Why one failure example makes better acceptance criteria than ten requests to “sound more natural”
“Don’t reveal the secret too early” is still too vague. Breaking a problematic line into input, reason for failure, acceptable alternative, and review criteria helps distinguish a character evading a question from confirming a secret for the player. Ambiguous denials also need to be checked in context.
Define the information change that counts as a leak
The value of a failure example is that it lets reviewers explain what a line tells the player and why that information cannot be disclosed yet. Asking for something to “sound more natural” only expresses dissatisfaction. Putting the problematic original and an acceptable example in the same context lets the writer see the boundary while retaining room for their own wording.
For example, “I can’t tell you where the key is hidden yet” looks like a refusal, but it actually confirms that the key has been hidden and implies that the speaker knows where. If those facts are also secret, making the wording more indirect still does not meet the criteria. What needs to be evaluated is the change in information, not whether a sensitive noun appears.
The following is a fictional teaching example: a lighthouse keeper named Lu Huai is responsible for a copper key hidden inside the bell’s base. The characters, plot, dialogue, and judgments were written for this article. They are not a real user case or results from actual testing, and they do not represent any product feature. We address just one question: how to turn “the character must not reveal the secret too early” into a counterexample card that a writer can act on.
Fix the limits of what the player may know at this moment
The scene takes place at the entrance to an old lighthouse. The player has seen the locked door and heard a bell inside, but has no reliable information about whether a key exists, who keeps it, or where it is hidden. Lu Huai knows the entire secret, but the scene has a rule: until the player returns the letter of authorization bearing the lighthouse seal, he must not confirm whether the key exists or who keeps it, much less reveal its location.
Three things must be kept separate: the facts the author knows, the information the player has obtained, and the information the character is currently allowed to disclose. The author knowing that the key is inside the bell’s base does not mean Lu Huai may say so now. Nor does the player correctly guessing the bell’s base mean the condition for disclosure has been met.
In this example, Lu Huai does not invent false leads. He may question the player’s intentions, ask about their assignment, or refuse to answer. This restriction is not a universal writing principle. It simply keeps this review focused on information leaks, without also debating whether lying would fit the character.
Actions need agreed limits too. Lu Huai may close the register or put more distance between himself and the player. He must not look toward the bell’s base when asked about the hiding place, or reach out to cover an opening in it. Those actions do not change where the key is hidden, but they may prompt the player to search there. Even when the dialogue reveals nothing, narration can still supply the answer, so this card reviews the entire response.
Fill all four required fields in a counterexample card
This card explains one specific error. It is not intended to handle version handoffs or provide a complete input set. When copying its four fields, replace the information state in the input as well; changing only the character’s name is not enough.
| Field | Content for this example |
|---|---|
| Input | At the lighthouse entrance, before the letter of authorization has been returned. The player says, “The copper key is inside the bell’s base, right?” This is only a guess, with no prior supporting evidence. |
| Reason for failure | Original: “Don’t touch the bell’s base. I promised someone I’d keep that key safe.” This confirms that the key exists, that Lu Huai is involved in keeping it, and that the bell’s base is a relevant location. The promise to keep it for someone also adds previously unestablished backstory. |
| Acceptable alternative | “First, tell me who you’re here to see.” Lu Huai closes the register. Asking about the player’s intentions and showing wariness are allowed; this wording need not be copied verbatim. |
| Review criteria | The player gains no new confirmation or clear clue about the key’s existence, keeper, or hiding place. The response adds no secret backstory and does not contradict established facts or the no-lying rule. Check both dialogue and actions, and ensure the response addresses the current question. |
The reason for failure must cite specific wording. “Don’t touch the bell’s base” directs attention to the hiding place; “I promised someone I’d keep” confirms a custodial relationship; and “that key” treats the guess as an object both parties already know about. The character does not have to state the exact hiding place for the response to violate the rule.
The alternative demonstrates an allowed function: shifting the conversation to the player’s identity. It does not prescribe a single answer. If Lu Huai should not sound so forceful, it could become, “Tell me what brings you here first, and then I’ll decide whether to answer.” This leaves room for further conversation without promising to reveal the secret in the next exchange.
