tractatus/governance/TRA-OPS-0002-blog-editorial-guidelines-v1-0.md

TRA-OPS-0002: Blog Editorial Guidelines v1.0

Document ID: TRA-OPS-0002 Version: 1.0 Classification: OPERATIONAL Status: DRAFT → ACTIVE (upon Phase 2 start) Created: 2025-10-07 Owner: John Stroh Review Cycle: Quarterly Next Review: 2026-01-07 Parent Policy: TRA-OPS-0001 (AI Content Generation Policy)

---

Purpose

This document establishes editorial guidelines for the Tractatus Framework blog, ensuring all content (human-authored and AI-assisted) aligns with the project's mission, values, and quality standards.

Scope

Applies to all blog content published on agenticgovernance.digital/blog, including:

• Technical articles
• Framework updates
• Case study analyses
• AI safety commentary
• Community contributions

---

Editorial Mission

Mission: Advance AI safety through accessible, rigorous, and actionable content that demonstrates the Tractatus framework's principles in practice.

Target Audiences:

1. Researchers: Academic depth, citations, formal rigor
2. Implementers: Practical guides, code examples, integration patterns
3. Advocates: Plain language, real-world impact, policy implications

---

Content Principles

1. Accuracy & Rigor

Standard: All factual claims must be supported by credible sources.

Requirements:

• Citations for all non-obvious claims
• Links to primary sources (not secondary summaries)
• Explicit acknowledgment of uncertainty ("likely," "may," "appears to")
• Corrections published prominently if errors discovered

AI Guidance: AI-generated content often hallucinates citations. All citations must be manually verified by human reviewer.

---

2. Accessibility

Standard: Content should be understandable to target audience without sacrificing accuracy.

Requirements:

• Define technical terms on first use
• Link to glossary for framework-specific terminology
• Provide examples for abstract concepts
• Avoid jargon unless necessary (then explain)

Balance: Academic rigor without academic gatekeeping.

---

3. Transparency

Standard: Readers should understand how content was created.

Requirements:

• AI-assisted posts labeled: "AI-Assisted, Human-Reviewed"
• Human-authored posts labeled: "Human-Authored"
• Guest posts: Author bio + disclaimer
• Sponsored content: Not allowed (ever)

Example Attribution:

---
Author: John Stroh
AI-Assisted: Claude Sonnet 4.5 (topic suggestion, outline)
Human Review: 2025-10-15
Changes: Rewrote introduction, added 3 examples, verified all citations
---

---

4. Intellectual Honesty

Standard: Acknowledge limitations, counterarguments, and uncertainty.

Requirements:

• Address obvious objections to arguments
• Acknowledge when evidence is limited
• Link to opposing viewpoints (with fair summary)
• Update posts when new evidence emerges

Tractatus Alignment: Humility in knowledge claims (§3.1-3.9).

---

5. Respect & Inclusion

Standard: Content should be respectful, inclusive, and accessible.

Requirements:

• Avoid ableist, racist, sexist, or exclusionary language
• Use gender-neutral language unless referring to specific individuals
• Provide alt text for images
• Caption videos (future)
• Acknowledge diverse perspectives in AI safety (Western, non-Western, indigenous)

Te Tiriti Alignment: Respect Māori data sovereignty principles (reference when relevant).

---

Content Categories

1. Framework Updates

Purpose: Announce changes to Tractatus framework (new services, governance updates)

Format:

• Summary of change (2-3 sentences)
• Motivation (why the change?)
• Technical details (for implementers)
• Migration guide (if breaking change)
• Discussion/feedback invitation

Frequency: As needed (1-2/month typical)

Example Topics:

• "ContextPressureMonitor v2.0: Weighted Pressure Scoring"
• "New Governance Document: TRA-OPS-0003 Media Protocol"

---

2. Case Study Analysis

Purpose: Analyze real-world AI failures through Tractatus lens

Format:

• Incident summary (what happened?)
• Failure mode analysis (why did it happen?)
• Tractatus mapping (which boundary was crossed?)
• Prevention strategy (how framework prevents this)
• Lessons learned

Frequency: 2-4/month

Example Topics:

• "The 27027 Incident Revisited: Instruction Persistence Failure"
• "ChatGPT Jailbreaks: Boundary Enforcement vs. Prompt Injection"

