Editorial Heuristics: Ordinal Scoring Rubric (0 to 4) skill

Editorial Heuristics: Ordinal Scoring Rubric (0 to 4)

The 100-point system in quality-scoring.md (sibling file) tells you a post scores 78. This ordinal rubric tells you which sections are P0 blockers and which are P3 polish. Complementary, not competing; run both for actionable review.

Adapted from Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics via the impeccable plugin (Paul Bakaus, Apache 2.0). Original scores UI; this version scores editorial.

Scoring scale + severity tags

Score	Meaning	Severity tag	When to assign
0	Absent or actively wrong	P0 (blocking)	Fabricated stat, broken structure, plagiarism risk
1	Major gaps; most checks fail	P1 (ship-blocker)	Missing source on load-bearing claim, AI-detection signal
2	Mixed; important checks fail	P2 (publish then iterate)	Weak heading, missing schema, suboptimal opener
3	Good; minor gaps	P3 (nice to have)	Cosmetic, marginal SEO, stylistic preference
4	Genuinely excellent (rare)	(none)	"Would cite in a meta-review of best-practice blog craft"

A 0 or 1 on any heuristic generates at least one P0 or P1. Most strong production posts land 2 to 3 across the board.

Nielsen mapping

Nielsen original (UI)	Editorial adaptation
1. Visibility of system status	1. Visibility of intent
2. Match between system and real world	2. Heading and section content match
3. User control and freedom	3. Reader control and exit
4. Consistency and standards	4. Voice and standards consistency
5. Error prevention	5. Fabricated-stat prevention
6. Recognition rather than recall	6. Recognition over recall
7. Flexibility and efficiency of use	7. Skimmer vs deep-reader flexibility
8. Aesthetic and minimalist design	8. Information-density discipline
9. Help recognize, diagnose, recover	9. Failure-recovery copy
10. Help and documentation	10. Sources and related documentation

Nielsen reference: Jakob Nielsen, "10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design," NN/g, 1994 (revised 2020). https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/

The 10 Editorial Heuristics

1. Visibility of intent

Reader knows within 5 seconds what the post is, what they will learn, and roughly how long it takes.

Check for: title reflects body (no clickbait drift); meta description previews substance; "Key Takeaways" or TL;DR box (3 to 5 bullets) at top; reading time / word count visible; H1 matches title.

Score	Criteria
0	Title misleading or absent; no summary; reader infers topic
1	Title present; nothing else orients the reader
2	Title and meta present; no summary box
3	Summary present but generic
4	Title, meta, and summary all reinforce a specific promise the body keeps

2. Heading and section content match

A heading is a contract; the section must deliver in the order the reader expects.

Check for: each H2 promise fulfilled in the first 100 words of that section; no bait-and-switch; problem-then-solution order; domain terms used as the audience uses them.

Score	Criteria
0	Headings disconnected from section content
1	Major mismatch on more than half the H2s
2	Some H2s fulfill; others bury or redirect
3	Most sections deliver on their heading; minor reordering needed
4	Every H2 is a contract the section keeps in the opening paragraph

3. Reader control and exit

Long-form prose can trap the reader. Good blogs let them scan, jump, and bail without losing the thread.

Check for: TOC on posts over 1,500 words; internal jump links; H2s self-contained (passage-level citability); clear "what next" at end.

Score	Criteria
0	One wall of text; no navigation
1	Sections exist but readers cannot skim
2	Navigation partial; some sections require previous context
3	TOC present, most sections standalone
4	Skim-readable end to end; self-contained sections; clear exits; downstream paths

4. Voice and standards consistency

Within a post, terminology, tone, formatting, and structural patterns must not drift.

Check for: same term for same concept throughout (not "AI" then "LLM" then "model" arbitrarily); stable cadence; bullet vs prose decision applied consistently; citation format identical; heading capitalization consistent.

Score	Criteria
0	Reads like three drafts stitched together
1	Multiple voice or terminology shifts
2	Mostly consistent; occasional drift
3	One or two minor inconsistencies
4	Reads as one author writing in one sitting

5. Fabricated-stat prevention

Structure that prevents fabricated or unsourced data from entering the draft.

Check for: every numeric claim has a named source in the same paragraph; every source URL reachable (tier 1 to 3); year anchor in prose for time-sensitive claims (FLOW evidence triple); retrieval date on citation; no vague "studies show" without naming who.

