Tell me which rule made your writing worse

[Pr1m4lc0d3]

Peitho makes prose harder to skim past. That also makes it harder to argue with, and the
skill says so in its own ethics rail: transported readers counterargue less and notice fewer flaws.

So this thread is the counterargument slot.

Three things I would genuinely like challenged.

1. The citations. Every claim carries an evidence tier, [M] through [?]. If you know a
   study better than the one cited, or you think one is being stretched past what it supports,
   say which and why. The [?] tier exists because some of it came to me secondhand. Nothing in
   here should survive on the strength of sounding researched.

2. The convergence risk. A long banned-word list plus one structural mechanic will make
   everything written under it sound the same eventually. I do not have a good answer to that yet.
   If your prose came out flatter rather than sharper, that is the failure mode and I want the
   example.

3. The myths file. references/myths.md refutes five pieces of advice most writing guides
   still repeat. If one of those refutations is wrong, that file is the most load-bearing thing to
   correct, because it tells people to stop doing something.

Where to put things

• Q&A if a step is unclear.
• Show and tell if you ran it on something, improved or worse.
• Ideas for a rule that should exist and does not.

I would rather fix the doctrine than defend it. If a rule made your writing worse, that is the
most useful thing you can post here.