---

3. Technical Deep Dives

Purpose: Explain framework implementation details for developers

Format:

• Problem statement (what are we solving?)
• Architecture overview (high-level design)
• Code examples (working, tested)
• Testing strategies
• Performance considerations

Frequency: 1-2/month

Example Topics:

• "Implementing CrossReferenceValidator: Instruction Database Design"
• "BoundaryEnforcer Performance: Zero-Overhead Runtime Checks"

---

4. AI Safety Commentary

Purpose: Discuss broader AI safety issues through Tractatus perspective

Format:

• Current event/trend summary
• Tractatus analysis (what does framework say?)
• Broader implications
• Call to action (if appropriate)

Frequency: 1-2/month

Example Topics:

• "AGI Timelines & Tractatus: Why Architecture Matters Now"
• "EU AI Act & Boundary Enforcement: Regulatory Alignment"

---

Writing Standards

Style Guide

Tone:

• Professional but conversational
• Confident but humble
• Rigorous but accessible
• Passionate but not preachy

Voice:

• Active voice preferred ("We implemented..." not "It was implemented...")
• First-person plural for Tractatus team ("We believe...")
• Second-person for reader ("You can integrate...")

Format:

• Headings: Title Case (## This Is a Heading)
• Lists: Sentence case (- First item)
• Code: Inline backticks, blocks with language tags
• Emphasis: Bold for important, italic for emphasis

Length:

• Minimum: 500 words (short updates)
• Typical: 1000-2000 words
• Maximum: 5000 words (deep dives)

---

Structure Template

All posts should follow this structure:

# Post Title (Specific, Keyword-Rich)

**Author**: Name
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Reading Time**: X min (auto-calculated)
**Category**: [Framework Update | Case Study | Technical | Commentary]

## Summary (TL;DR)
2-3 sentence summary for skimmers.

## Introduction
Hook + context + thesis statement.

## Main Content
3-5 sections with descriptive headings.

## Conclusion
Key takeaways + call to action (optional).

## Further Reading
- Links to related posts
- External resources
- Framework docs

## Citations
[1] Source Title, Author, Year, URL
[2] ...

---

*AI-Assisted: [Yes/No]. Human Review: [Date].*

---

AI-Assisted Content Workflow

Topic Suggestion Phase

AI Role: Suggest 5-10 topics weekly based on AI safety news.

Input to AI:

• Recent news feed (Hacker News, arXiv, AI safety forums)
• Tractatus docs (framework context)
• Previous blog posts (avoid duplicates)

AI Output:

• Topic suggestions (1-sentence each)
• Relevance score (0-1)
• Target audience (researcher/implementer/advocate)
• Estimated complexity (low/medium/high)

Human Review:

• Select 1-3 topics for outline generation
• Reject off-brand or low-value topics
• Add topics manually if AI misses obvious ones

SLA: Weekly (Fridays)

---

Outline Generation Phase

AI Role: Generate detailed outline for approved topics.

Input to AI:

• Approved topic
• Editorial guidelines (this document)
• Target audience
• Suggested length (500-5000 words)

AI Output:

• Title + subtitle
• Introduction outline (key points)
• 3-5 main sections (with subsections)
• Conclusion outline
• Suggested citations (to be verified)

Human Review:

• Verify outline structure
• Add/remove/reorder sections
• Flag any factual concerns
• Approve for human drafting

SLA: 48 hours

---

Draft Writing Phase

AI Role: None. Human writes the actual draft.

Rationale: Blog content is STRATEGIC (editorial voice, values communication). AI can assist with structure, but human must do the writing.

Exception: Technical code examples may be AI-generated, but human must test and verify.

---

Final Review Phase

AI Role: Optional proofreading (grammar, clarity).

Human Role: Final fact-check, citation verification, tone check.

Approval: Admin reviewer (or John Stroh for sensitive topics).

SLA: 24 hours before scheduled publish.

---

Citation Standards

Citation Format

Use APA-lite style:

## Citations

[1] Wittgenstein, L. (1921). *Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus*. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. https://example.com

[2] Anthropic. (2024). Claude 3 Model Card. Retrieved from https://www.anthropic.com/claude

[3] Bostrom, N. (2014). *Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies*. Oxford University Press.

