Report-plan template (v2) — Ufan-aligned, relational publishing
Purpose. For each planned report (or HTML artifact), use this as a short front matter or planning sheet. Leave sections blank when you are not ready; each blank carries an autosuggestion—the kind of sentence or note that would answer it. The goal is interval before conclusion: the same moves discussed in your synthesis and Playground evaluation, made repeatable.
Source anchors (read these for full argument and examples):
| Document | Path |
|---|---|
| Lee Ufan — condensed intentions | art_design_thought/thought.md |
| Playground × Ufan evaluation + methodology | art_design_thought/playground_evaluation_lee_ufan.md |
| Michael (chat + Playground) × Ufan synthesis | art_design_thought/michael_interests_ufan_synthesis.md |
Related trails (when the report touches data, chat
themes, or tooling): WhatsApp analysis under
whatsapp_analysis/mum_chat/
(e.g. PHILOSOPHY_FOCUS.md,
phase3_synthesis.json, TOPIC_SHIFT_REPORT.md);
Playground catalog and hub as described in the synthesis.
How to use v2
- Copy the master block at the end into a new note or into the top of a draft report.
- For each prompt, write one to five sentences of prose (evaluation doc: “No bullets—prose slows the eye” for pause blocks).
- If you skip a field, keep the autosuggestion line as a visible reminder of what remains unasked.
- Tag the piece in your catalog if it is a slow object (long read, no TL;DR, intentional ambiguity)—see §5 in the Playground evaluation.
A. Grid from Lee
Ufan’s intention (thought.md)
These map the four strands in your notes to planning questions.
A1 — When every answer is quick
| Field | Your note (blank) | Autosuggestion |
|---|---|---|
| Why slow matters here | What would be lost if this were only a headline, a chart screenshot, or a ranked list? | |
| Process the reader should feel | What steps did you actually take (time, dead ends, re-reads)—not to boast, but to show thinking in time? | |
| Wonder / art / music hook | Is there one non-instrumental reference (sound, image, poem, show) that changes the speed of attention for this topic? |
A2 — What the work is for (world, nature, think and feel)
| Field | Your note (blank) | Autosuggestion |
|---|---|---|
| What in the world this touches | Name places, bodies, or materials—not only series and indices. Where is the salt air, the bill, the kitchen, the border? | |
| Map vs territory | What does the model omit by design? Where is the honest gap between data and lived consequence? |
A3 — Difficulty as a gift (zoom in, catalyst)
| Field | Your note (blank) | Autosuggestion |
|---|---|---|
| What was confused at the start | What did you not understand before zooming in? | |
| What stayed unresolved | What are you still holding without synthesis? | |
| What would falsify the take | What evidence or event would force you to revise or drop the main claim? |
A4 — Art’s role (activation)
| Field | Your note (blank) | Autosuggestion |
|---|---|---|
| What should make the reader stop | One withholding or estrangement: interval, silence, missing “so what,” or a counter-reading—what stalls the skim? | |
| How this might “activate” differently | After reading, what different question might they ask about their own life or work—not about your topic only? |
B.
Relational publishing (from
playground_evaluation_lee_ufan.md §3–4)
Methodology compressed into plan fields.
| Field | Your note (blank) | Autosuggestion |
|---|---|---|
| Interval before conclusion | If you front-load one delay before the main chart or verdict, what is it? (Confusion, unknowns, falsifiers—see A3.) | |
| Negative space in the argument | Which axis of the story is deliberately empty: omitted “so what,” withheld recommendation, or one strong counter-reading left standing? | |
| Process as first-class content | What failed pulls, wrong charts, or abandoned cuts are worth naming so the file is not a miracle of instant knowing? | |
| Encounter vs explanation | Could this plan become a minimal encounter (one image, one constrained table, one sound, one question) instead of a full report—where, and why? | |
| Rhythm vs catalog | Is this entry fast (retrieval) or slow (protected slowness)? If slow, how is that marked for the reader? | |
| Ethics of the quick answer (AI) | If AI helped: what stays in appendix / lab, and what is human-led in the opening voice? |
Concrete “pause block” trio (evaluation §4 — prose, not bullets):
| Field | Your note (blank) | Autosuggestion |
|---|---|---|
| Why this matters personally | Without intimate confession unless you choose it: why you spent time on this, not someone else. | |
| What scared or surprised the author | Affect signal: risk, odd fit, or a number that hurt to write down. | |
| What remains unknown | Overlap with A3 but forward-looking: what you wish the next dataset or season would answer. |
C.
