Before I write anything, let me classify the failure — because that decision determines the form of the guidance and the writing-skills training is explicit that getting it wrong measurably backfires.

## Classifying the failure

The reports **bury verdicts under process narration**. The reviewer is complying (it produces a report), but the output has the **wrong shape**: the verdict is present but buried, and there's unwanted narration.

This is a **shaping failure**, not a discipline failure. Per "Match the Form to the Failure":

- The right form is a **positive recipe/contract**: state what the output IS — its parts, in order.
- The **wrong form** is a prohibition ("don't narrate your process", "never describe the steps you took"). Under the competing incentive that produces narration in the first place (the model wanting to show its reasoning / justify the verdict), prohibition wording scored *worse than no guidance at all* in the cited testing. A recipe leaves nothing to negotiate.

So I will NOT write "don't include process narration." I'll write a contract that defines the report structure, leading with the verdict.

## (1) Exact text to add to the template

```markdown
## Report format (required)

Your report has exactly these parts, in this order. Fill in each slot.

**VERDICT:** <APPROVE | REQUEST CHANGES | BLOCK> — one line.

**Blocking issues:** <numbered list, or "None">
Each: the problem, the file:line, and what must change.

**Non-blocking notes:** <numbered list, or "None">

**Evidence:** <the specific diff lines, test results, or spec
references that support the verdict above>

The verdict is the first line of your report. Everything after it
exists to support that verdict — order it by importance to the
controller, not by the order you discovered it.
```

Notes on the choices, tied to the training:
- **Recipe, not prohibition.** No "don't narrate." Narration has nowhere to live because there's no slot for it — the structure can't reach it (the structural fix from "Match the Form to the Failure").
- **No nuance/exemption clauses.** I avoided "include process detail only if it's relevant," which reopens the negotiation and dilutes compliance.
- **REQUIRED slots** the reviewer fills in, since the underlying issue is also partly an *omission of structure* in something they already produce.
- "Order by importance to the controller, not order you discovered it" directly targets the observed chronological narration ("First I read the diff, then...").

## (2) Verification plan before deploying

**Iron Law applies to edits too — I have not seen this fail yet, so I cannot deploy.** Plan, in order:

**RED — establish baseline (no guidance):**
1. Take the *current* reviewer template (no new text) as the system prompt — the realistic context, not the guidance in isolation.
2. User message: a representative review task (a real diff that tempts narration). Run **5+ reps**.
3. Confirm the failure actually reproduces: verdicts buried, chronological narration present. **If the control doesn't bury verdicts, stop — there's nothing to fix.**

**Micro-test the wording (fast, cheap, before full scenarios):**
4. Three variants, 5+ reps each, same task:
   - **Control:** no new guidance.
   - **Prohibition variant:** "Do not narrate your process; lead with the verdict." (I expect this to do *no better or worse* than control — I'm including it to confirm the backfire prediction holds for our template, justifying the recipe.)
   - **Recipe variant:** the text above.
5. **Read every report manually.** Score: (a) is the verdict the first line? (b) is process narration absent? (c) variance — do the 5 recipe reps converge on the same shape? Automated keyword counts overstate success (template echoes look like hits), so the read is mandatory.
6. **Variance is the signal:** if the 5 recipe reps produce 5 different layouts, the contract isn't binding — tighten the form before adding words.

**REFACTOR:**
7. Any new failure mode (e.g., reviewer dumps everything into "Evidence" and the verdict line goes vague) → adjust the slot definitions, re-run.

**GREEN gate:** deploy only when the recipe variant beats control on verdict-first placement and converges across reps. Then commit and push.

One caveat I'd flag to you: I'm assuming controllers want verdict-first and treat narration as pure noise. If some controllers actually use the reasoning trail to audit borderline calls, that's a *conditional* ("if the task is flagged borderline, include reasoning"), which I'd key to an observable predicate rather than bolt on as a nuance clause. Worth confirming before I run the baseline.