In-text references: Use superscript numbers: "As Wittgenstein argued[1], the limits of language..."

---

Source Quality Hierarchy

Preferred Sources:

1. Peer-reviewed academic papers (journals, conferences)
2. Technical reports from reputable organizations (OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind)
3. Government/regulatory documents (EU AI Act, NIST guidelines)
4. Established news outlets (NY Times, Wired, Ars Technica)

Acceptable Sources (with caveats): 5. Blog posts from AI safety researchers (personal, but expert) 6. Social media (Twitter/X) from verified experts (screenshot + archive)

Unacceptable Sources: 7. Wikipedia (use as starting point, cite original sources) 8. Anonymous forums (4chan, Reddit unless verified expert) 9. AI-generated content (ChatGPT output is not a source) 10. Satirical/parody sites (The Onion, unless discussing satire)

AI Guidance: AI often cites sources that don't exist. ALWAYS verify every citation manually.

---

Prohibited Content

Absolutely Not Allowed:

• Plagiarism (even with AI assistance)
• Hate speech, discrimination, harassment
• Misinformation (intentional false claims)
• Sponsored content (hidden advertising)
• Political endorsements (organizational neutrality)
• Personal attacks on individuals/organizations
• Copyright violation (images, code without permission)

Editorial Judgment Required:

• Controversial topics (AI risk levels, AGI timelines)
• Criticism of specific AI companies (factual, balanced)
• Speculative scenarios (clearly labeled as speculation)

---

Comments & Community Engagement

Phase 2: Comments disabled initially (focus on publishing quality content).

Phase 3: Comments enabled with moderation.

Social Media: Posts shared on Twitter/X, Mastodon (future).

Engagement Guidelines:

• Respond to substantive questions/critiques
• Acknowledge errors promptly
• Update posts when new evidence emerges
• Link to discussions (Hacker News, LessWrong) but don't feed trolls

---

Content Calendar

Publishing Schedule

Target: 2-4 posts/month (Phase 2 soft launch)

Days: Tuesdays & Thursdays (10am NZT)

Planning Horizon: 2 weeks ahead (outline approved)

---

Example Editorial Calendar (Phase 2 Month 1)

Week	Topic	Category	Author	Status
W1	"Introducing Tractatus Blog"	Framework Update	John	Draft
W1	"The 27027 Incident"	Case Study	AI-assisted	Outline
W2	"CrossReferenceValidator Deep Dive"	Technical	AI-assisted	Planned
W3	"Why AI Safety Needs Architecture"	Commentary	John	Idea
W4	"BoundaryEnforcer in Practice"	Technical	AI-assisted	Idea

---

Performance Metrics

Success Metrics (Phase 2)

Engagement:

• Average readers/post: 50+ (soft launch target)
• Average reading time: >2 minutes (indicates engagement)
• Social shares: 10+ per post

Quality:

• Citation accuracy: 100% (zero broken/fake citations)
• Corrections rate: <5% (fewer than 1 in 20 posts need correction)
• User feedback: 4+/5 average rating (future)

Production:

• Publishing consistency: 8+ posts/month
• Time to publish: <7 days from outline approval
• AI approval rate: 70-90% (outlines accepted)

---

Revision & Updates

Post Updates

Minor Edits (typos, clarifications):

• Edit in place, no notification

Factual Corrections:

• Add correction note at top: "UPDATE (YYYY-MM-DD): Corrected claim about..."
• Strikethrough incorrect text, add correct text
• Update changelog at bottom

Major Revisions:

• Consider new post: "Revisiting [Topic]: What We Got Wrong"
• Link from original post

---

Related Documents

• TRA-OPS-0001: AI Content Generation Policy (parent)
• TRA-OPS-0005: Human Oversight Requirements
• STR-VAL-0001: Core Values & Principles (sydigital)

---

Approval

Role	Name	Signature	Date
Policy Owner	John Stroh	[Pending]	[TBD]
Technical Reviewer	Claude Code	[Pending]	2025-10-07
Final Approval	John Stroh	[Pending]	[TBD]

---

Status: DRAFT (awaiting John Stroh approval) Effective Date: Upon first blog post publication (Phase 2) Next Review: 2026-01-07