phase 1B |
| PATTERN-COMMENTARY-v1 | Short academic commentaries — simplest academic pattern | Phase 1B |
| PATTERN-JOURNAL-THEORETICAL-v1 | Theoretical journal articles | Phase 2 |
| PATTERN-JOURNAL-EMPIRICAL-v1 | Empirical research articles | Phase 2 |
| PATTERN-POLICY-BRIEF-v1 | Policy briefs for government and regulatory audiences | Phase 3 |
How Patterns Are Used¶
When a new project is created, the relevant pattern is selected at Stage 2 (Commission). The pattern defines:
- Word count and format — so the WSD production brief is specific
- Structural sections — so the AI draft has a clear scaffold
- Voice requirements — so the register is right for the venue
- Quality checks — so the review stage has clear criteria
- Sourcing standards — so citation depth matches venue expectations
Patterns are not used to produce generic content. They are scaffolds that Richard's specific arguments and evidence are built on. The intellectual content is always Richard's; the pattern provides the proven structure.
Quality Standards¶
Every piece produced in the Studio meets four standards before publication:
- Intellectual accuracy — every claim is defensible; every framework element is correctly applied
- Voice integrity — the piece sounds like Richard, not like a generic consultant
- Audience fit — the framing, evidence, and call-to-action match the specific audience
- Brand alignment — No Blame, Normalize Don't Pathologize, Behaviors First are visible in the framing
A piece that meets three of four standards does not ship. Quality over throughput — a delayed piece is better than a wrong piece.