Chat + Playground synthesis (from
michael_interests_ufan_synthesis.md)
Use when the report reflects systems, care, or your two public/private tempos.
| Field | Your note (blank) | Autosuggestion |
|---|---|---|
| Interval in private vs collapsed in public | Does this artifact collapse time into “now” like the catalog UI? Where can you re-import the chat’s tempo (hesitation, digestion) in one paragraph? | |
| Embodiment next to the numeric | Synthesis asks for one paragraph of lived consequence beside the chart. Who feels the spread, the policy, the outage—not only who models it? | |
| Ningen / relation without optimizing | Who is inside the system, who is hurt when the variable moves—named in ethical terms, not only relational data fields. | |
| Disjunction to own | Where does this piece sound instrumental on purpose, and where should it not pretend to be the whole person? (Same author; different genres.) |
D. Risk register (closure, AI, geopolitics)
Short checks so the plan does not simulate reflection.
| Field | Your note (blank) | Autosuggestion |
|---|---|---|
| Premature closure risk | Where might ranked options, “final” HTML, or feasibility scores shorten the reader’s own struggle? | |
| Anti-summary move | What moves to appendix so the opening can foreground human cost or hesitation (evaluation §4)? | |
| Tension page candidate | If another report disagrees with this one, should there be a thin HTML “tension page” that links both and refuses synthesis? |
E. Horizons (optional — from evaluation §5)
Tick or note one per plan if relevant.
| Horizon | Your note (blank) | Autosuggestion |
|---|---|---|
| Short | Ufan pass: same data, fewer widgets, written prelude, one visible unanswered question? | |
| Short | Interval page: non-instrumental room, weak search relevance, footer-only link? | |
| Medium | Series / process log: one thread across dates so time is a medium? | |
| Long | Off-browser encounter (print, audio, installation) or one-page author poetics—does this plan want a non-catalog exit? |
Master copy-paste block (one report)
=== Report plan / pause front matter ===
Title:
Slug or file:
— A. Ufan grid —
Why slow matters here:
Process the reader should feel:
Wonder / art / music hook:
What in the world this touches (embodied / placed):
Map vs territory (what the model omits):
What was confused at the start:
What stayed unresolved:
What would falsify the take:
What should make the reader stop (negative space / counter-reading):
How this might activate the reader differently:
— B. Relational publishing —
Interval before conclusion (one delay before the chart):
Negative space (which axis is empty):
Process as first-class (failures, dead ends):
Encounter variant (if any):
Fast vs slow catalog marking:
AI: appendix vs human-led opening:
— C. Pause block (prose) —
Why this matters personally:
What scared or surprised the author:
What remains unknown:
— D. Synthesis-aware —
Embodied consequence paragraph (who feels it):
Who is inside the system / hurt when the metric moves:
Where this piece is instrumental by design (genre honesty):
— E. Risk & horizon —
Premature closure risk:
Anti-summary / appendix move:
Tension page (if paired with conflicting report):
Short / medium / long horizon note (pick one):
=== End ===Closing (why v2 exists)
v1 named a few questions and “negative space in argument.” v2 ties each blank to your existing docs: the four Ufan strands, the six relational moves and pause blocks from the Playground evaluation, and the interval / embodiment / ningen / disjunction language from the Michael synthesis—so every report plan can inherit the same ethos without rereading everything. The template is documentation of tempo, not decoration.