---
name: ci-structure-and-exposition
description: Use to architect a Critical Inquiry (CI) essay — the order in which intervention, objects, and theory unfold so a reader from another field can follow an ambitious argument. CI essays are long-form humanistic prose, not IMRaD reports; this skill shapes the opening, the build, the turn, and the close. It structures the essay; it does not draft full sections.
---

# Structure & Exposition (ci-structure-and-exposition)

A *Critical Inquiry* essay is **long-form humanistic prose**, not an IMRaD report — there is no
Methods–Results–Discussion skeleton. The architecture is rhetorical: how you bring a reader from
another field into a conversation, build pressure, turn to your claim, and leave the field changed.
This skill shapes that arc within the **~9,500-word** budget (notes included).

## When to trigger

- Outlining the essay or reordering a draft that does not flow
- The argument is sound but the reader gets lost or bored
- The introduction buries the stakes, or the close fizzles
- Sections read as disconnected set pieces

## The CI arc (a flexible template, not IMRaD)

1. **Opening that earns attention.** Begin with a scene, object, problem, or provocation that a
   non-specialist can feel — then surface the question and the stakes quickly.
2. **Stakes and intervention up front.** By the end of the opening movement, the reader knows what is
   at issue, what you will argue, and why it matters across fields (see
   `ci-argument-and-intervention`).
3. **The conversation.** Locate the debate and your pressure point without a dead "lit review" block
   (see `ci-scholarly-positioning`).
4. **The build.** Read the objects and develop the concept in an order that tightens the screw — each
   section advancing the claim, not parading examples (see `ci-evidence-and-objects`).
5. **The turn.** The pivot where setup becomes intervention; make it unmistakable.
6. **The close.** Don't summarize — extend. Name what is now thinkable, the new questions, the reach
   beyond the case.

## Exposition for a cross-field reader

- **Signpost without bureaucracy.** Guide with prose transitions, not "Section 3 will…" scaffolding.
- **Define on first use.** A philosopher should follow a film essay; gloss field-specific terms.
- **One spine.** Every section answers to the central claim; cut the brilliant tangent that does not.
- **Sections as movements.** Use section breaks (and titles, if used) to mark argumentative shifts,
  not topical bins.

## Budget the length (notes count)

- The cap **includes discursive notes and all bibliographical information** — long footnote essays eat
  the budget (see `ci-writing-style`, `ci-citation-and-style`).
- Cut the second example that makes the same point; deepen the first.

## Anti-patterns

- Forcing IMRaD or a "literature review → analysis → discussion" template onto an essay
- An introduction that withholds the claim to create false suspense
- Disconnected set-piece readings with no through-line
- A conclusion that restates rather than opens
- Throat-clearing preamble before the reader knows why to care


## Operating pass for Critical Inquiry

Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the object, theoretical stakes, interpretive turn, and permission/citation discipline; then test whether the manuscript addresses humanities reviewers who expect a strong interpretive intervention rather than an empirical-results narrative.

- **Primary move:** Return a claim-evidence-risk ledger; every recommendation must point to a manuscript location or missing artifact.
- **Decision ledger:** return `claim / evidence / blocker / next edit` rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
- **Neighbor test:** compare against PMLA for literary-field reach, New Literary History for theory/history, Representations for historically grounded cultural analysis; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
- **Verification floor:** before submission-ready advice, re-open `resources/official-source-map.md` for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.

## Output format

```
【Opening hook】scene / object / problem
【Stakes by end of opening?】[Y/N]
【Arc】conversation → build → turn → close (sketch)
【Through-line】the one claim every section serves
【Cross-field legibility】terms glossed on first use? [Y/N]
【Next】ci-writing-style
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — note discipline and the word-count rule
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — article length cap and what it includes