Score	Criteria
0	Multiple unsourced numeric claims (P0)
1	Half of numeric claims unsourced
2	Most sourced; one or two suspicious
3	All sourced; minor gaps in retrieval dates
4	Full FLOW evidence triple on every statistic

6. Recognition over recall

Reader should not have to remember what was said three sections ago to follow the current paragraph.

Check for: key terms redefined or aliased on reuse if introduced more than 500 words earlier; comparison tables for X-vs-Y (not buried prose); visual aids where data is dense; repeated context cues; numbered steps numbered in body.

Score	Criteria
0	Reader must hold many threads to follow
1	High memory load throughout
2	Some sections require backtracking
3	Mostly recognition-friendly
4	Every section can be entered cold

7. Skimmer vs deep-reader flexibility

The post should reward both modes: executive who scans, practitioner who reads end to end.

Check for: bold lead-ins on key points; pull quotes for high-leverage claims; each H2 opener starts with an about 50-word direct-answer sentence followed by a 120 to 180 word citable passage; lists where lists are right, prose where prose is right; FAQ section.

Score	Criteria
0	Only readable end-to-end; no skim affordances
1	Some headings, but no bold lead-ins, pull quotes, or answer-first openers
2	Skim affordances in some sections; missing FAQ or answer-first opener
3	Most sections have skim affordances; one of (answer-first opener, FAQ, pull quotes) missing
4	Rewards both modes equally: bold lead-ins, answer-first openers on every H2, FAQ, pull quotes

8. Information-density discipline

Long does not equal valuable. Every paragraph should earn its place; padding is a slop signal.

Check for: no paragraph over 150 words; no intro delaying the first substantive claim by more than 150 words; no SEO-padded conclusion; no filler transitions ("Now, let's discuss..."); word count appropriate to topic.

Score	Criteria
0	Padding pervasive; intro buries the lede; conclusion restates the post
1	Several paragraphs over 150 words; multiple filler transitions
2	One bloat axis present (e.g. SEO-padded conclusion or long intro)
3	Minor bloat (1 to 2 long paragraphs or one filler transition); otherwise tight
4	Every paragraph earns its place; word count matches topic scope

9. Failure-recovery copy

Post must handle reader confusion or partial knowledge.

Check for: glossary or inline definitions for jargon; "If you are new to X, read this first" links; clearly marked "for advanced readers" sections if they exist; examples for every abstract concept; acknowledgement of when a technique does not apply.

Score	Criteria
0	Newcomers will bounce; no definitions; abstract claims without examples
1	Jargon undefined in most cases; few examples
2	Some jargon defined; examples for half of abstract claims
3	Most jargon defined or aliased; examples for most abstract concepts
4	Graceful for every audience tier: definitions, examples, signposts, scope notes

10. Sources and related documentation

Even the best post is one node in a knowledge graph.

Check for: 3 to 10 contextual internal links; 3 to 8 outbound tier 1 to 3 sources; author bio with credentials; last-updated date visible; related-reads section at end.

Score	Criteria
0	Isolated content; zero internal links; no author bio; no outbound sources
1	One or two internal links; author bio thin; few sources
2	Some links and basic bio; missing related-reads or last-updated date
3	Most signals present; minor gap
4	Fully embedded in content graph: 3+ internal, 3+ outbound, full bio, dates, related-reads

Reporting format

## Editorial Heuristics Report: [Title]

| # | Heuristic | Score | Severity | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Visibility of intent | 3 | P2 | Summary box generic; tighten the promise |
| 2 | Heading-content match | 4 | (none) | Every H2 fulfills in opener |
| 3 | Reader control | 2 | P1 | No TOC on 2,400-word post |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

### Prioritized fixes
- **P0**: (none)
- **P1**: Add TOC; define jargon (3 spots)
- **P2**: Tighten summary; alias "TTR" on reuse
- **P3**: Add bold lead-ins; smooth voice shift in paragraph 12

Ordinal score is independent of the 100-point system. Both can run on the same post; cross-checking surfaces inconsistencies (a 78/100 with three P0s means the 100-point system is missing a load-bearing failure mode).

Attribution

Adapts Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics (Jakob Nielsen, NN/g, 1994 revised 2020) via the impeccable plugin's heuristics-scoring.md (Paul Bakaus, Apache 2.0, https://github.com/pbakaus/impeccable). The 0 to 4 ordinal scale, P0 to P3 severity, and per-dimension tables come from the impeccable adaptation. The 10 heuristics are translated from UI ergonomics to editorial ergonomics; see the Nielsen-mapping table above.