Writing With Integrity

There is a real and useful distinction between improving writing you produced and producing writing you did not. This chapter is about staying firmly on the first side while still getting the benefit.

Legitimate and genuinely useful

• Fixing grammar and clarity in sentences you wrote — especially valuable writing in a second language
• Asking whether your argument has a gap, without asking it to fill the gap
• Getting feedback on structure: does this paragraph belong here, is this transition working
• Explaining a comment your supervisor made that you did not understand
• Checking whether your explanation of a concept is accurate

The critique prompt

Asking for criticism rather than improvement keeps you doing the writing. It is also more useful, because you learn the pattern rather than receiving a fix.

Below is a section I wrote. Do not rewrite it.

Tell me:
1. Where is my argument unclear or unsupported?
2. Which sentences say nothing and could be cut?
3. Where have I claimed more than my evidence supports?
4. What would a critical reader ask that I have not answered?
5. Where have I used a term without really explaining it?

Point at the specific sentence for each. Do not produce a corrected version — I want to fix it myself.

My text:
{{paste}}

Writing in a second language

If English is not your first language, using AI to correct grammar and awkward phrasing is a legitimate accessibility use — the equivalent of a proofreader, which native speakers have always had access to.

Keep your own sentence structures and vocabulary where they are correct. Accepting every suggestion produces text that is fluent, generic and no longer sounds like you — which is both a loss and, as the next chapter covers, a practical risk.

Keep your drafts

Save your outline, your first draft, your revisions and your notes. Use version history where you can.

This costs nothing and is the strongest possible evidence that the work is yours. It is also, as it happens, exactly how good writing gets done.