YunLab.ai CHAPTER 04 · 4.8–4.14
Handbook version: v1.0 · Official material check: 2026-08-23 · The current interface and account availability depend on each reader’s own state.
Write this pass as a task card
What this section answers
How can scattered materials be brought into one W01 task that stays within bounds and can be checked by a human?
Why
A single task card puts what to do and what not to do in the same constraint, making later acceptance and recovery possible.
Follow along
In goal-card.md, write the input, candidate output, prohibited promises, human acceptance point, and stop condition. Cite input-snapshot.md and fact-and-limit-traceability.md and do not fill in an unknown decision.
What you should see
A task card that asks only for a candidate brief and records, with no request to send or publish.
Minimum practice and acceptance
A human confirms that the card adds no people, times, outcomes, or system actions that were not supplied.
Common questions
If the task card describes public research as already permitted, return it to pending-decisions.md and withdraw that promise.
Next section
Check the task card's scope before extracting sentences from the materials.
First read-only check: inspect scope before content
What this section answers
Before reading material details, how do you confirm that the material is still within the defined scope?
Why
Checking scope first blocks the hidden drift in which more reading quietly makes the task larger.
Follow along
Use goal-card.md to check item by item whether the materials are within input-snapshot.md and whether new permission or an external action is needed. Record out-of-scope items without processing them.
What you should see
The result should be three categories: allowed to read, needs human confirmation, and must stop, rather than a new content summary.
Minimum practice and acceptance
A human confirms that every material absent from the snapshot is marked do not process or pending, with its location retained.
Common questions
If reading continues merely because a material looks related, record the scope change and stop; relevance is not authorization.
Next section
Extract the smallest checkable facts from the materials that pass the scope check.
Extract checkable facts from the materials
What this section answers
How can a passage be split into atomic facts that can be reviewed one by one?
Why
Atomic treatment prevents multiple conditions from being merged into a stronger conclusion and gives later repairs a clear impact scope.
Follow along
Each time, take one candidate fact from material-extracts.md and record its material location and limiting conditions in fact-and-limit-traceability.md.
What you should see
A candidate fact is short, traceable, and bounded. Unknowns stay in the pending column and are not turned into assertions.
Minimum practice and acceptance
A human reviews each extract location. A statement with no location cannot enter brief-draft.md.
Common questions
If an inference between materials was written as a fact, move it to the limits or delete it; fluent wording cannot replace evidence.
Next section
Create a one-to-one trace from every atomic fact to its source location and limit.
Build the fact, location, and limit traceability
What this section answers
How can every candidate sentence return to a material location while keeping its limit visible?
Why
A fact separated from its limit can accidentally expand into an unsupported promise during drafting.
Follow along
In fact-and-limit-traceability.md, connect the candidate fact, material location, limit, and use status row by row, and cross-check against material-extracts.md.
What you should see
Each candidate brief sentence should trace back to one material location and one limit, not merely leave a file name.
Minimum practice and acceptance
A human selects any row for reverse tracing. A row that fails the trace does not proceed, and the failed location is recorded.
Common questions
If the source was kept but the limit was lost, restore the limit column. If the limit is uncertain, leave it pending.
Next section
Form the first candidate brief from the rows that already have traceability instead of restating all the materials.
Form the first weekly brief draft
What this section answers
How do you use the checked minimum facts to write a reviewable brief draft that has not been sent?
Why
A draft is a container for expression, not a substitute for a human decision, publication, or factual confirmation.
Follow along
Write only the permitted rows from fact-and-limit-traceability.md into brief-draft.md. Keep a pending marker for unknowns and add no facts.
What you should see
The W01 brief draft should be traceable sentence by sentence, contain no sending language, and avoid turning a candidate into a conclusion.
Minimum practice and acceptance
A human compares the draft sentences with fact-and-limit-traceability.md. Return any new sentence that cannot be traced back for revision instead of adding material.
Common questions
If an owner, date, or result is invented to make the copy look complete, remove it and leave the field explicitly blank.
Next section
Check whether rewriting the draft introduced fact drift, omissions, or out-of-scope wording.
Check fact drift, omissions, and overreach
What this section answers
How can you find where the draft departs from traceable material in wording, scope, or omissions?
Why
Readability edits most easily turn a limiting description into an assertion, so the differences must be visible.
Follow along
Compare brief-draft.md, fact-and-limit-traceability.md, and input-snapshot.md, marking four kinds of difference: added, omitted, strengthened, and out of bounds.
What you should see
A check record that describes only the differences and their handling status, rather than re-explaining business content.
Minimum practice and acceptance
A human confirms that every difference either has source support or is deleted, kept pending, or returned for revision.
Common questions
If “no problem found” is used as an acceptance conclusion, replace it with the checked scope and the scope not yet checked.
Next section
Put the three unresolved questions where both the reader and the acceptor can see them.
Keep pending decisions visible
What this section answers
Why must unresolved questions remain visible alongside the draft, acceptance, and handoff?
Why
Hiding an unknown can make the next reader believe that the work has internal confirmation or research permission.
Follow along
Put the three questions from pending-decisions.md in the limits area beside brief-draft.md and in the pre-acceptance checklist. Keep them as questions and cross-reference their status in fact-and-limit-traceability.md: who reviews the fact classification, which item goes through internal confirmation first, and whether public research preparation is allowed for a bounded question.
What you should see
The candidate brief and unresolved questions should be visible in the same place without being merged into a factual conclusion.
Minimum practice and acceptance
A human checks that the three questions were not rewritten as an owner, priority, or “public research allowed” conclusion.
Common questions
If a pending item is omitted to make a handoff shorter, stop the handoff and restore the complete unresolved list.
Next section
Enter human acceptance with the limits visible, and record the person's decision rather than the model's self-report.