This is pure **explore**: widen the space of what could be written without committing to structure. Committing is _exploit_, a separate skill's job. Run a grilling session that produces fragments, interviewing the user relentlessly about whatever they want to write about. Imposing phases, outlines, or article structure is out of scope here.
A fragment is any piece of text that might survive into the final article. It must be _readable by the author_ (the author can tell what it means), but it does not need to define its terms or be comprehensible to a cold reader. The bar is "is this a piece of good writing?", not "is this a self-contained argument?"
- A **leading word**: a compact metaphor or coinage the whole piece can hang on (one term that names the idea, the way _tracer bullets_ or _fog of war_ names a whole pattern).
Of these, the leading word is the most valuable fragment to land. It is load-bearing: name the right one in explore and it shapes the structure, the transitions, and the title later, paying dividends through the entire exploit phase. When the conversation circles a recurring idea, push to coin a word for it.
> A quoted line that the user wants to keep around.
A reaction to it.
---
- A cluster of related observations
- That hang together by feel
- And want to be near each other
```
Fragments are separated by a horizontal rule (`\n---\n`). No headings inside the body. No tags. No order beyond the order they were added.
## Writing rhythm
Append silently. Don't ask permission for each fragment. Mention what you added in passing ("adding that"), but don't interrupt the conversation with save dialogs.
Before every write: re-read the file from disk. The user may have edited, reordered, or deleted fragments between turns, so preserve their changes. Never overwrite the file; only append (or, if the user asks, edit a specific fragment in place).
