Blog Writing Guide Pyramid Principle Resources

Writing Guide

A framework for producing drafts quickly without getting stuck.

Core Principle: The Reaction Draft

The goal is to produce something a collaborator can react to in 10 minutes, not a polished final draft. Gaps marked as [GAP: need X] or [INCOMPLETE: X] are fine.

Remember: Rough draft beats no draft. Ship at timebox, incomplete is OK.

Writing Workflow

Step 1: Big Picture First

Before writing anything, establish:

Audience: Who is reading this? What's their background?
Goal: What do I want them to do/believe after reading?
Shared beliefs: Don't waste words convincing on these
Key points to emphasize: What's novel or differentiating?

Step 2: Pyramid Principle Structure

Especially for introductions. Establish shared understanding, then pivot to your contribution.

Pattern: Context (what exists) → Gap (what's missing) → Question → Your contribution

Step 3: Establish Outline

Before drafting sections, write section anchors: "This section shows [X] by [evidence]."

The outline should make the pyramid logic and story flow clear to the reader. If you can't anchor a section in 2 min, skip and return later.

Step 4: Sentence by Sentence

Don't write whole paragraphs or sections at once. That's a failure mode that causes cognitive overload.

Mark gaps explicitly: [GAP: need X] or [INCOMPLETE: X]

Time Management

Set a timebox before you start. Monitor time vs. progress and give yourself one of three nudges:

"Good enough, move on" if section meets the bar for a reaction draft
"Keep working" if it's not yet up to standard and there's time
"Mark incomplete and move on" if hitting diminishing returns. Add [INCOMPLETE: X] and proceed

If you're polishing past the timebox, stop. Ship what you have.

Red Flags

If you notice...	Do this...
Researching instead of writing	Just try a sentence first. Research after if it doesn't work.
Adding scope beyond the section anchor	Ask: does it fit this section's anchor?
Polishing the same sentence repeatedly	Good enough for reaction draft. Move on.
Comparing multiple drafts/voices	Pick one and commit. Collaborator can redirect if needed.
Stuck inventing a narrative	What do you actually know? What's assumption?

Quality Checklist

Direct claims, then evidence: State the point first, support with specifics
Technical precision: Use exact terms, not vague language
Acknowledge uncertainty: "I think," "I believe," "this is provisional"
Concrete examples: Reference specific incidents, not generic claims

Things to Avoid

Generic language without specifics
Overpromising or hype
Burying the point in qualifications
Sounding like marketing copy
Unnecessary hedging that weakens claims
Obvious statements the reader already knows

Last updated: January 2026