# Self-Diagnostic: Introduction

## Source
Derived from introduction rhetorical move analysis across 6 papers (see `section_rhetorical_moves/introduction.md` and `author_profile/editorial_principles.md`).

---

## Move 1: Stakes
- [ ] Does the first sentence name a **specific domain problem**, not a technology? (Principle 7)
- [ ] Does the opening name **specific stakeholders** (users, ISPs, policymakers) or **specific applications** (video, gaming, cloud)?
- [ ] Is ML/AI absent from the first two paragraphs? (If present, consider moving it later.)
- [ ] Would a domain expert at the target venue care about the opening sentence?

## Move 2: Problem Gap
- [ ] Is the gap **structural** (fundamentally limited) rather than **quantitative** (not good enough)?
- [ ] Are limitations **numbered and specific** (e.g., "Three fundamental limitations: (i)...(ii)...(iii)...")?
- [ ] Does each limitation map to a specific design choice in your system?
- [ ] Are existing approaches **named** (not "prior work" or "existing methods")?

## Move 3: Key Abstraction
- [ ] Does the paper have a **named abstraction** — a coined term that captures the core insight?
- [ ] Is this name **memorable and citable** (e.g., "progressive disaggregation", "external termination layer")?
- [ ] Does the name distinguish your approach from all existing categories?

## Move 4: Design Intuition
- [ ] Can a reader understand the system's high-level operation from a single paragraph?
- [ ] Is there an **overview figure** that maps to the section structure?
- [ ] Is the design described as a pipeline or architecture, not as mathematical formalism?

## Move 5: Contributions
- [ ] Are contributions **numbered** (not prose paragraphs)?
- [ ] Does each contribution start with a **bold label** (e.g., "Learning problem.", "Design.", "Evaluation.")?
- [ ] Does each contribution state a **claim** (not a process: "We show X" not "We propose X")?
- [ ] Does each contribution have a matching **evaluation subsection**? (Principle 1)

## Move 6: Results Preview
- [ ] Is there a **headline number** (e.g., "2-4x improvement")?
- [ ] Does the introduction reference a **headline figure** (first 2 pages)?

## Overall
- [ ] Can a skim-reader reconstruct the paper's argument from **headings + topic sentences alone**? (Principle 3)
- [ ] If you removed every sentence except the first sentence of each \smartparagraph block, would the argument still be clear?
- [ ] Does the introduction promise **exactly** what the evaluation delivers — no more, no less? (Principle 1)