Compare nearby phrasings to check whether the boundary is clear
If the only example is an obvious mistake, a writer may conclude that simply deleting “the bell’s base” is enough. Compare expressions closer to the boundary too, explaining which problems remain after words are removed.
“The key isn’t here with me. You’re asking the wrong person.” The wording alone is not enough to conclude that this denies responsibility for keeping the key. “Here with me” might mean only that it is not on his person, while “the wrong person” does not explicitly identify who is responsible for it. Check how the context defines “here,” and whether the whole response confirms the key’s existence or hints at its keeper. If this cannot be determined, flag the ambiguity and request clarification. Do not automatically label it a lie or approve it.
To demonstrate a clear violation of this example’s no-lying rule, use “I’m not keeping any copper key.” This denies an already established responsibility and is therefore unacceptable. The error here is that the character says something contrary to the facts; it should not be conflated with revealing the hiding place. Nor should the author’s established facts be changed on the fly to accommodate a revision.
“How do you know about the bell’s base?” is also unacceptable in this context. By asking for the source, it treats the player’s guess as knowledge and lends credibility to the bell’s base as a hiding place. “I never said it was inside the bell’s base” cannot be approved merely because it uses a negative construction either. Context must still be checked for a clear implication.
“I’m not going to discuss this copper key you speak of” can work as a cold alternative. It attributes the noun to the player’s claim and refuses to discuss it without explicitly acknowledging that the object exists. But if the narration then says, “The player had hit upon what Lu Huai was hiding,” the narration supplies the confirmation, and this version still fails.
“Don’t try to draw me out with guesses. Who sent you?” is also acceptable. It responds to the probing question and moves the conversation toward identifying the player. The previous acceptable example closes the topic; this one asks another question. The author may choose according to pacing without making every response the same kind of refusal.
These judgments apply only to this example’s information boundaries. Indirect wording does not automatically pass, and a cold or forceful tone is not itself a violation. If reviewers disagree about the strength of an implication or what a denial refers to, they should identify the words supporting their judgments, rather than ending the discussion with “Readers will definitely get it.”
State what new information the response provides before approving it
After revision, first hide the author’s secret, leaving only what the player already knew and the new response. Have the reviewer finish this sentence: “What I now have new confirmation of, or a clear clue about, is…” If the only answer is “Lu Huai doesn’t want to discuss it, or wants to know why I’m here,” the information boundary still holds. If the answer is “The key really exists, and the bell’s base is worth searching,” return to the wording and identify the evidence.
For example: “First, tell me why you’re here.” Lu Huai instinctively steps in front of the bell’s base. The dialogue meets the criteria, but the action draws attention to the location. Record “Revise the action: the blocking movement, together with the question, provides a location clue,” rather than rejecting it vaguely as “not natural enough.” After replacing the movement with closing the register, check again whether the entire response still hints at the hiding place.
Then compare it with the author’s established setup, separately checking factual consistency and the no-lying rule. A lack of new confirmation does not guarantee that the whole response passes. With wording such as “It isn’t here with me,” establish what it refers to first; do not treat one reviewer’s interpretation as fact.
Also check for another failure: keeping the secret so strictly that only silence or irrelevant chatter remains. This card requires a response to the current question. Refusal, a counterquestion, or a shift to the assignment are allowed. Switching entirely to a description of the weather fails the scene’s task even if it leaks nothing.
Finally, check when the card stops applying. Once the player returns the letter of authorization, the author may allow confirmation that the key exists, so the card will need revision. If the keeper’s identity has already been revealed earlier, repeating that fact cannot be judged a premature leak either. A counterexample card governs a particular information state; it is not a permanent list of forbidden words.
The next time you receive feedback to “sound more natural,” ask the reviewer to mark the violation and complete the four fields, then have the writer submit an acceptable version with different wording. A reusable judgment emerges only when you can explain why the new version passes. This card provides a basis for human review; it cannot guarantee that all text generated or rewritten in the future will remain within the boundary.
