Context
Per CURATION_PROTOCOL.md §3.4 (Plain-Register Check), ratified 2026-05-12 as an amendment after phase-a curation. The §3.4 self-check is a writing discipline applied during curation steps 5-6:
Every tooltip's plain prose (the part that shows when grammar-terms is off) must stand alone and teach the bridge without requiring the technical chip.
Phase-a/b/c/d were curated BEFORE §3.4 was ratified (or during the same session). Their tooltips still use the older "dual-register with [bracket] jargon" pattern. Multiple specific tooltips have been flagged across phase logs as failing the §3.4 register-check.
Specific failing tooltips (from phase logs)
From phase-c.md §6:
- `c2s3` only tooltip is `"[Thematic vowel] Class I verb marker"` — strips to empty when grammar-terms is off
From phase-d.md §6:
- `d1s3` "Name ending" — strips to itself; doesn't teach what a name-ending IS
- `d2s1` `"X nāma Y" = "Y named X"` — syntactic formula, cryptic. Suggested rewrite: "nāma is the naming word: it turns the previous name into 'called Kammāsadhamma.'"
- `d3s2` "[Genitive Plural] Possession" — strips to "Possession" with grammar-terms off. Underwhelming.
Other tooltips across phase-a/b will likely fail the same check on review.
Approach
Work phase-by-phase (a → d), one commit per phase:
For each tooltip in the phase:
- Read aloud check — does the plain prose make sense to the default reader without the bracketed chip?
- Pay-rent check — for each technical term, can you answer (a) "what concept does this label that the reader needs precision about?" + (b) "why is precision needed here?" If both YES, keep the term + gloss it. If either NO, replace with plain English.
- Layer check — is anything in plain prose that would be better in the grammar chip or the audit modal?
Acceptance per phase
- Every tooltip passes the §3.4 three-criterion check
- Specific failing tooltips listed above are rewritten
- New version verified by reading aloud (or by a fresh reader)
Hit count
4/4 phases. Highest-priority follow-up work; concrete first targets already identified.
Context
Per CURATION_PROTOCOL.md §3.4 (Plain-Register Check), ratified 2026-05-12 as an amendment after phase-a curation. The §3.4 self-check is a writing discipline applied during curation steps 5-6:
Phase-a/b/c/d were curated BEFORE §3.4 was ratified (or during the same session). Their tooltips still use the older "dual-register with [bracket] jargon" pattern. Multiple specific tooltips have been flagged across phase logs as failing the §3.4 register-check.
Specific failing tooltips (from phase logs)
From phase-c.md §6:
From phase-d.md §6:
Other tooltips across phase-a/b will likely fail the same check on review.
Approach
Work phase-by-phase (a → d), one commit per phase:
For each tooltip in the phase:
Acceptance per phase
Hit count
4/4 phases. Highest-priority follow-up work; concrete first targets already identified.